Another Big Pharma Success Story

[Pliny]

BTW... all this stuff about SSRI's causing suicide and violence in patients was the result of a metaanalysis of a number of different studies in 2004. This is what prompted the FDA to attach warnings to these drugs. A more recent study though has put those findings in dispute and my guess is those warnings will be lifted in the next couple of years.

I would say that the pharmaceutical lobby will dispute the findings and attempt to have them lifted but the fact they are there is an acceptance of data that shows a correlation.

The new study actually finds that suicidal thoughts are reduced in adults that are taking SSRI's and uneffected in children.

A study by who? I like to keep up on these things do you have a reference?

As for your suggestions that these drugs are to blame for a lot of these sensational killings, thats pure speculation. In order to really know that you would need to have two groups of people with mental health issues, and give one the drugs and the other a placebo.

They are bizarre and seemingly motiveless and often end with the perpetrator killing themselves. It isn't a clinical study. It is just a fact that they all have been taking psychotropic drugs. Call it coincidence.

Its a little like saying ashtrays cause cancer.

A full one or an empty one?

[Pliny]

Sure it does.........The unknown factor is the person, not the gun or the pill……..There are hundreds of millions of firearms in North America, and I won’t hazard to guess how many people are one prescription pharmaceuticals, but I’ll hazard the guess as being lots……..Yet the vast majority of gun owners and prescription drug user are not homicidal maniacs.

Sorry, it doens't. The unknown factor is indeed the person. A person that takes a drug to better control himself and experiences an adverse reaction where he lacks any control of himself is not making a self-determined decision. If a person blacks out on alcohol gets into an argument and shoots someone usually tries to blame the alcohol but he made a self-determined decision to drink that amount of alcohol. A drug that is given that is supposed to return his self-determinism that results in a bizarre random act of violence of which he has no understanding is, in my view, the responsibility of the practitioner who prescribed him that drug.

[Guest Derek L]

Sorry, it doens't. The unknown factor is indeed the person. A person that takes a drug to better control himself and experiences an adverse reaction where he lacks any control of himself is not making a self-determined decision. If a person blacks out on alcohol gets into an argument and shoots someone usually tries to blame the alcohol but he made a self-determined decision to drink that amount of alcohol. A drug that is given that is supposed to return his self-determinism that results in a bizarre random act of violence of which he has no understanding is, in my view, the responsibility of the practitioner who prescribed him that drug.

Then your example would be predicated on the homicidal manic requiring a prescription drug to act……As counter…Charles Whitman……..or Jiverly Wong….Or Nidal Malik Hasan…..or James Huberty…….or George Hennard….or Patrick Sherrill….etc etc…No prescription drugs there……

[kimmy]

It only takes observation.

An opinion based on incomplete information about a handful of sensationalistic events isn't "observation".

A little bit of a distortion.

Just a few posts ago you said this:

"Violence without motive is odd. Drugs are almost always behind these Incidents that lack a motive and are just bizarre."

And this:

"Of course those that try to think in terms of a motive, after all everyone has to have a reason to act, find the oddest things to assign blame to, like a parental divorce. As if that would explain it.

The fact is there is no motive, The person has no idea he is doing what he is doing. He is in a drug induced trance it seems."

And of course the opening post declared this shooting

"Another Big Pharma Success Story"

and declared:

"Is there really any reason to debate the actual cause of these events? Shouldn't it be obvious?"

It's not a distortion at all. That's exactly what you're saying.

I did no such thing.

In regard to Argus' cousin, you declared:

"It is unfortunate that we, mankind that is, has not progressed in the field of the humanities any further than we have in light of the fact that we have technologically surpassed ourselves.

"I suppose he has been told he has a chemical imbalance. It doesn't add up to me that there is no test for that and that means it is the expert's "best guess" and not a scientific fact.

"I want people like him to understand himself, his experiences and be in full self-determined control of himself. He has absolutely no chance of that while under the influence of these drugs. You might think the drugs give him control of himself. At best they blank-out his thoughts."

