Today's hearing did not discuss psychotropic medication

Solo,
I have to disagree with you that the source of funding does not affect the results of studies. Any study that does not support the intended result, it is squashed. Here is just one of the many articles that I found. [ Many of the articles seem to be UK based; not sure if that is significant. ]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/06/opinion/when-drug-companies-hide-data.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/14/drug-companies-bury-negative-research

In a similar way the media is influencing the public’s perception of firearms owners. A favorable news story only gets local coverage. Perhaps the local news teams in any given area wants to get the story on the air first. As far as making national news, not likely. But just last week, an argument in a Texas college where one the parties shot the other was on the air nationwide. Crimes involving guns anywhere near a school are now national news…. unless the story is about a gun owner saving the day.

So, if negative information is unavailable, all you have is positive information.

chuck

I have to disagree with you that the source of funding does not affect the results of studies.

Click to expand...

I never said that: I said that it does not necessarily mean the result of the study is incorrect. If the result of the study in accord with other independent, peer reviewed studies, for instance. It also helps when they are peer reviewed, as the process is designed to weed out suspicious articles. Remember the vaccine controversy, where people started accusing vaccines of causing autism? It first gained traction when an article on the subject was published in Medical Hypotheses, a non-peer-reviewed journal, which did not have a scientific peer review process in place so that it could foster diversity of ideas and that controversial hypothesis could be aired. In practice, this means that they had grammar checking, but no fact checking. (They also had a lot of AIDS denial papers along with anti-vaccine ones.)

I am aware that money has an unhealthy relationship with medicine and science. And there are many examples of when conflicts of interest have taken place: Andrew Wakefield, who published an article linking autism and vaccines, is an immediate example. Another good example would be the energy companies funding studies that say global warming is a hoax.

However, in this case, it seems that the panic over SSRIs is overblown as there are multiple reputable sources in government and academia saying that SSRIs do not make people violent psychopaths. Much like the reaction towards violent videogames, guns, and etc - as if people in their desire to blame tragedies on some tangible bogymen latch on to any and everything that they can find.

It is possible that there are serious side effects to SSRIs, particularly in children, but it'd be best to go off of actual studies and not anectodal evidence, or infer cause and effect from news stories about mass killings.

Summary: Yes, money is bad in science. No one is going to dispute that. With regard to the issue at hand, psychotropic medication and mass killings, the majority opinion is that medication does not cause people to become psychopaths.

I don't think of the issues with psychotropic drugs, as simply looking for something to blame for the murders and violence that we find ourselves in the midst of. Take a look at it from a more open mind. How many on this forum, watching this thread are 49, 50, 55 or more years old? I am 49 years old and can recall with crystal clarity what it was like growing up the decades of the 70's and 80's. One thing I definately don't recall are mass shootings being a high incidence occurance. In othe countries yea, it was aired on the nightly national news, fast forward to the introduction and proliferation in the use of modern psychiatric drugs and the rise in the incidence of mass shootings. Is it that hard to believe that someone is lying to the American people? Afterall we are talking about companies that have the resources to pump 10's of millions of dollars into the pockets of Dr's and politicians. There area number of Dr's starting to speak out and question the safety about the use of psychotropic drugs but many fear the repercussions of biting the hand that feeds them.

One thing I definately don't recall are mass shootings being a high incidence occurance. In othe countries yea, it was aired on the nightly national news, fast forward to the introduction and proliferation in the use of modern psychiatric drugs and the rise in the incidence of mass shootings. Is it that hard to believe that someone is lying to the American people?

Click to expand...

I don't believe they're on the rise. In fact, this sort of thing does have a long history in the US. And that's leaving out things such as serial killers, mass murder via bombs, arson, and etc.

Afterall we are talking about companies that have the resources to pump 10's of millions of dollars into the pockets of Dr's and politicians. There area number of Dr's starting to speak out and question the safety about the use of psychotropic drugs but many fear the repercussions of biting the hand that feeds them.

