Y'all are a bunch of wankers!

antidepressant coverup in progress

This guy is tracking how the major media is ALTERING its previous articles that mention Cho's use of antidepressants, and the quotes from his roommates about the drugs:


The only thing they are changing in the articles is the part about antidepressants.

This article summarizes many recent shootings that were antidepressant induced:


Don't miss this fascinating article in which the federal government accidentally lets slip that they ALREADY have a database of everyone in the US who is seeing a psychiatrist and exactly what medications they are taking:


"Some news accounts have suggested that Cho had a history of antidepressant use, but senior federal officials tell ABC News that they can find no record of such medication in the government's files."

Permalink Practical Economist 
April 23rd, 2007 4:21am
Why blame antidepressants for violence?  Can't it be that people who might become violent are also depressed, and thus take antidepressants?

That's not the same thing as the antidepressants causing the violence.  Mentally stressed people are likely to take meds.  They are also perhaps more prone to becoming unstable, though luckily, few take it to the extent that Cho did.

Let's all say this together (again):  correlation <> causation.  OK?
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
April 23rd, 2007 4:28am
8% of the population takes antidepressants. Almost 100% of school shooters in recent years took them. Read the warnings on the label. Psychosis is one verified side effect.

more: http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/138727/index.php
Permalink Practical Economist 
April 23rd, 2007 4:46am
If 8% of the population are taking them, and psychosis is a side effect, wouldn't we be having a lot more of these incidents?

I'm saying that these people were already prone to psychosis before they ever took antidepressants.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
April 23rd, 2007 4:51am
Depression and psychosis are totally different things. Stuff labelled as side effects is stuff that happens as a result of taking the drug. Also psycho-motor agitation, suicide ideation, hyperkinesia, depersonalization and akaphesia are side effects. You can see the depersonalization and the psycho motor agitation in the Cho video tape.

The studies show that, comparing depressed people taking antidepressants, and equally depressed people in a control group, the antidepressant takers are twice as likely to engage in suicidal behavior. There is no doubt whatsoever scientifically that antidepressants CAUSE suicide. If that wasn't true, the numbers would be the same as with the control group.
Permalink Practical Economist 
April 23rd, 2007 4:56am
No, it could be that the more suicidal depressed people are more likely to take antidepressants.

Did they do a study where the depressed people didn't know if they were actually taking antidepressants or a placebo?  If this double-blind study did not take place, then you're talking about two different populations:  depressed people who chose to try medication, and those who chose to go without.  Therefore you might expect different behaviors.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
April 23rd, 2007 4:59am
"correlation <> causation"

let's say this again. sometimes correlation is all you have, when you don't actually understand the mechanisms of things. like why people become psychopathic mass murderers.
Permalink $-- 
April 23rd, 2007 5:00am
Yeah, so do we ban antidepressants?  No.  So now what?
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
April 23rd, 2007 5:02am
who said ban? just don't be in denial that maybe there is a big problem. look at the evidence properly.
Permalink $-- 
April 23rd, 2007 5:06am
Well you guys are either incredibly stupid, playing stupid, or psycho. You take the pills don't you?

I guess you don't think the FDA does valid research. Everyone here is perfectly capable of reading the black box warning which is required by FDA order on any SSRI pills they are popping:

"Antidepressants increased the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in short-term studies in children and adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Anyone considering the use of [Drug Name] or any other antidepressant in a child or adolescent must balance this risk with the clinical need. Patients who are started on therapy should be observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior."

Permalink Practical Economist 
April 23rd, 2007 5:07am
If you would care to visit the FDA site, you'll see that the studies were double blind placebo controlled studies. Not that that will stop you from now posting what you think is wrong with the study, or how the Pharma friendly Bush administration is somehow secretly anti-pharma and is directing the FDA to post nonsense.
Permalink Practical Economist 
April 23rd, 2007 5:09am
you're preaching to the choir in my case, PE. I knew a suicide case last year who had been on these things for years. I'm convinced the guy's condition was made worse by the drugs.
Permalink $-- 
April 23rd, 2007 5:11am
OK, sorry.

These things probably really are helpful for some people, even many people. But we can't overlook the solid repeatible scientific evidence about the serious and deadly side effects in a minority of people who take them. Even if it is 'only 4%' or such numbers, with millions taking them, that is far too many. And there is no way currently to predict which patients will be adversely affected.
Permalink Practical Economist 
April 23rd, 2007 5:17am
sure. When people start saying "so do we ban them ..." like it's the only path, that just obscures the issue.

You have a mechanism which is fundamentally not well understood (depression). You have a range of possible treatments, many of which seem to work for *some* people (diet, exercise, counselling, drugs ...) Some of those treatments carry risks. There are also big business interests obviously distorting the picture.

