As absurd as it may seem, there is a myth that continues to grow after mass shootings and that is that the cause of these shootings are psychiatric medications themselves. A January 8 letter to the Toronto Star headlined "Preventing Another Newtown" pointed out that "The perpetrators of almost every mass shooting were on psychotropic drugs." An article in the conservative online magazine The American Thinker on January 9, by Charles Grant and Greg Lewis is titled "It's The Drugs, Stupid!"
Dr. Grant is an alternative medicine practitioner who deals with addictions. He specializes in "molecular health and healing, especially as it supports psychospiritual growth and mental health recovery from problems." Greg Lewis works with Grant but there is no biographical information for him. What they say in this article is "in every single gun massacre over the past several decades for which we have reliable information about drug use, the shooter has been taking psychotropic drugs prescribed by a physician." Note that the "proof" they cite is based on an article published on Citizens Commission On Human Rights International website. According to Wikipedia, this is a Scientology front that campaigns against psychiatry.
On the CNN show State of the Union on January 13, Tennessee Republican Congresswoman, Marsha Blackburn, stated that psychiatric drugs are linked to individuals who carried out these crimes. She was not challenged by the host, Candy Crawley, or any of the other panelists.
Earlier writings about medications and drugs came from author Robert Whittaker. In a Psychology Today blog, he talks about the role of antidepressants causing violence (not anti-psychotics used to treat the delusions of psychosis) and states:
"In light of this finding (of reported violent adverse events and antidepressants), the many past shootings at school campuses and other public venues should perhaps be investigated anew by government officials, with an eye toward ascertaining whether psychotropic use may have, in the manner of an adverse event, triggered that violence."
He does not provide evidence that shootings involved the use of medications but only that this link should be investigated.
So, what are the facts based on the best evidence available? A study published in June of 2012 concluded that antidepressants reduced suicidal thoughts and behaviour. There were over 9,000 patients in the study using two different antidepressants -- fluoxetine (Prozac) and venlafaxine (effexor). This confirms the results of other studies with young people.
As for anti-psychotics which are used to treat the delusions of psychosis and schizophrenia, a study published in 2010 found that the rate of homicides committed during a first episode psychotic break before treatment was 1.59 homicides per 1,000 patients. "The annual rate of homicide after treatment for psychosis was 0.11 homicides per 1,000 patients." The authors concluded, "the rate of homicide in the first episode of psychosis appears to be higher than previously recognized, whereas the annual rate of homicide by patients with schizophrenia after treatment is lower than previous estimates. Earlier treatment of first-episode psychosis might prevent some homicides."
The Treatment Advocacy Center in the U.S. has done a backgrounder on the topic of violence and schizophrenia looking at all studies around the world on the subject. They conclude that "a small number of individuals with serious mental illnesses commit acts of violence, including 5 - 10 per cent of all homicides. Almost all of these acts of violence are committed by individuals who are not being treated, and many such individuals are also abusing alcohol or drugs."
They cite 12 studies that demonstrate that most acts of violence are committed by people who are not being treated. The most recent study, from 2010, showed that most acts were carried out during the person's first psychotic episode before they were treated.
A common expression in society to describe strange behaviour is "he must be off his meds." I've yet to hear anyone say "he must be on meds to act that way." The average person understands.
Follow Marvin Ross on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dysdads
The author would have you believe the study showed reductions of suicidal thoughts and behavior among treated youths and claims "This confirms the results of other studies with young people." The study cited does NOT say that and no citations are presented for these "other studies".
WRT the youth in particular, which I believe is vitally important in this conversation, while reading the abstract of the second cited "best evidence available", I found no age filters, so this study may have not have looked at the effects of these medications on the youth at all. Probably not the greatest sources to sway most educated opinions.
Finally, while utilizing the imminent powers of Wikipedia to "prove" that studies contrary to the author's opinion are somehow slanted by the Scientologists, the same author cites studies by the Treatment Advocacy Center in rebuttal!? I'm sure the Treatment Advocacy folks have no bias... they cite other studies that align with their position but they likely ignore as many studies in opposition.
Articles like this create discussion, which can't be all bad, but this is just another one on both sides of the issue that don't offer any further clarity. It only voices one, thinly-veiled opinion.
The other is that, in fact, I haven't seen a thing in the last 3 major shootings -- in Tuscon, in Aurora and in Newtown -- about the shooter being on medications.
Yes, CCHR, the scientologists, have been working to bring awareness to the problems of psychotropics and to my knowledge have the greatest data base on this subject.
It doesn't matter if the Mormons, Baptists, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, or Athiests brought it to our attention first, what matters is that we check it out for ourselves rather than dismiss it offhand.
The listed side effects of all six SSRIs, antidepressants, include hostility (homicidal ideation), suicidal ideation, impulsiveness, agressiveness, delusions and hallucinations. Many American children are being prescribed these SSRIs. Perhaps they are sitting in the classroom next to your child.
I agree with you that "meaningful dialogue among critical thinkers" would be a good thing.
But you described this movie as:
"Hollywood focuses on murderous side-effects of a psychiatric drug ..." and then exclaimed, "Hooray for Hollywood."
