Forbes Article "Conveniently" DELETED Yesterday Claims SSRIU Drugs Caused Sandy Hook And Others

reply to post by AvisNigra


I'd prefer not to say my credentials here. I'll shoot you a pm.

Originally posted by tide88

Originally posted by Hijinx
reply to post by R_Clark

 

Ooooooooooo, I dunno about the suicide rates being linked to these drugs in the military, but it is shocking to see the correlation between SSRI's and Murder.

It seems more often than not, military suicide is linked to soldiers not receiving care due to their stressful duties(PTSD), Depression, remorse, so on, so on.

People who are taking these medication are taking them for a reason. To claim that the medications actually cause them to commit murder is ridiculous and baseless.

Maybe it has more to do with the medications not working and their condition. What is to say they wouldnt have commited the crime if they never too the medications, or how many of these medications have actually stopped people from committing crimes.

Violence against one's self and/or others is a recognized and much downplayed side effect of this class of drugs, Tide. I can vouch from personal experience as my dad tried to kill my mom a few months after beginning to take Prozac. The shift from pleasant to be around to homicidal was sudden and very nearly lethal. To make matters worse his state of mind had amplified his strength. The only reason I was able to stop him is because I was already twice his size and strength by the time he snapped.

Perhaps a little more knowledge and a lot less ego on your part would help you.

reply to post by Seede

I should ask you the same. Can you show me

Critical thinking dislikes your hyperbole.

You didn't address what I said, and now you're spinning.

This is what you essentially said

most SSRI's destroy the brains of most people taking them.

I am being mindful of your language. You're not.

The burden of proof is on you. Asking me to research instead of you substantiating your own claim is silly.

I never said there wasn't harm. I never said there wasn't wrong doing in the pharmaceutical industry.

I am asking you to backup your claim.

If you don't then it's willful disinformation and we don't need that here.

Originally posted by Putyournamehere
Those drugs are horrible, they make you into a zombified state of your former self. I took anti-depressants, prescribed by my doctor to quite smoking, and let me tell you, those couple days I just wasn't me. Sure, it made every cigarette taste absolutely disgusting, but I felt horrible, inside and out. I can only imagine how a young child who is forced and manipulated into taking these drugs feels. And usually they don't get a say in the matter.

edit on 16-1-2013 by Putyournamehere because: (no reason given)

You were prescribed Brupropion (Wellbutrin brand in the US). The drug has absolutely horrid side effects for many people, myself included, but it's not actually an SSRI. It's a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor and, for me at least, has a side-effect profile much more unpleasant than any SSRI.

reply to post by jsipprell


Oddly enough of the three anti-depressants I have taking Bupropion was the most effective with the least amount of side effects.

Perhaps it's because it targeted dopamine and norepinephrine that it worked for me. I assumed in my case it was because my depression was dopamine related and not serotonin. I dunno.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by jsipprell

 

Oddly enough of the three anti-depressants I have taking Bupropion was the most effective with the least amount of side effects.

Perhaps it's because it targeted dopamine and norepinephrine that it worked for me. I assumed in my case it was because my depression was dopamine related and not serotonin. I dunno.

I've known people who have taken Buprupion and been quite happy with it. Everyone is different.

Still, there is a rather sizable number of people who report really horrible experiences with Buprupion. When I was on it, years ago, after a seven day ramp-up it felt like my skin was inside out and I experienced severe dysphoria. Stopped taking it right away but it took a couple days before I started feeling normal again.

I guess it did help with smoking cessation. I spent all my time trying not to flip out so I didn't really think about cigarettes.

I think it should be criminal to prescribe these powerful drugs to youngsters. It is "off label", and doctors should not be allowed to prescribe to young people.

Obviously it is immoral and stoopid.

reply to post by Salander


It should be crime to prescribe to young people?

Originally posted by Ghost375

Every single "fact" you mention after that is so asinine, it's funny. People do worse with drugs than placebo? I'd love to see a study that shows that. It's you who shouldn't talk til you provide some links to actual studies for these asinine claims.

I still can't believe you said "Schizophrenics do better unmedicated." That's just so ignorant, it's unbelievable. Second generation antipsychotics are EXTREMELY effective at treating hallucinations and other positive symptoms of schizophrenia.

edit on 18-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

This is just a FEW links for you, ONLY related to schizophrenia.