What is this if not a diagnosis and plan of treatment? You're here claiming that the doctors treating this person's illness are wrong and that you know better. On the basis, apparently, of having read a 1970 book by an anti-pharmaceutical activist of some kind.

Actually if you understand me it's mainly people who are violent that are mentally ill. The people that are labelled mentally ill

Here's what you said about people who are mentally ill:

"Generally, those with mental problems are not violent. It isn't until they are prescribed psychotropic drugs that they become violent."

It isn't until they are prescribed psychotropic drugs that they become violent. It's abundantly clear what you're saying.

A public service. Wow! Just trying to help, are you? It doesn't matter what I proof I cite you will refute it. I have given you things to read to get you up to speed but you do not seem interested.

I am not interested in getting "up to speed" with your outdated book. The central thesis of Mr Szasz' career has been rejected by the entire profession. Homeopathic quacks, anti-pharmaceutical kooks, and conspiracy theorists might believe the theory that there's no such thing as mental illness, but almost nobody in the medical profession does.

The public will eventually reject the carnage and make the connection. At least read the small print, the side-effects. What I have said is right there.

A mob deciding to ban psychopharmaceuticals because they've been conned into thinking it'll stop gun violence is exactly what I'm fighting against.

For many people, psychopharmaceuticals make an immense improvement to their quality of life. For some people, like Argus' cousin, they are what makes a normal life possible.

Banning these drugs would be like banning insulin.

Lobbying against these drugs due to some ideological axe you have to grind, or some conspiracy paranoia, or as a means of trying to deflect attention away from firearms, I view these efforts as fundamentally evil. If people like you and Alex Jones and the NRA activists that are taking this tactic have their way, it will do immeasurable harm to a huge number of people. It is evil. I can't think of any other word to describe it.

Are you taking these meds, kimmy?

Not that it makes a bit of difference to the argument, and not that it's anybody's business, but I have been on psychoactive medication in the past.

-k

[dre]

I would say that the pharmaceutical lobby will dispute the findings and attempt to have them lifted but the fact they are there is an acceptance of data that shows a correlation.

A study by who? I like to keep up on these things do you have a reference?

They are bizarre and seemingly motiveless and often end with the perpetrator killing themselves. It isn't a clinical study. It is just a fact that they all have been taking psychotropic drugs. Call it coincidence.

A full one or an empty one?

http://www.jfponline.com/purls/Pages.asp?AID=1516

Theres a link to the recent metaanalysis. They looked at 48 thousand people, some of them treated with non-ssri depression drugs (tricyclics), some treated with ssri drugs (paxil, wellbutrin, etc), and some of them given a placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in suicide rates between those three groups.

The histeria being propogated by people like Alex Jones is probably killing people... Suicide rates among people that DONT get treatment ARE high, and these nuts might be discouraging people from getting help.

They are bizarre and seemingly motiveless and often end with the perpetrator killing themselves. It isn't a clinical study. It is just a fact that they all have been taking psychotropic drugs. Call it coincidence.

Well its a correlation, but the causative factor was probably that these people had mental health issues... not that they were taking drugs.

Its worth keeping an eye on, but you should be really careful about spreading this kind of thing. These drugs have helped tens of millions of people fight crippling and dehabilitating illnesses.

[Pliny]

Derek L, on 18 Jun 2013 - 7:44 PM, said:

Then your example would be predicated on the homicidal manic requiring a prescription drug to act……As counter…Charles Whitman……..or Jiverly Wong….Or Nidal Malik Hasan…..or James Huberty…….or George Hennard….or Patrick Sherrill….etc etc…No prescription drugs there……

Charles Whitman:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/whitman/austin_3.html

"Dr. Jan D. Cochrun prescribed Valium for Charlie and referred him to University Health Center Staff Psychiatrist Dr. Maurice Dean Heatly. Heatly found that Charlie "had something about him that suggested and expressed the all-American boy," but that he "seemed to be oozing with hostility." Charlie spoke mainly of his lack of achievement and his hatred of his father. At one point, he told Heatly that he had fantasized about "going up on the Tower with a deer rifle and shooting people." Heatly was not disconcerted. Many of his patients had made references to the Tower, and Charlie showed no behavior patterns as of yet that indicated that he was serious"

Jiverly Wong:

This is inconclusive as there is no account I can find on his life in California.