That doesn[t sound like meaningful dialogue by critical thinkers. It sounds like one-sided, melodramatic sensationalism.
Hollywood movies don't usually stimulate critical thought because they don't even pretend to tell the truth. They routinely take artistic license with the truth to heighten dramatic tension, and they exploit violence for its entertainment value.
So I would hope that the average moviegoer doesn't presume to know all about this serious topic on the basis of having seen a Hollywood movie. There is a risk of violence with some anti-depressants and they should not be given to some individuals. But many other people suffering from major depression say they are helped by anti-depressants when nothing else helped them, and they are not at all violent. Is the movie going to provide this balance?
Also, the average moviegoer isn't likely to know the important difference between anti-depressants and anti-psychotics. Is the movie going to explain this difference, or just leave the average moviegoer with the misinformed "knowledge" that they are all the same?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/side-effects-trailer-rooney-mara-386069
Catherine Zeta-Jones, Jude Law, Channing Tatum and Rooney Mara star.
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/UCM096273
Wouldn't the FDA base such a drastic measure on the best evidence available? The FDA may also have been influenced by the testimony of family members who lost a loved one to SSRI-induced suicide or the testimony of academic psychiatrists who state that the marketing of these drugs amounts to a “betrayal of the public trust” (featured in the video below).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1XHNJyti1gE
Yes, we should all get our information about medications from Hollywood movies!
Because the movies always stick to the truth and NEVER overdramatize violence! LOL
I did not say any such thing. But the great thing about a movie like this is it can generate some meaningful dialogue among critical thinkers. And it can cause the "average person" to question common "knowledge."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/side-effects-trailer-rooney-mara-386069
Hooray for Hollywood!
(Ask your doctor if Ablixa is right for you.)
Zyban I took for smoking literally made me want to fight. Anything!
Think of Nazi Germany.
Mr. Ross is is not "panicking". He just insists on correcting misinformation about medications for the seriously mentally ill (SMI). We know medication is never perfect and can have side-effects in any disease. But without the medication so essential for the SMI they would be returned a life in the Middle Ages when zero could be done to ameliorate their constant suffering.
It would be compasionate and humane to call for scientific brain research to improve medications and search for the cure for all brain diseases. That would be a rational idea that everyone could support.
Of course lots of people have been helped by medications, but we should also listen to the voices of those who have been harmed. The Newtown medication debate isn't about "medication bad," "no medication, good." It is about investigating all possible reasons why someone like Adam Lanza did what he did. Most people on psychotropic medications aren't violent, in the sense of Newtown violent, we know that. But, we also know that there are certain people (like ACunningDisguise, above) in whom the meds produce impulsive and violent tendencies. Suicide is violence, and I bet you know some people, as have I, who committed suicide while on medication. Should we just brush this aside and not do further research?
Best,
Rossa
But then there are people who do not want to take them, but yet some are advocating they are forced to.
And some has been HARMED by them enormously. They deserve to be heard too.
what caused him to destroy his computer?
Too many media observations are based on personal assumptions and a dependence on unscientific age-old myths which captured society's fancy long before we had the scientific ability or tools to inform us of the biological reality of these brain diseases. I give media a "D" for this lack of interest.
Families are oh-so-tired of the great holes in media's knowledge of brain diseases, a subject so prominant in today's news stories. They behave as if any answer they hear has the same weight as any other answer That's not the way to conduct a decent interview. Yet in political interviews their homework shows. Intelligent questioning would help to correct the harmful myths and misconceptions on serious brain diseases..
.
Families have waited roo long for public light to shine on these chronic no-fault brain diseases , where the victims are abandoned to live in the darkest shadows of society. We want the scientific brain research to send them packing--just as we have done with other chronic diseases.
To allow these old errors and superstitutions to stand without correction only adds to public ignorace and relieves governments of their duty to find the cure that only science can uncover.
While I agree that anti- psychotic medication should not be blamed for behavior resulting in violence. It is also not clear that the medication for the treatment of depression or other disorder, does not play a role. Firstly, due to a patient's, medical privacy we will not have access to (his/her) medical records or medication regimen.Therefore, we cannot be any more sure of the conclusions drawn for the use of, or lack of medication. Who is not privy to someone, who is on medication for psychological or other purposes? The same medication beneficial in one is not in another.
While Wikipedia is for the most part a reliable resource, in this article it appears as noteworthy as the other three sources cited. It is clear it is not one element, which triggers in a person massive, fatal, behavior. It is also true that in the chain of assistance to persons requiring medication for psychosis or depression, experiments and errors are made.To not acknowledge that this is true is highly naive, or worse, defensive of the practices under the protective umbrella of privacy, for those who are very vulnerable.
Nonetheless, to the persons who work tirelessly performing sincere efforts to benefit the vulnerable resulting in quiet, success, in and out of the medical arena, gratitude is due.
Yes, exactly. It is a logical fallacy to claim that correlation proves cause because there are always other variables present that could be the cause.
In the case of mass shooters who were taking anti-psychotic medications, a third variable is that the individual very possibly had a serious mental illness. Could that be the cause?
A fourth variable is that the individual was very possibily not taking the meds as prescribed, or even taking them at all. Could that be the cause?