Click to expand...

How do you feel about the powerful firearms industry and gun lobby?

Hell the US govt is the biggest arms dealer in the world. Warnings were put out at the end of WWII about the rise of the military-industrial complex. I just considered myself blessed to born in this country. The firearms industry is out to make a buck, they don't come banging down my door trying to sell me latest and greatest flux capacitor. Nor do I run out and buy the latest and greatest kill em all new caliber cuz some gun rag hag writes up that it is the end all be all. I cannot honestly recall the first nor last time any of my guns compelled me to pick them up and go out and kill an innocent human being. It is an industry, gun manufacturers don't hide the fact that what they peddle is desighned and built to kill.

I cannot honestly recall the first nor last time any of my guns compelled me to pick them up and go out and kill an innocent human being.

Click to expand...

You are probably correct and have every right to believe that, but I know a lot of people who believe otherwise. The ancient superstition of totems, fetishes, idols, and talismans lives on.

Oh, and while I agree with the distrust of the military-industrial complex, the US gun and ammunition manufacturing industry makes less combined profit every year than Starbucks. Wouldn't worry about them doing anything nefarious to subvert our democratic system. Or perhaps we should be more worried about Starbucks.

Solo that cracks me up, my wife is Lipan Apache and made me a medicine bag. I still don't believe an in-animate object can have any sort of power over anyone, although I don't bust her chops over her beliefs. I guess 25 years as a firefighter/medic have jaded me. My first lesson was all patients will lie, the 2nd was if said pt can't lie for him/herself friends and or family will lie for them.

Oh, I don't have anything against belief in the supernatural, but when supposedly well educated doctors start attributing violence in society to ownership of certain inanimate objects... well, that makes me laugh in a sad way.

Solo said:

I never said that: I said that it does not necessarily mean the result of the study is incorrect. If the result of the study in accord with other independent, peer reviewed studies, for instance. It also helps when they are peer reviewed, as the process is designed to weed out suspicious articles.

Click to expand...

But that's just it; the research is not in accord w/ independent, peer reviewed studies. The research is done by of the employees of the drug company OR a researcher funded by them. So, how can that be called peer review? On top of that, many of the employes of regulating agency in charge (i.e. FDA) may work for the same company next week. It's the fox watching the hen house with another fox playing "impartial referee".

search the term "fda government revolving door"

chuck

Let's say we can't trust the industry. Fair enough. Let's also say that we can't trust the government. Alright, I can see how you could come to that conclusion. But there's always academia, right? Of course, people can always distrust ivory tower intellectuals with liberal agenda, so... where does that leave us?

Or to put it another way, what sources can we trust so that we may begin to evaluate the data and determine if these drugs actually drive violent behavior? Because with over thirty million prescriptions for Zoloft alone (and over twenty for Prozac) you'd think someone would have noticed if they drove people nuts. Assuming a 0.5% chance of someone going bonkers from these two antidepressants, that's 300,000 psychos running around every year. (The actual amount of SSRIs actually prescribed in the US each year is higher than used in this overly simplistic example, and the number of all anti-depressants is even larger.)

Solo said:

Let's say we can't trust the industry. Fair enough. Let's also say that we can't trust the government. Alright, I can see how you could come to that conclusion. But there's always academia, right? Of course, people can always distrust ivory tower intellectuals with liberal agenda, so... where does that leave us?

Click to expand...

But who's to say we don't have a problem? If the way to get the numbers is by clinical trials, BUT if those with the raw data have a non-disclosure (i.e. a gag order) we will never know. Lawyers work for drug companies too. Calculate profit vs. litigation before going to market. If someone has a real case, evaluate the case’s chance of loss and settle w/ a non-disclosure if needed.

I am just skeptical of the whole process.

Chuck

PS: I do think there are honest researches out there. But I think they are too intimidated to "break the non-disclosure". Out of a job, black listed and/or sued may be what's risked.