"I don't know anything about his life in California," Voong said. "Something must of have happened there."

During the nearly 15 years he spent in California, Wong rarely kept in touch with his family. He never visited or sent letters. His phone calls were few and short and he refused to share a mailing address. Mail addressed to their son occassionally arrived at the family's Binghamton home. Voong recalls opening a piece addressed to Jiverly Wong, which was different from his son's given name of Linh Phat Voong.

Nidal Hasan:

Mr Hasan was a psychiatrist. The only news report that referred to drugs was a a box full of pill bottles found in a closet at his residence.

Some of what was in the box was listed but the list is incomplete. Not conclusive.

I didn't find anything on Patrick Sherrill about drugs at all.

Is a reporter that believes video games and violence on TV makes people go berserk going to tie anything to

pharmaceuticals? Kimmy would never ask that question and many people agree with her.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that pharmaceutical companies influence the media to downplay the role of these drugs.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Pliny

[Pliny]

dre, on 18 Jun 2013 - 11:37 PM, said:

http://www.jfponline.com/purls/Pages.asp?AID=1516

Theres a link to the recent metaanalysis. They looked at 48 thousand people, some of them treated with non-ssri depression drugs (tricyclics), some treated with ssri drugs (paxil, wellbutrin, etc), and some of them given a placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in suicide rates between those three groups.

This study is simply a statisitical analysis of statistics. It isn't a clinical double blind trial in and of itself so we have to take it for what it is and also the interests of the authors.

Considering this:

"... participants tend to be mildly to moderately depressed and that studies tend to enroll patients who are not suicidal, do not have other psychiatric illnesses, and do not have known substance abuse problems."

It's rather selective.

..and considering it was on only completed suicides and did not consider attempts or agitation or suicidal ideation.

Quote

The histeria being propogated by people like Alex Jones is probably killing people... Suicide rates among people that DONT get treatment ARE high, and these nuts might be discouraging people from getting help.

The statistical evidence is low for violent side effects. All that should happen is the patient be informed. He is not informed if he is told he has a chemical imbalance and needs the drugs to correct the imbalance.

He needs to be made aware of the all possible side-effects and after that it is his choice.

There are millions of people on these drugs in North America, as you say and there may be only one killing spree in a year or two years or even three years.

Articles like this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/28/the-depressing-news-about-antidepressants.html

Don't make me too encouraged to suggest Doctors prescribe them.

Once again a patient has to be made aware of exactly where he is headed - is it towards a greater mix of drugs and heavier doses with increased chances of side effects?

Quote

Well its a correlation, but the causative factor was probably that these people had mental health issues... not that they were taking drugs.

Its worth keeping an eye on, but you should be really careful about spreading this kind of thing. These drugs have helped tens of millions of people fight crippling and dehabilitating illnesses.

I don't know how many just take it on the advice of a practitioner without being fully informed but I would say it is quite a few.

[Pliny]

kimmy, on 18 Jun 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

An opinion based on incomplete information about a handful of sensationalistic events isn't "observation".

I calls 'em as I sees 'em

Quote

Just a few posts ago you said this:

"Violence without motive is odd. Drugs are almost always behind these Incidents that lack a motive and are just bizarre."

And this:

"Of course those that try to think in terms of a motive, after all everyone has to have a reason to act, find the oddest things to assign blame to, like a parental divorce. As if that would explain it.

The fact is there is no motive, The person has no idea he is doing what he is doing. He is in a drug induced trance it seems."

And of course the opening post declared this shooting

"Another Big Pharma Success Story"

and declared:

"Is there really any reason to debate the actual cause of these events? Shouldn't it be obvious?"

It's not a distortion at all. That's exactly what you're saying.

Thanks for quoting what I said.

Here's what you said:

"You claim that violence, unless motivated by personal gain, is almost always caused by drugs. That's outrageous"

That would be outrageous but I said:

"Drugs are almost always behind these Incidents that lack a motive and are just bizarre."

So it isn't as you claim that I said "violence" is almost always caused by drugs, but incidents of violence that are bizarre and seemingly unmotivated.

Quote

In regard to Argus' cousin, you declared:

"It is unfortunate that we, mankind that is, has not progressed in the field of the humanities any further than we have in light of the fact that we have technologically surpassed ourselves.

"I suppose he has been told he has a chemical imbalance. It doesn't add up to me that there is no test for that and that means it is the expert's "best guess" and not a scientific fact.

"I want people like him to understand himself, his experiences and be in full self-determined control of himself. He has absolutely no chance of that while under the influence of these drugs. You might think the drugs give him control of himself. At best they blank-out his thoughts."

What is this if not a diagnosis and plan of treatment? You're here claiming that the doctors treating this person's illness are wrong and that you know better. On the basis, apparently, of having read a 1970 book by an anti-pharmaceutical activist of some kind.

He is already diagnosed and I don't see any mention of a plan of treatment.

He is not here so I am not suggesting he do anything. I am saying what I would wish for someone that needed help and that being he be in full control of himself and his senses. I just happen to believe that a person on any psychoactive drug is in an altered state to a greater or lesser degree.

Many people would feel better on cocaine and heroin but because people feel better is it a reason to prescribe them?

Quote

Here's what you said about people who are mentally ill:

"Generally, those with mental problems are not violent. It isn't until they are prescribed psychotropic drugs that they become violent."

It isn't until they are prescribed psychotropic drugs that they become violent. It's abundantly clear what you're saying.

Yes. I said that. How many people, deeming they are mentally deficient, shoot up schools and movie houses before they have had psychotropic drugs? If it's bizarre and unmotivated violence chances are likely that drugs are involved.

Quote

I am not interested in getting "up to speed" with your outdated book. The central thesis of Mr Szasz' career has been rejected by the entire profession. Homeopathic quacks, anti-pharmaceutical kooks, and conspiracy theorists might believe the theory that there's no such thing as mental illness, but almost nobody in the medical profession does.

The entire "profession", like yourself, is not interested in anything but the status quo.

Dr. Szasz says there are people with problems that they don't know how to cope with but doesn't like to call them an "illness".

Something they may have experienced they don't understand but is that an illness. there is no biological marker for these illnesses so how are you to treat it? Just guess that it is a chemical imbalance? Or apply some electricity or cut out the bad parts, parts that have yet to be determined?

Quote

A mob deciding to ban psychopharmaceuticals because they've been conned into thinking it'll stop gun violence is exactly what I'm fighting against.

Firstly, not even I am seeking to ban psychopharmaceuticals to stop gun violence. There doesn't seem to be too much of a "mob" behind me. I would like to see a vast curtailment of their use, especially in children and infants.

I can't understand how an infant can be prescribed these things.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/06/prescribing.aspx

"Of particular concern is the prescribing of antipsychotic drugs to vulnerable populations, including foster care children and elderly nursing home residents. Foster children are up to four-and-a-half times more likely to receive psychotropic drugs than other children covered by Medicaid, according to a Government Accountability Office report last year. The investigation of foster care programs in five states found that hundreds of children were prescribed multiple psychotropic drugs, including antipsychotic drugs at excessive dosages. Infants also were prescribed psychotropic drugs despite no scientific evidence supporting that use"

Quote

For many people, psychopharmaceuticals make an immense improvement to their quality of life. For some people, like Argus' cousin, they are what makes a normal life possible.

So they are told. And many, once on them, can't function at all without them.

Quote

Banning these drugs would be like banning insulin.

Once again I'm not calling for their banning. You can't do that to the many people dependent upon them. Like welfare, they have to learn to live without them. But I am not sure there is any alternative for them.

The article I cited above pretty much sums up my view. People should be informed and made aware of options so they can make informed choices.

