https://www.yahoo.com/news/gun-obsessed-teens-plotted-violent-201730229.html


Big pharma for the win again.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gun-obsessed-teens-plotted-violent-201730229.html


Big pharma for the win again.

But are anti-depressants the cause or the symptom?

But are anti-depressants the cause or the symptom?

Is that an attempt just to argue?

Is that an attempt just to argue?

he's adding context...

But are anti-depressants the cause or the symptom?

Have you ever read or heard the "fine print" accompanying antidepressants?

When taken at the recommended dosage, antidepressants are considered safe.
However, some have been associated with severe side effects, some potentially fatal, such as:

An increase in suicidal thoughts and behaviors, particularly in children and young adults
under the age of 25 years. This is most likely to occur when starting therapy

An increased risk of seizures in people with a history of seizures

Serotonin syndrome – this is caused by excessive levels of serotonin in the body and is more
likely to occur with higher dosages of SSRIs or when SSRIs are administered with other
medications that also release serotonin. Symptoms include agitation, confusion, sweating,
tremors, and a rapid heart rate

The precipitation of a manic episode in people with undiagnosed bipolar disorder

Duloxetine: A severe discontinuation syndrome

MAOIs: Very severe drug interactions, very severe food interactions, and rarely, rapid but
transient increases in blood pressure within 30 minutes to two hours of MAOI ingestion

Nefazodone: Life-threatening liver failure, more common two weeks to six months after
starting therapy

SSRIs and vortioxetine: An increase in the risk of bleeding, especially if used with other
medications that also increase bleeding risk

TCAs: An increased risk of arrhythmias, heart attacks, stroke, and other cardiovascular
effects, particularly in people with pre-existing heart disease; and the triggering of an angle
closure attack in people with angle-closure glaucoma

https://www.drugs.com/drug-class/antidepressants.html

Suddenly stopping use of these drugs can trigger some severe problems, which is why warnings say to gradually stop while under doctor supervision.

These drugs can be more dangerous than the condition they are prescribed to treat.

The underlying factor is the condition.

THE CAUSE IS THE MEDICATION.

The symptom is the sudden violence.

Is that an attempt just to argue?

Nope, a reminder to be objective

explain how anti depressants can be a symptom?

Nope, a reminder to be objective

"Being objective" does not mean "ignoring the obvious."  In fact, it means the opposite.

There's a reason we are seldom told what medications a young school shooter was taking via prescription.  Sometimes we do get that info, and there is a definite pattern especially in light of the side effect warnings (known causes of suicidal thoughts).

Some suicidal people are unable to go through with it, and they choose suicide by Cop.  They commit a crime or simply threaten Cops while holding a gun in hopes they will kill him.  Many school shooters go through with the act after they shoot up their school.  A final act of vengeance against the people who they believe helped make them feel suicidal.

Yeah, if we could get enough data to show the actual cause and effect between psychotropic drugs and mass shootings, the big pharma folks would not like it.  Hence, the effort to shield the public from that information.

Have you ever read or heard the "fine print" accompanying antidepressants?
https://www.drugs.com/drug-class/antidepressants.html

Suddenly stopping use of these drugs can trigger some severe problems, which is why warnings say to gradually stop while under doctor supervision.

These drugs can be more dangerous than the condition they are prescribed to treat.

The underlying factor is the condition.

THE CAUSE IS THE MEDICATION.

The symptom is the sudden violence.

I have been wondering about this everytime it comes up. I will note that the side effects mentioned suicidal thoughts but it didn't mention homicidal thoughts so this begs the question of why they want to reach out and hurt others. I wonder if the trends are seen in other countries and cultures where these types of medicines are prescribed. These shooters tend to be white and male, are women and minorities prescribed these drugs at lower rates? I don't think we can discount that the anti-depressants but I think there are also other significant factors at play.

For these drugs to be approved they must have seen a net benefit despite such drawbacks otherwise why treat something where the treatment is worse than the problem. I wonder if it can be correlated to fewer overall suicides? Has this correlation been researched and if so anything conclusive found beyond just the fact a lot of these people were given anti-depressants?

Got some more reading to do.

explain how anti depressants can be a symptom?