I understand your skepticism and it's good to be skeptical; science progresses from skepticism. However, you have to be careful with skepticism; it's a fine line between climate change skepticism and climate change denial.

I don't know a lot of how the legal process works; if you have knowledge in this field, then you have me at a disadvantage.

But the sheer number of prescriptions alone would lead one to think that if there was a strong correlation, it would have showed up by now, as Prozac has been marketed since 1987.

Solo said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, looking over the first 3 papers, the first is just a review of previous papers, the second is a specific study with a small sample size that seems to be looking for a general effect. The third is interesting- its a paper having to do with the WPA Section on Pharmacopsychiatry, which is a heavily corporate funded entity. And judging from my look over the other papers released in that database, there isn't a pharmaceutical drug that it, or the other authors of that study, don't like, or think will fix all your problems.

I agree that there is such a thing as being too skeptical in certain situations, and your example of global warming studies is a good one, but I think in this situation things are reversed, and the biased studies like those backed by the oil companies are closer to the mainstream here. Academia has a close relationship with pharmaceuticals, to the point where some schools such as Sanford have tried to curtail it.

Also, not all SSRI are the same. The one that Lanza was on had a questionable history, and problems with approval. Admittedly, this site is a little flaky looking, but as far as I can tell the information is valid:

http://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-drugs/antipsychoticsideeffects/fanaptsideeffects/

So those are confirmed incidents of the side effects. Heres WebMD

http://www.webmd.com/drugs/drug-153...ugid=153413&drugname=Fanapt+Oral&pagenumber=6

If these effects aren't happening, why are they listed in the possible side effects?

I also agree that in the vast majority of cases these drugs are safe, but, by the same token, I don't think we really know how often there are dangerous episodes b/c I don't believe that it has been looked or recorded by police or the media, and usually, when these odd effects are reported when crimes are committed, people and police dismiss it as perpetrators trying to make an excuse for the crimes. I used to agree with that, actually, but after I started looking into the effects I've become more skeptical in the other direction--the perpetrators are reporting symptoms inline with the side effects of the drugs listed, and are often doing things that they usually don't seemed inclined to to in the first place.

If every mass shooter had been on something like bath salts, or had been say, vaping with one of those artificial cigarette things right before the shooting, that would be looked at. "Another bath salt killing" But for some reason these meds aren't, and they are meds that mess with brain chemistry, and have possible side effects similar to what the individuals display. I was shocked by the number of people on these meds--50 million--I'd be willing to bet that the number of people on these has been increasing along with number of spree type killings.

At the very least an awareness of this might allow someone who might have a violent reaction to these meds to take some safety measures, or those around them to. But I think that we aren't hearing about it b/c news channels like selling their ad space, and the pharma lobby is as, or even more, powerful than the NRA. It actually held congress in session to force through a bill in 2002--pharma reps were on the floor, yelling and congressmen. Ted Koppel reported on it. I've never had much luck finding a report of this online, though, otherwise I would link it. But it stuck with me, and the news channels fairly indifferent attitude towards it stuck with me too.

It is possible that there might be an over reaction, to where people would not want to be prescribed these meds, but frankly, that wouldn't bother me. They are handing these things out like candy, and a few less.. million.. people on meds might not be much of a problem at all. I actually think it might be a benefit. I cant really see 1 in 6 people in the US having problems to the point where they need to have their brain chemistry altered.

But to boil it all down, as someone who likes 30 round mags in my deadly assault rifle, I'm not interested in taking the heat for big pharma b/c they might lose a few million in sales. Its their mess, they can help clean it up.

Also, not all SSRI are the same. The one that Lanza was on had a questionable history, and problems with approval.

Click to expand...

I have not heard any reliable evidence as to what drugs Lanza was taking. Considering the autopsy results have yet to come out, I would be very interested in knowing how someone would obtain such information.

If these effects aren't happening, why are they listed in the possible side effects?

Click to expand...

The side effects do happen. There are some people who experience increased aggression, and some drugs do increase suicidal ideation. Among SSRIs, Prozac is considered to have the best risk/benefit ratio. It's just the idea of tons of children flipping out and murdering people after taking these drugs is not well supported. Children are a vulnerable group, though; since their brains aren't fully formed, the effects of SSRIs on them is less predictable. I do know that suicide among teenagers has actually increased since 2003 and seems to be continuing, possibly because of fewer prescriptions for SSRIs due to the warning labels resulting in teenagers who actually need them not receiving treatment. Of course, that is only one potential explanation, and there are competing factors that need to be addressed. There have been several recent high profile cases of teenagers killing themselves after cyber bullying, which has also been on the rise as people learn to misuse the internet more and more.

I was shocked by the number of people on these meds--50 million--I'd be willing to bet that the number of people on these has been increasing along with number of spree type killings.

Click to expand...

50 million was just from the two most popular SSRIs. Here's a fuller list from 2011.
Celexa (37,728,000), Zoloft (37,208,000), Prozac (24,507,000), Lexapro (23,707,000), Cymbalta (17,770,000), Paxil (13,990,000).
This still isn't a complete list, and it's already 31,760,000. Some people might be on a combination of drugs, but still that's a lot of people taking a lot of SSRIs.

If you want to argue that we're over-medicating people, I would agree. SSRIs show most efficacy in people with severe depression; prescribing them for milder cases is slightly more effective than using a placebo. The drive to make money leads to this ridiculous number of prescriptions for people who do not need them.

However, the amount of suicides, violent crimes, and mass killings you'd expect aren't there. It does not matter if the media is not reporting them; we know what the statistics for violent crime and mass murder are. We throw them at anti-gunners on a daily basis. Crime rates are down and have been declining since the early 1990s. Mass murders are not more common now than before. Suicide rates were decreasing until the recession, since economic troubles tend have that effect. We saw it during the Great Depression almost a century ago.

Troubled people would naturally be more likely to be on those medications, it makes sense. I am hard pressed to be believe that they contributed; millions of American's take them without waging war on a school.

Generally, the intended purpose of treatment with mood altering drugs is stabilization. This requires determining the correct dosage, often by trial and error, but once the correct dosage with the correct drug is determined and maintained, normal functionality is usually restored and maintained. (There are no absolutes and nothing is 100% effective in all cases)

Many of the side effects related to psychotropics are experienced at the beginning of use and during withdrawal. This is when the most changes to brain chemistry are occurring. Changes occurring at the onset of treatment are more likely to be monitored by the prescribing professional than those during withdrawal which often occurs as a result of a unilateral decision by the patient.

A lot of patients feel stigmatized by their condition and the need to treat it with medication. They hear too many comments about how they are just weak or lazy or cowardly to face life without a crutch and seek to toss the crutch away as soon as they feel normal enough to do so. But in many cases, the treatment is not a cure, it is correction of a chronic condition and stopping the treatment cold, without adequate supervision can result in changes that make the patient extremely dangerous to both him/herself and others.

There should be a study of how many mass murderers with Rxs for psychotropics have the prescribed level in their system at the time of the act. Does anybody know of one?

"It is the people with problems who are NOT under a doctors care that should be of concern"

I agree.

Many tens of millions of Americans have taken prescription SSRIs without going off the deep end and killing people.

I'm just going to italicize Solo's quotes, its easier.

I have not heard any reliable evidence as to what drugs Lanza was taking. Considering the autopsy results have yet to come out, I would be very interested in knowing how someone would obtain such information.

It does seem known what he was on. I guess the father knew.

Prozac is considered to have the best risk/benefit ratio. It's just the idea of tons of children flipping out and murdering people after taking these drugs is not well supported

I agree. Never said tons were. Its pretty rare, I would say. Just how rare, though, I don't think has been looked into.

It does not matter if the media is not reporting them; we know what the statistics for violent crime and mass murder are. We throw them at anti-gunners on a daily basis

I disagree somewhat. What I was talking about earlier is that we don't know how many crimes there are related to meds b/c I dont think that this information has been documented. There are not enough to impact the crimes stas, so they are unusual. But how unusual really isn't known at this time, as far as I can tell.

50 million was just from the two most popular SSRIs. Here's a fuller list from 2011....

I looked into in a bit more thoroughly, it seems that the best estimates agree that there are about 43-50 million are on SSRIs now. Heres the most recent reputable source I found on it

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/...-antidepressant-use-by-americans-201110203624

Mass murders are not more common now than before.

That's interesting, you're right, they haven't increased this decade, They peaked int he 80s and stayed there.

Here's what I think in a nutshell--

Something like 9 out of 10 of these recent spree killers have been on these drugs. They often report symptoms mentioned as side effects to the drugs they are on, and, as Microtech points out, the crimes are often committed when they are going through a transitional phase when the medications are more actively altering brain chemistry. Spree killers are a very rare group of people. That they have this in common is significant, in my opinion. It is possible that the meds are just a symptom, and not a cause, but I think its more likely that they bear some measure of responsibility in many cases because of the reasons listed above, and in other places in my posts.

Now, I don't really know if anything can actually be reasonably done to identify or stop those that are on the verge of crimes caused by SSRI, or stop those prone to them, the condition may indeed be too rare and non specific. But of all the avenues I've heard proposed (besides maybe the media voluntarily curtailing reports on spree killers) studying this issue really the only one that might be worth looking into. Who knows, maybe these guys were smoking alot of pot before hand and eating rhubarb pie, or something like that, and it reacted badly with the meds. They're planning to spend all kinds of money on something anyway, might as well be something with some potential to be beneficial. Perhaps it would just be a waste of money, but that really wouldn't make it any worse than any of the other plans or laws proposed, and, sadly, it would make such a study better than some. At the very least a greater awareness of this as a possible cause might help in and of itself.

NOLAEMT said:

It means that there is no evidence that these meds (which are taken by millions of Americans) played any part in these tragedies.

Click to expand...

That is false. There is a large amount of evidence that the major pharmaceutical companies don't give out, because it will hurt their profit and possible remove their drug from the market.

Pharmaceutical companies have to do experimental studies on people and get certain results from a certain number of experiments (I think it's only 2 experiments that have to support their hypothesize about the drug). They can run the experiment 1000 times and 900 of the results can suggest that the drug causes hallucinations and homicidal/suicidal thoughts, but as long as they get their two with good results they don't have to report the other stuff and they can start hiring doctors to prescribe their drug to people for life. That means residual income and mucho profit$$$ for them no matter how morally wrong.

And the academic and government studies on these drugs?


If I may make an analogy? A lot of people smoke cigarettes, moreso in the past than at present. Despite everything the tobacco companies used to say, we all know now that smoking causes lung, mouth, and throat cancer, n addition to other detrimental health effects, because there were simply too many people smoking and getting cancer.

"50 million was just from the two most popular SSRIs. Here's a fuller list from 2011...Celexa (37,728,000), Zoloft (37,208,000), Prozac (24,507,000)" etc.

Just to be clear, those are prescriptions written in one year, not a count of the people taking them. You don't get a single prescription for an entire year's worth of pills.

That is very true, I should have accounted for that.

The part about pharmaceuticals starts at 40 minutes and 30 seconds, but the whole video is interesting. I didn't make it, but it entails almost everything that I've dug up lately.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XQhdXUuFbDE#!

Marijuana is psychotropic, has been shown to trigger severe psychosis in individuals who are suffering psychological issues, and was a common denominator in the Jared Loughner and Terry Holmes shootings.

I am amazed, as a person who was raised in a dysfunctional pot-smoking family (until I was made a ward of the state, thank God) seeing the effects of this drug on my parents and siblings, that even many 2nd Ammendment advocates staunchly deny the evidence on marijuana use.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you had to pick between legal marijuana and your 2nd ammendment rights, which would you pick?