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.
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.