Say I told the doctor I always felt sad and wanted to kill myself. The doctor might prescribe me anti-depressants as a treatment. Now say I end up killing myself. Did the drug make me more depressed which lead to my suicide or did it just fail to treat my depression sufficiently and I killed myself based on my existing depression?

... I will note that the side effects mentioned suicidal thoughts but it didn't mention homicidal thoughts so this begs the question of why they want to reach out and hurt others. ...

I mentioned this in an earlier reply.  Suicidal people often need help to off themselves, so they commit crimes hoping the Cops will end it for them.

Other times they use a rampage to punish those they blame for their feelings on the way out the door.  Most can then use the gun on themselves before the Cops detain them, but sometimes that's still not enough to drive them to suicide.  It's a very difficult thing to end one's own life.  It goes against every natural survival instinct we have.  Shooting the bullies at school might create some kind of closure that makes them feel it's okay to do it now.

The warnings sometimes read "If you have thoughts of harming yourself or others," but many have taken the second part off of the warning.  I wonder if the lawyers decided such a "thought" warning might open big pharma up to liability claims if they admit they knew someone  might commit murder while on the medication?

Say I told the doctor I always felt sad and wanted to kill myself. The doctor might prescribe me anti-depressants as a treatment. Now say I end up killing myself. Did the drug make me more depressed which lead to my suicide or did it just fail to treat my depression sufficiently and I killed myself based on my existing depression?

If you tell your doctor you have thoughts of suicide, and all he did was give you a prescription for something that warns it may cause suicidal thoughts, but he didn't submit you for a psychological screening for treatment, I'd say the doctor might be seen as a factor, if not the cause. 

People who admit they are contemplating suicide might need to be held for observation while they start therapy, including chemical therapy.

"Being objective" does not mean "ignoring the obvious."  In fact, it means the opposite.

There's a reason we are seldom told what medications a young school shooter was taking via prescription.  Sometimes we do get that info, and there is a definite pattern especially in light of the side effect warnings (known causes of suicidal thoughts).

Some suicidal people are unable to go through with it, and they choose suicide by Cop.  They commit a crime or simply threaten Cops while holding a gun in hopes they will kill him.  Many school shooters go through with the act after they shoot up their school.  A final act of vengeance against the people who they believe helped make them feel suicidal.

Yeah, if we could get enough data to show the actual cause and effect between psychotropic drugs and mass shootings, the big pharma folks would not like it.  Hence, the effort to shield the public from that information.

That reason could be HIPA laws, especially if the shooter is still alive. It is also not always immediately available so I wouldn't conclude too much from the fact we don't hear about it that often.

From my understanding of these shooters I don't think there are enough similarities that suicide by cop is comparable. In fact I would wager they are quite different. 

Do drug companies have an interest in keeping this type of thing under wraps? Sure, but we can't conclude therefore that they are somehow keeping this information from us merely from the fact that it would be in their interest to hide it. If they are the only ones studying these side effects then I would be more worried they are doing this.

If you tell your doctor you have thoughts of suicide, and all he did was give you a prescription for something that warns it may cause suicidal thoughts, but he didn't submit you for a psychological screening for treatment, I'd say the doctor might be seen as a factor, if not the cause. 

People who admit they are contemplating suicide might need to be held for observation while they start therapy, including chemical therapy.

Suicidal thoughts are quite common among teenagers. I don't know what threshold is needed to justify prescribing anti-depressants though. Nonetheless the point I am making is that the anti-depressant might be increasing feelings of suicide but they may also just be ineffective and the person commits suicide where they would have done it with or without the anti-depressants.

That reason could be HIPA laws, especially if the shooter is still alive. It is also not always immediately available so I wouldn't conclude too much from the fact we don't hear about it that often.

From my understanding of these shooters I don't think there are enough similarities that suicide by cop is comparable. In fact I would wager they are quite different. 

HIPAA would not apply if the information was part of the public record, if the parents of minors permitted its release, or of the information was aggregated, like:  "In the past 10 years, 19 of 22 shooters under the age of 25 were prescribed psychotropic drugs to treat various mental illnesses."

If they wanted to get the info out to the public, they would.

Do drug companies have an interest in keeping this type of thing under wraps? Sure, but we can't conclude therefore that they are somehow keeping this information from us merely from the fact that it would be in their interest to hide it. If they are the only ones studying these side effects then I would be more worried they are doing this.

Because big corporations have never used campaign contributions, advertising dollars and bribes in the past to avoid negative publicity over their products that bring in BILLIONS OF DOLLARS every year?  Look how long it took for the government to finally crack down on rampant prescribing of opioids.  Only after massive numbers of deaths from overdosing did they act.  Noticing that a small town doctor was selling more multiple times more and more opioids each year didn't send a red flag to anyone?  The people supplying him the drugs knew there was no legitimate need for such quantities.  They discovered the pharmacist was making a killing on filling the prescriptions, so he was happy to do so.

12 million OxyContin pills shipped to a town of 500:
How profit fueled America's opioid crisis
https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-passionate-eye/12-million-oxycontin-pills-shipped-to-a-town-of-500-how-profit-fuelled-america-s-opioid-crisis-1.6247359

Suicidal thoughts are quite common among teenagers. I don't know what threshold is needed to justify prescribing anti-depressants though. Nonetheless the point I am making is that the anti-depressant might be increasing feelings of suicide but they may also just be ineffective and the person commits suicide where they would have done it with or without the anti-depressants.

You're arguing specifics without referencing a specific case where that occurred.

Besides, we aren't talking about simple suicides.  We're talking about shooters who may be suicidal, or at least on these meds.

But you decided to post a question so you could lead us into this rabbit hole, and then follow up with a bunch of hypotheticals.

 

Suicidal thoughts are quite common among teenagers. I don't know what threshold is needed to justify prescribing anti-depressants though. Nonetheless the point I am making is that the anti-depressant might be increasing feelings of suicide but they may also just be ineffective and the person commits suicide where they would have done it with or without the anti-depressants.

Your statements make no sense at all. Why would a Dr prescribe medication that he/she thinks may not work or exacerbate the problem? That is malpractice. If you are arguing against medications - I agree, which brings us full circle to the original topic.

Nope, a reminder to be objective

so you think we're not objective but you are?
condescend much?

HIPAA would not apply if the information was part of the public record, if the parents of minors permitted its release, or of the information was aggregated, like:  "In the past 10 years, 19 of 22 shooters under the age of 25 were prescribed psychotropic drugs to treat various mental illnesses."

If they wanted to get the info out to the public, they would.

Because big corporations have never used campaign contributions, advertising dollars and bribes in the past to avoid negative publicity over their products that bring in BILLIONS OF DOLLARS every year?  Look how long it took for the government to finally crack down on rampant prescribing of opioids.  Only after massive numbers of deaths from overdosing did they act.  Noticing that a small town doctor was selling more multiple times more and more opioids each year didn't send a red flag to anyone?  The people supplying him the drugs knew there was no legitimate need for such quantities.  They discovered the pharmacist was making a killing on filling the prescriptions, so he was happy to do so.

12 million OxyContin pills shipped to a town of 500:
How profit fueled America's opioid crisis
https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-passionate-eye/12-million-oxycontin-pills-shipped-to-a-town-of-500-how-profit-fuelled-america-s-opioid-crisis-1.6247359

HIPA would not stop the police from releasing the information but it might prevent the doctors from releasing the condition to the police investigating afterwards. There are some exemptions where doctors can release patient information to law enforcement though.

Big pharma couldn't stop law enforcement, prosecutors, or the courts from releasing such information though. They may have hidden results from their own studies/information though. If thats the case here then they should be sued heavily.

The question I have regarding this is why we don't see this as much in other nations? Are these drugs not allowed there? I think there is something else there, maybe the side effect of these anti-depressants combined with some social influence perhaps

You're arguing specifics without referencing a specific case where that occurred.

Besides, we aren't talking about simple suicides.  We're talking about shooters who may be suicidal, or at least on these meds.

But you decided to post a question so you could lead us into this rabbit hole, and then follow up with a bunch of hypotheticals.

 

Nothing wrong with a hypothetical to help illustrate the question because the question still remains, how do we know if the medicine caused the suicide or if the person would have committed suicide anyway?