Insulin is for a disease by the way with a definite biological marker, a non-insulin producing pancreas. I know this comparison is made by the industry and many people repeat it. But it is comparing oranges and apples.

Quote

Lobbying against these drugs due to some ideological axe you have to grind, or some conspiracy paranoia, or as a means of trying to deflect attention away from firearms, I view these efforts as fundamentally evil. If people like you and Alex Jones and the NRA activists that are taking this tactic have their way, it will do immeasurable harm to a huge number of people. It is evil. I can't think of any other word to describe it.

Shooting innocent people in schools and movie theatres is evil.

Let's solve that problem. You won't unless you look at all the information. If you choose to blame guns or video games I don't believe you will have solved the problem. Do you?

You may disagree but millions do not want their 2nd amendment rights violated.

We'll have to establish some solution. Could you consider there is a possible link to these bizarre incidents and psychotropic drugs?

I don't tack with the mainstream, I know that. I like Fox news, I read about alternative medicine. I essentially agree with what I conclude works best. A fiat currency doesn't work in the long run, medical solutions that leave patients ill-informed don't work for me, a State that wishes to run people's lives for them doesn't work for me, and behind those things are people that promote them, not entirely out of evil, as I believe people are fundamentally good, but out of some misguided concept of necessity for control or power or wealth or that other people are somehow a threat and should remain weak and ignorant, lest they become a danger by being educated and strong.

[kimmy]

He is already diagnosed and I don't see any mention of a plan of treatment.

Saying that he needs to get off of medication isn't a plan of treatment?

He is not here so I am not suggesting he do anything. I am saying what I would wish for someone that needed help and that being he be in full control of himself and his senses. I just happen to believe that a person on any psychoactive drug is in an altered state to a greater or lesser degree.

If people with mental illness could just get in full control of themselves and their senses, they wouldn't be mentally ill in the first place.

For some people the "altered state" is the one in which they're able to make rational decisions, and their "natural state" is one in which they're not in full control of themselves or their senses.

You've seen Michael J Fox when he's on his medication, and when he's off his medication, right? Nobody could possibly argue that his natural, unmedicated state is preferable to his "altered" medicated state, could they? I mean, that's clear and obvious to everyone.

So the question is, why is it that people like you have no trouble accepting the idea that brain chemistry could impair and distort the part of the brain that processes nervous system function, as in Parkinson's Disease... but can't grasp the idea that brain chemistry could impair and distort the parts of the brain that process thought or emotion?

If we applied your logic about mental illness to Parkinson's Disease, we'd be telling Michael J Fox that he needs to get off the meds and learn to move normally and then he can decide if he wants to stay on the meds or not.

Many people would feel better on cocaine and heroin but because people feel better is it a reason to prescribe them?

The idea that the purpose of psychopharmaceuticals is to make people "feel better" is a misconception. Comparing them to cocaine or heroin is just flat out ridiculous.

The entire "profession", like yourself, is not interested in anything but the status quo.

I think that was also your rational for supporting the "inflating universe" guy's theory of gravity, wasn't it? "The physics profession is afraid of challenging the status quo!"

Sometimes the status quo is the status quo because it has merit, and sometimes these outlier ideas that you seem drawn to are outside the mainstream because they aren't very good.

Dr. Szasz says there are people with problems that they don't know how to cope with but doesn't like to call them an "illness".

And that might be true of some people. But it's a huge leap from there to concluding that the whole concept of mental illness is wrong or that everybody who is considered mentally ill is actually just having trouble coping with some problem in their life.

Something they may have experienced they don't understand but is that an illness. there is no biological marker for these illnesses so how are you to treat it? Just guess that it is a chemical imbalance? Or apply some electricity or cut out the bad parts, parts that have yet to be determined?

Just because there's no easy test doesn't mean there's no biological basis. That kind of thinking puts you in line with people who believe that splints and bandages are the only proper kind of medical care, because broken bones and cuts are the only kinds of injuries they can see.