So it seems the smart thing to do would be to try different solutions for a given patient, and try to minimise the risk. What do we actually do, most of the time? Prescribe.
Permalink $-- 
April 23rd, 2007 5:27am
There's also the separate issue of whether any of them actually work.

Here's one of many double blind placebo studies that studied several antidepressants and found that none of them were any better than the placebo:


Here's a review of double blind placebo controlled studies that checked for increased hostility as a result of antidepressant use:


On average, the volunteers taking the real drug had twice the rate of hostility, and it affected both adults and children. Those who had OCD though, had seventeen times the hostility on real drugs compared to placebo.
Permalink Practical Economist 
April 23rd, 2007 5:28am
the business interests in the medical industry seem to be out of control. Their welfare has become more important than that of the patient.
Permalink $-- 
April 23rd, 2007 5:30am
I agree. It's a problem of corporations in general, but in certain industries the effects of chasing profit at all costs have been deadly.
Permalink Practical Economist 
April 23rd, 2007 5:37am
I think that antidepressants probably help more people than they hurt.  However, they are probably very overprescribed, particularly since they started running drug advertisements on television (a huge mistake, IMO).

Anyhoo, in Cho's case, he was obviously more than just "depressed" before or after he started taking any meds.  If the stories are true, he's been acting strange since he was a little kid. 

There are no easy answers as far as what to do about antidepressants.  Do we want people not getting them, and killing themselves/others from depression, or too many people getting them and killing themselves/others from psychosis?

It's like seat belts.  Mostly they save lives in a collision. Occasionally they cause a person to be pinned in the wrong place and die in a collision, but the chances of that are a lot less than having the seat belt save a life.  So you go with the best odds.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
April 23rd, 2007 6:35am
I believe most of the school shooters also kept journals, so obviously keeping a jounal makes you a serial killer.
Permalink Send private email Philo 
April 23rd, 2007 8:52am
>Why blame antidepressants for violence?
Because scientology must always blame pychiatry for everything.

The "prison planet" article is a press release by CCHR, a front for scientology.

Clicking the "factions" link at the bottom of the rumormill article brings one to:
Which is a tin foil hat rant about the federal reserve, knights templar and cowboys. 

Why don't you try to dig up anything that vaguely resembles the truth, instead of foaming at the mouth nonsense?
Permalink Peter 
April 23rd, 2007 8:54am
I've known too many people that got all whacked out on pharmaceuticals to believe that it is all just some conspiracy stirred up by scientologists that hate or fear psychology.

These people were all 'normal' prior to their being medicated. Now one, I can understand, but this is no less than three individuals who became manifestations of sheer lunacy after medication.
Permalink JoC 
April 23rd, 2007 10:20am
They were on the wrong med/dose.  ::shrug::

There are people out there who NEED their meds in order not to be crazy, possibly homicidal lunatics.  Talk to my wife who's a psych nurse.  If they couldn't medicate some of their patients, they couldn't function.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
April 23rd, 2007 10:22am
I believe that, but we have strong tendencies to overmedicate. There's a pill for everything. It would seem to me that many of those pills make people go batshit crazy and lead them to physical aggression from hitting and spitting to trying to run people down with their vehicles.

When that sort of behavior was not even close to present prior to the pill popping, I think there's definitely some causation goin' on.
Permalink JoC 
April 23rd, 2007 10:29am
"Why don't you try to dig up anything that vaguely resembles the truth, instead of foaming at the mouth nonsense?"

You're right Peter, the FDA, the BMJ, etc are all fronts for the scientologists. If it's not a press release from Peter, it's just not reliable information.
Permalink Practical Economist 
April 23rd, 2007 1:18pm
The article was a crap article. Written in a narrative style that implies the author himself was witness to the events and that the facts are unimpeachable, it was most certainly garnered from interviews with dubious sources. When new facts came to light to throw those facts into dispute, they removed the article & revised the dubious paragraph when drafting a new article.

If it is a coverup, it's a coverup of crap reporting by the LA Times.

As for the federal database of people who use controlled substances as prescribed by a licensed practitioner, that is pretty damning. I mean, it's not like there's another database of potentially deadly objects that should only be handled by people who have been licensed - say firearms or automobiles - anywhere in this country.
Permalink Send private email Impractical Economist 
April 23rd, 2007 7:32pm
"As for the federal database of people who use controlled substances as prescribed by a licensed practitioner, that is pretty damning. I mean, it's not like there's another database of potentially deadly objects that should only be handled by people who have been licensed - say firearms or automobiles - anywhere in this country."


Oooo look, shiny!
Permalink JoC 
April 24th, 2007 10:36am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: April, 2007 Other topics: April, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics