Topic: Causes of Mass shootings, suicides + - Many of them are on psychotropic drugs (Read 2506 times)

Gotta agree with that, man.  Those 'Merican...They voted that Bamster in....

I guarantee you it was.  Kids are often even worse than adults as they can get away with more.  What I'm explaining is a primal jealousy commoners feel toward anyone of much greater intelligence.
And let's be honest, America's are some real fuckups as far as the average people's of a region go.

We Need to Talk about Sandy Hook - NEW 2015 Documentary

I think I see some correlation of what you are saying to what you seem to be against.

Also, you said that shootings are instigated... can you provide us with some details of what you are saying?  I mean if you think about random shooting that involve little kids like Sandy Hook, that wasn't instigated by the kids... so what are you trying to say? Try to provide some details to what you are saying.

Intelligent people get heavily harassed out of jealousy.  This environment is akin to psychological torture.  The shootings are instigated, end of story.  And the U.S people seem to be particularly good at being fuckups.

Antidepressants near top of list of drugs associated with violence https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mad-in-america/201101/psychiatric-drugs-and-violence-review-fda-data-finds-link


Yes, because what we need is you making more threads. Debate is always so much fun when one self involved douchebag is screaming over everyone else not allowing for a debate outside of his domain. You will notice I am not posting in this section at all any more. You can thank Wilikon's OCD over controlling every discussion here. Enjoy the echo chamber.

Regardless of what "you think" or "I think", there is the scientific method.

I'm not pushing a theory or a cause here.  But multivariant analysis might well reveal some causes.  As just one example, various "named" drugs have similar chemical effects.  Say psychotropic drugs fall into three categories of chemical effects.  We might find that sudden withdrawal from a drug of type A (of A, B, and C) was associated with psychotic violence.

Just saying....

I guess I would ask, without the scientific analysis, how would we be better than those who simply look at these events and shout "Control the GUNS!  Control the GUNS!"

Well that's just the thing... when I went through my "manic episode", I didn't even feel like anything was wrong with me or the way I was acting.  To me it just seemed like everyone else was acting weird, and being real dicks to me when they pointed me out all the time and tell me that I'm acting funny.  I even pushed away my family, girlfriend, all my other buddies during my episode.  So it's pretty hard to study these people (which would include me) when they are going through these manic episodes, because they don't realize that they are going in a downward spiral of craziness.  They wouldn't want to be studied, because they feel like everything has gotten better in their lives when things really haven't.  When a person is in a manic episode, you feel on top of the world and are all that and a bag of chips.

i dont think we might ever have a defined etiology for what might cause these psychotic episodes; compared to the number of people on the drugs and the people who experience these psychotic breakdowns, these cases are rare enough that they would have to be studied on a case by case basis, and im not sure those few would have much in common. take for example, their social environments; their social lives (awkwardness vs normality) could have played a role in their decisions, and that sort of thing isnt really easy to say the least to factor into a study. not that there are that many cases to study  from, the shooters that end up having these breakdowns sometimes end up dead.

Still, we don't have an etiology.  Only hypotheses. Of course there may be several causes.

im going to agree.
as to answer your question from before, i think those rare, psychotic episodes exhibited by a small percentage of individuals on those drugs isnt really explainable easily. it could be a rare case side effect of the drug induced by a combination of many factors, or it could be that perhaps the individual stopped taking the medicine, assuming themselves cured, and had a harsh relapse. i think itd be safe to say these cases are rare enough to have them be the outlying extremes of side effects.

Well, you've gone off the deep end with this rubber band logic.

You can ignore the whole post as much as you want to, but I think it's highly related. There are obvious issues dealing with the brain and how it functions in people that are being changed by our environment.

From the National Institute for Mental Health

"Scientists don't know the exact causes of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), but research suggests that both genes and environment play important roles.
...
Environmental factors

In medicine, "environment" refers to anything outside of the body that can affect health. This includes the air we breathe, the water we drink and bathe in, the food we eat, the medicines we take, and many other things that our bodies may come in contact with. Environment also includes our surroundings in the womb, when our mother's health directly affects our growth and earliest development.

Researchers are studying many environmental factors such as family medical conditions, parental age and other demographic factors, exposure to toxins, and complications during birth or pregnancy.

As with genes, it's likely that more than one environmental factor is involved in increasing risk for ASD. And, like genes, any one of these risk factors raises the risk by only a small amount. Most people who have been exposed to environmental risk factors do not develop ASD. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is also conducting research in this area. More information is available on their website .