Firstly, not even I am seeking to ban psychopharmaceuticals to stop gun violence. There doesn't seem to be too much of a "mob" behind me.

Well, there's Scientologists, and there's naturopathic quacks. And now the NRA have jumped on board, because they desperately need a scapegoat.

I would like to see a vast curtailment of their use, especially in children and infants.

I can't understand how an infant can be prescribed these things.

I can't imagine why either, but the fact that these drugs may be prescribed to people who don't need them or shouldn't have them doesn't justify the argument you're making.

So they are told. And many, once on them, can't function at all without them.

When we're talking about people who couldn't function before they got the drugs either, I don't see that as a problem.

We'll have to establish some solution. Could you consider there is a possible link to these bizarre incidents and psychotropic drugs?

A possible link, yes. The link is that mentally disturbed people have often received mental health treatment at some point in their life.

You seem content to look at it and say "Here's a guy who had mental health issues at some point, and now he went and killed somebody. Welp, it must be the drugs. It's just obvious."

Except you're not prepared to consider incidents where there's no evidence of psychopharmaceuticals being a factor, and you're not prepared to wonder whether these guys would have done this stuff if they'd stayed on their medication, and you're not prepared to wonder how many potentially violent people aren't violent because they are on their medication.

You've found your answer, and like your other theories you're prepared to ignore information that doesn't support the conclusion you've decided on.

I don't tack with the mainstream, I know that. I like Fox news, I read about alternative medicine. I essentially agree with what I conclude works best. A fiat currency doesn't work in the long run, medical solutions that leave patients ill-informed don't work for me, a State that wishes to run people's lives for them doesn't work for me, and behind those things are people that promote them, not entirely out of evil, as I believe people are fundamentally good, but out of some misguided concept of necessity for control or power or wealth or that other people are somehow a threat and should remain weak and ignorant, lest they become a danger by being educated and strong.

To me the common thread in all of your views seems to be a quest for easy-to-understand answers that jive with your preconceptions about how things ought to work. "Time dilation? That doesn't make any sense! Relativity is too weird! Here's a guy who has an alternative theory that I find easier to grasp." "Banks and businesses acted recklessly? That's unpossible! The government must have made them. They probably thought they could do those things because they thought they would get bailouts! Going back to the gold standard would fix that!" "Why would anybody go shoot a bunch of school children? Some evil chemicals must have made him do it."

-k

[Pliny]

kimmy, on 01 Jul 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

Saying that he needs to get off of medication isn't a plan of treatment?

I would never suggest that of someone on these medications. They shouldn't get off them unless supervised by a knowledgeable physician.

I would suggest that they not start taking them without being fully and correctly informed. Correctly informed means notbeing told they have a chemical imbalance, for one.

Quote

If people with mental illness could just get in full control of themselves and their senses, they wouldn't be mentally ill in the first place.

They don't have an "illness" as there is no physiological marker to indicate one.

Quote

For some people the "altered state" is the one in which they're able to make rational decisions, and their "natural state" is one in which they're not in full control of themselves or their senses.

You've seen Michael J Fox when he's on his medication, and when he's off his medication, right? Nobody could possibly argue that his natural, unmedicated state is preferable to his "altered" medicated state, could they? I mean, that's clear and obvious to everyone.

He has a disease that has a physical marker that can be identified. Someone with a subjectively other-determined problem in behavior has no such marker.

Quote

So the question is, why is it that people like you have no trouble accepting the idea that brain chemistry could impair and distort the part of the brain that processes nervous system function, as in Parkinson's Disease... but can't grasp the idea that brain chemistry could impair and distort the parts of the brain that process thought or emotion?

What do you mean by people like me?

Because it can be observed that Parkinson's is a malfunction of the brain. There is a physiological marker. There is none for "mental illness" and it is grasping at straws to extend it to that.

Quote

If we applied your logic about mental illness to Parkinson's Disease, we'd be telling Michael J Fox that he needs to get off the meds and learn to move normally and then he can decide if he wants to stay on the meds or not.

