Today's hearing did not discuss psychotropic medication

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pocket Rocket

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
66
Location
Salt Lake City, UT
After watching/listening to today's Senate hearing I am amazed that psychotropic medications were barely discussed and that there was no panelist representing that segment of the debate on gun violence. This omission prompted me to start another round of letters to my representatives. An excerpt of my letter is available below and I urge you to write something similar to your Senators:

Dear Senator XXXXX,

I am writing in regards to the recent to the recent Judiciary Committee hearing about gun violence. I was able to watch the hearing and appreciate that some of the Senators and panelists made valid points about gun violence but failed to adequately address one of the root causes.

One point which was lost during the hearing was the proliferation of psychotropic medication. This is the common denominator in all of the recent mass shootings and should be the focal point of any discussions on gun violence instead of legislation to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. I am dismayed that the committee did not hear from any experts in psychiatry and mood altering drugs even though mental health was brought up numerous times by the panelists and your fellow colleagues.

Any bill seeking to restrict the right to keep and bear arms will not curb gun violence. It will only punish those who follow the law while allowing occurrences of violent crime by the mentally ill to escalate.

Senator XXXXX, I expect you to vote no on any bill that seeks to disarm or to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens of the United States.
 
Good letter (aside from the extra "to the recent" in the first sentence). I'm not familiar with the pyschotropic medication, was that actually a common denominator in these recent mass shootings?
 
I guess common denominator depends on having all the information. The VA Tech shooting involved a perpetrator who had an Rx for meds but none was found in the system. However, it has also been debated that people coming off these medications can have more severe side effects such as suicidal/homicidal thoughts than while taking them.

I believe presrciption drugs are a big part of the problem and they were a part of the shootings at Aurora, Columbine and VA Tech as well as quite a few other events that received less press coverage. I think it would be foolish to exclude psychotropics from the debate and that is what I intended to get across in the letter.
 
Many shooters were on drugs. Many shooters also drank water.

Here's the question: did they become crazy after taking drugs, or were they taking drugs because they were crazy?
 
It means that there is no evidence that these meds (which are taken by millions of Americans) played any part in these tragedies.
 
Many of the ads for these types of drugs have a disclaimer regarding suicide and thoughts of violent behavior. They also mention about a bajillion other potential side effects.

I agree that mentally unstable people are normally the perpetrators in these mass murders as it takes a mentally unstable person to do something like this.
 
After watching/listening to today's Senate hearing I am amazed that psychotropic medications were barely discussed and that there was no panelist representing that segment of the debate on gun violence. This omission prompted me to start another round of letters to my representatives. An excerpt of my letter is available below and I urge you to write something similar to your Senators:
so do you believe its a search for the truth or another song and dance show?
 
Actually the links between SSRI drugs and aggressive or violent behavior have been documented. Most cases were otherwise harmless people having sudden psychotic breaks after starting or just after stopping these meds.

Even in the case of Virginia Tech. Have any of you seen the pictures of Cho from a couple months vs. a couple weeks before the shooting? The difference in demeanor is unmistakable.

See http://www.ssristories.com/index.php for a rather long list of cases.
You can also find some stats on and info regarding known negative effects of these drugs here: https://www.rxisk.org/Research/SpecialtyFilter.aspx?SpecialtyFilter=5
 
...

See http://www.ssristories.com/index.php for a rather long list of cases.

Dirtpile, That's quite a list. As with anything that I see on the internet, I take the information with a "grain of salt" and try to find out who is funding the site and/or the site's mission. I am pretty sure the pharmaceutical industry would not like the contents.

The home page is http://www.ssristories.com/index.html The contact us link "says the lady who maintains the site has passed away". Via whois.com the site domain name renews annually and expires April 20 of this year. Coincidentally April 20 is the date of Columbine as well as Hitler's birthday. Anyone can get a domain, but they don't have an https cert which is somewhat more difficult to get.

I did not find anything too big outside the bogus contact us link at the bottom of the home page.

chuck
 
Last edited:
TNBilly,

It felt a lot more like a song and dance than a reasonable discussion to actually do something about gun violence. We heard a lot from the reps about exploring all avenues to find solutions and at the end of the day it was mag limits, universal background checks and a possible AWB. There has been plenty of evidence that shows these aren't effective measures and the absence of any discussion of Rx meds was enough to cause me to say something about it.
 
I think presciption drugs are definitely associated with recent mass shootings.

This video has been posted here before, but it's very good (especially for something Michael Moore is involved with)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZpihECO6xs&feature=player_detailpage

A huge percentage of Americans are taking these types of drugs. Why didn't we need all these drugs 50, or 200 years ago? If it can be proven that something has CHEMICALLY changed in human beings in recent years to warrant such a high percentage of Americans taking these drugs, then I will listen. Until that happens (which it won't), I think they are just a way for a select few to get very very wealthy. It's all about money, and the big pharma companies have a lot of it.
 
Well, something has changed in this country, and it's not the availability of firearms, so it must be something else. These drugs are the biggest change that I'm aware of, pertaining to the mentally ill people who perpetrated the string of shootings we've seen. Naturally, those who wish to disarm us (and have been trying for decades, not just now) won't willingly change the subject to psychotropic drugs because it clearly wouldn't support their agenda.
 