Scientists are studying how certain environmental factors may affect certain genes—turning them on or off, or increasing or decreasing their normal activity. This process is called epigenetics and is providing researchers with many new ways to study how disorders like ASD develop and possibly change over time."

Naw, let's not, because it has zero relation to anything I said. 

It's really sick right?

If you had counseling about the depression, you may have never needed to take any pills.

That's what's so wrong with this all, the doctors are just trying to treat symptoms, not the cause. Then the cause won't go away and the people will keep coming back and paying more money.

I was given anti depressants as a young teen. I was depressed but I had good reason. This was never discussed I was simply given pills. A few months later I was hallucinating paranoid and delusional. Diagnosis: schizophrenia and I was institutionalized and put on anti psychotic meds. I eventually (with great deal of struggle) got away from the psych industry and take no drugs and am fine now years later but I trust no doctor have no relationship with my parents and suffer PTSD

The system is f#%^ed

Well, looking at autism in particular, it is increasing dramatically over the past few decades:    

Half of All Children Will Be Autistic by 2025, Warns Senior Research Scientist at MIT

"At a conference last Thursday, in a special panel discussion about GMOs, she took the audience by surprise when she declared, “At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.” She noted that the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity, and presented data showing a remarkably consistent correlation between the use of Roundup on crops (and the creation of Roundup-ready GMO crop seeds) with rising rates of autism. Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder."

No, Half of All Children Won't Be Autistic By 2025, Despite What Your Facebook Friends May Tell You



I don't believe it's a natural disease. I believe it's caused by environmental influences in some way. The cause is up for debate, but I don't believe it's that people weren't diagnosing it in the past, I think people would have noticed autistic people if there were any around back then. So if it's a new disease, and increasing exponentially, I do believe something in the environment is causing it.

If that's the case, I strongly believe some other psychological problems are caused by the environment too.

So I don't believe the people taking these drugs today are the same ones being called lunatics in the past. Also, most people in the United States are on a prescription drug at some time in their life.

From the Center for Disease Control (CDC):

"Prescription drug use 

    Percent of persons using at least one prescription drug in the past 30 days: 48.7% (2009-2012)
    Percent of persons using three or more prescription drugs in the past 30 days: 21.8% (2009-2012)
    Percent of persons using five or more prescription drugs in the past 30 days: 10.7% (2009-2012)   

Physician office visits

    Number of drugs ordered or provided: 2.6 billion
    Percent of visits involving drug therapy: 75.1%
    Most frequently prescribed therapeutic classes:
        Analgesics
        Antihyperlipidemic agents
        Antidepressants   "


"52 Million people in the US, over the age of 12, have used prescription drugs non-medically in their lifetime." - link

The amount of people taking drugs which will affect their brains is much larger than the amount of lunatics percentage wise in the past. So, once again, I don't believe they're the same lunatic fringe population.

Not very many people understand the effects of psychotropic drugs on crazy people.  There are REASONS why mental hospitals were before the age of drugs, called "Lunatic asylums." 

Now, that is a very general comment.

Here and now the concern isn't over the highly beneficial aspects of psychotropic drugs used on crazy people in asylums, but the modern concepts that with such drugs, a fair segment of such people can be released into society.
As more and more drugs have been developed, the concept goes farther.  It goes into a realm where people with much less severe mental illnesses - people well into the normal range, as opposed to neurotic, depressed, psychotic, schizophrenic categories - are prescribed psychotropic drugs.

Now we find some unknown fraction of these treated categories seem to be subject to violent episodes.

It isn't known if these are the exact same people who, before the age of such drugs, were labeled "lunatics" or whether it is a new mix of people from various styles of illness.  In other words, are the episodes of violence a direct side effect of such drugs, or a reversion to the basic nature of the the deranged individual, when untreated, or some combination of such causes?

Is there work being done to figure this out?

I get that. I do think most people these days think anything a doctor prescribes is good for you. The media sure like to make vaccines out to be necessary and anyone who doesn't want one is an idiot or worse the parents are neglecting their children. They totally ignore that vaccines have side effects too and people do get sick after having them.

I'm sure the placebo effect helps them keep the delusion also. 

I know exactly what your saying, and how everyone should think for themselves and that kind of thing; but at the same time, getting a M.D. in psychology and knowing the ins and outs of neurology is possibly one of the hardest things to do in med school... So when I get these symptoms that are unwanted, I just simply stop taking it and wait for my next appointment. I don't necessarily blame the doctors themselves, but I think the pharmacologists that are making the drugs for drug companies should be to blame.  They put drugs out there to be prescribed when there hasn't been adequent testing on the drugs they make... they just simply put vague side effect labels on the medicine bottles that make consumers feel like it's not a big deal.