True. But you can't apply my logic about mental illness to Parkinson's disease because Parkinson's disease is an "illness" and mental illness is not an illness.

Quote

The idea that the purpose of psychopharmaceuticals is to make people "feel better" is a misconception. Comparing them to cocaine or heroin is just flat out ridiculous.

Why? Because you say so? Didn't you feel much better after taking them. Or did you not like them?

Quote

I think that was also your rational for supporting the "inflating universe" guy's theory of gravity, wasn't it? "The physics profession is afraid of challenging the status quo!"

No.

Quote

Sometimes the status quo is the status quo because it has merit, and sometimes these outlier ideas that you seem drawn to are outside the mainstream because they aren't very good.

Sometimes.

Quote

And that might be true of some people. But it's a huge leap from there to concluding that the whole concept of mental illness is wrong or that everybody who is considered mentally ill is actually just having trouble coping with some problem in their life.

Per the definition of an "illness" there is a physiological marker, since mental illness has no physiological marker it doesn't fit the definition and can't be called one.

Quote

Just because there's no easy test doesn't mean there's no biological basis. That kind of thinking puts you in line with people who believe that splints and bandages are the only proper kind of medical care, because broken bones and cuts are the only kinds of injuries they can see.

There is no easy test and no hard test that detects mental illness. There is only a subjective evaluation.

All physiological and biological tests should be done to see if there is a physiological or biological cause for aberrant behavior. If one can't be found then does it make sense to numb the mind? There is no correction of a physiological or biological abnormality by prescribing psycho-pharmaceuticals on a subjective evaluation.

One might do better with a placebo according to some clinical tests. Or talking to a friend or counsellor would be less risky as regards side effects.

Quote

Well, there's Scientologists, and there's naturopathic quacks. And now the NRA have jumped on board, because they desperately need a scapegoat.

And of course, finding Jesus helps.

Quote

I can't imagine why either, but the fact that these drugs may be prescribed to people who don't need them or shouldn't have them doesn't justify the argument you're making.

I feel it does.

The argument I am making is that they can cause permanent damage, are too freely prescribed, and patients are misinformed about them.

Quote

When we're talking about people who couldn't function before they got the drugs either, I don't see that as a problem.

It is to some of them. They don't like the side-effects they experience. The tics and such.

Quote

A possible link, yes. The link is that mentally disturbed people have often received mental health treatment at some point in their life.

You seem content to look at it and say "Here's a guy who had mental health issues at some point, and now he went and killed somebody. Welp, it must be the drugs. It's just obvious."

Except you're not prepared to consider incidents where there's no evidence of psychopharmaceuticals being a factor, and you're not prepared to wonder whether these guys would have done this stuff if they'd stayed on their medication, and you're not prepared to wonder how many potentially violent people aren't violent because they are on their medication.

What bizarre acts of unmotivated random senseless violence with an ending in suicide have no evidence of psychopharmaceuticals?

Quote

You've found your answer, and like your other theories you're prepared to ignore information that doesn't support the conclusion you've decided on.

I am not closed minded to explanations that may lead to correction or an ability to predict or understand a subject.

One thing you have to do if you wnat to make headway in understanding is strip out the false data.

You don't seem to attach greed to this subject as much as you do to Wall Street. Pharmaceutical companies are flogging these drugs to the medical profession and raking in billions. Meanwhile, they are making out of court settlements to keep problems out of the media as much as possible.

Quote

To me the common thread in all of your views seems to be a quest for easy-to-understand answers that jive with your preconceptions about how things ought to work.

Things are often not as esoteric as they are made out to be by men.

Quote

"Time dilation? That doesn't make any sense! Relativity is too weird! Here's a guy who has an alternative theory that I find easier to grasp."

"Banks and businesses acted recklessly? That's unpossible! The government must have made them. They probably thought they could do those things because they thought they would get bailouts! Going back to the gold standard would fix that!" "Why would anybody go shoot a bunch of school children? Some evil chemicals must have made him do it."

-k

Chuckle! Good to end off on a humourous note. Have a glorious day!