I believe every mass shooting going back to columbine involved the shooter being on psychotic drugs. Again, I said every one. Probably just a coincidence though. I bet they all drank water too.
 

Author information:

Sitra Tauscher-Wisniewski, M.D.
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Department of Psychiatry for Children and Adolescents, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
Mary Nilsson, M.S.
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Cathy Caldwell, M.S.
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.
John Plewes, M.D.
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Albert J. Allen, M.D.
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.


Eli Lilly settled out of court with the victims of a mass shooting in 1989 where the perpetrator was on Prozac. Maybe they just didn't want their name dragged through the mud, but I think its more likely they didnt want close scrutiny of their meds. In any event, I dont give much credence to a research paper by them that proves something that is good for their company. I dont credit big pharma with an overabundance of ethics.

But in any event, I agree with the OP. And if the had been any other connection as common as being on some type of mental medication it would have been looked at closely by the media. They also pop up in some high profile murders that arent mass shootings and are just bizarre, such as the like that mother drowning her kids case a while back.
 
Author information:

Sitra Tauscher-Wisniewski, M.D.
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Department of Psychiatry for Children and Adolescents, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
Mary Nilsson, M.S.
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Cathy Caldwell, M.S.
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.
John Plewes, M.D.
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Albert J. Allen, M.D.
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Lucifer_Sam, You beat me to the obvious bias in the study. BIG money pays for studies that support what it is they want to say. When I say "BIG", I mean dollars amounts that are in the billions are at stake.

chuck
 
Just add to the existing 4473 "have been prescribed SSRI drugs" in the "are you a user of " question. Done ! This is a pet peeve of mine and I know it is not a popular opinion that if you can't cope with the pain of life without a drug, you shouldn't use fire arms.
 
Just add to the existing 4473 "have been prescribed SSRI drugs" in the "are you a user of " question. Done ! This is a pet peeve of mine and I know it is not a popular opinion that if you can't cope with the pain of life without a drug, you shouldn't use fire arms.

And another line has to be added. Is there anyone who uses SSRI drugs in the same household who might kill you to get control of your firearms?" Was that not the case in Newtown?
 
There is nothing wrong with precribed use of psychotropic drugs. The restrictions pertain to the illegal use of drugs. Sorry, but its just plain ignorant to state that if someone can't cope with the pain of life without using psychotropic drugs they shouldn't have firearms. It is the people with problems who are NOT under a doctors care that should be of concern because they are more likely to self prescribe the wrong medications, incorrect combination of medications or inappropriate doses. And if they are getting the drugs from the street they probably take whatever is available at the moment so they're always in some state of withdrawal. Many of the drugs in this category have to be titrated up in the beginning and slowly reduced when discontinued. Problems result when doctors are not involved. I'd much rather see people get the treatment they need than discontinue treatment because they are worried about being disqualified to protect themselves.
 
Author information:

Sitra Tauscher-Wisniewski, M.D.
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Department of Psychiatry for Children and Adolescents, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
Mary Nilsson, M.S.
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Cathy Caldwell, M.S.
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.
John Plewes, M.D.
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Albert J. Allen, M.D.
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Eli Lilly settled out of court with the victims of a mass shooting in 1989 where the perpetrator was on Prozac. Maybe they just didn't want their name dragged through the mud, but I think its more likely they didnt want close scrutiny of their meds. In any event, I dont give much credence to a research paper by them that proves something that is good for their company. I dont credit big pharma with an overabundance of ethics.

But in any event, I agree with the OP. And if the had been any other connection as common as being on some type of mental medication it would have been looked at closely by the media. They also pop up in some high profile murders that arent mass shootings and are just bizarre, such as the like that mother drowning her kids case a while back.
That money may influence a study is a valid concern, although it is worthwhile to note that this does not mean the study is incorrect; companies that produce vaccines have studies showing that vaccines do not cause autism. Of course, there are also independent studies showing this too. So I guess the question is, are there independent studies on SSRIs and violent behavior?

This subject has been studied by academia, and you can find papers (like this one, this one, and this one) asserting little or no causal effect with regard to increased aggression. Of course, as with any issue, you can find the opposite, but my impression is that the majority opinion is that SSRIs do not increase aggression and are safe in adults.

The use of antidepressant drugs in children is a little less clear. It is theoretically possible that children are more vulnerable to adverse side effects as a result of their brains not being fully formed or in a sensitive developmental period, but I believe there is a lack of research in that area right now. The current majority opinion seems to be that the benefits of antidepressants outweighs the cost of their potential side effects and that while antidepressants should not be a first response for children with depression, they should also not be a last resort.
 
Last edited:
I think the big point here is the topic of drugs wasn't discussed at all.

AFS

This is exactly why I started the thread. If you feel the exclusion of prescription drugs should be part of the discussion of gun violence I'd encourage you to write your Senators and Reps stating this. Presently there are plenty of reasons to write and I feel this is just one more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top