If you really want to have some fun, research the Soteria House, and how, after Mosher found that his non-medicated schizophrenics were faring far better than their medicated peers, he found his funding disappeared & his career destroyed. Isn't this a CONSPIRACY site? Doesn't this sound like a conspiracy to you?

I don't think you know your field as well as you think you do. And I'm just a layman. I think you believe what Big Pharma tells you. Best of luck with that!

----------------------------------------------

M. Rappaport, "Are there schizophrenics for whom drugs may be ...contraindicated?" International Pharmacopsychiatry 13 (1978): 100-111.
"8% of non-medicated patients had to be rehospitalized within 3 years... 73% of medicated patients had to be rehospitalized" (for patients who were briefly medicated & then taken off, the rehospitalization rate was 47%)

C. Harding, "Empirical Correction of Seven Myths about Schizophrenia...", Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia 384 (1994): 14-16.
A twenty-year follow-up of schizophrenic patients showed those who had become "asymptomatic and living independently, had close relationships, were employed, able to care for themselves and led full lives in general... all had one thing in common: they had long since stopped taking their medications". The conclusion: "it may be a very small percentage who need medication indefinitely".

Repeated WHO studies show "being in a developed country is a strong predictor of not attaining a complete remission" (A. Jablensky). The best outcomes in the entire study were in Agra, India, where only 3% of patients were maintained on an antipsychotic. (This study was done in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1990s, all having same results.)
53% of Schiz patients never had a second episode of psychosis, and 73% were employed at 15-22 year follow-ups (K Hopper.

During the first 3 years of treatment with antipsychotics, symptoms worsen (patient becomes more psychotic than originally), and significant brain damage is done (shown by MRI), including shrinking brain volume. The thalamus and basal ganglia also swell. Changes are "dose related". Changes appear to the brain within 12 WEEKS of beginning treatment. (Chakos, 1), (Chakos, 2

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Salander

 

It should be crime to prescribe to young people?

To give people with undeveloped brains a substance that causes permanent brain damage? Yes, it should be illegal. Please look for a study showing what the long-term outcomes are for these kids.

*waiting*

Nasty Nasty drugs, don't give them to your kids

We got along fine for 1000s of years without these types of drugs... there are too many variables involved in each individual's brain chemistry to prescribe only a certain number of drugs per illness. There is no telling what the consequence can be from person to person

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Only certain drugs, in this case those psychoactive drugs used by so many these days.

No studies were done on young people when those drugs were certified and accepted, therefore the literature does not apply to long term effects on children.

And those effects are immense. We know that from several genations worth of administering those drugs to those youngsters, and look what it makes them do.

Otherwise, what drugs administered to youngsters should meet certain standards, and most often do.

The fatal exception I think is this class of drugs and the way it is so widely used these days.

reply to post by Schkeptick


Please see my previous post.

Certain drugs should not be administered to youngsters because it interferes with their development.

reply to post by Schkeptick

To give people with undeveloped brains a substance that causes permanent brain damage?

Please cite some scientific sources to collaborate permanent brain damage. At prescription dosages.

reply to post by Salander

And those effects are immense. We know that from several generations worth of administering those drugs to those youngsters, and look what it makes them do.

What does it make them do?

Also by 'youngster' I am thinking 25 and younger, as the FDA defines as 'young'.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


There are none, because there is no real scientific research done. There is also none proving the opposite.

reply to post by TKDRL


And if that's the case I would want everyone to be honest about it.

No solid evidence either way is what everyone should be resonating if that's in fact the truth of the matter.

Yet many have been spreading the idea it causes permanent brain damage, destroys the brain, etc. Any claim requires something to collaborate. Especially such bold of a claim as those.

If people were calling for further studies and precaution I would wholly support it. There is much more to be understood about neuro pharmacology and neuroscience in general. Truth is these chemicals help many people alleviate their ailments. It seems to me, more than naught. For some they don't help, and others even make matters worse. Perhaps they are causing damage. That should be explored. But members shouldn't be spreading disinfo, which is exactly what an unsubstantiated claim is.

I have been off of effexor for going on 7 days now, cold turkey. The "experts" say you are supposed to step down really slowly. When you go research, and listen to the real experts(people that actually was on it, then got off it), stepping down slowly makes withdrawal a tiny bit lessened, while stretching the process out weeks or months. Even then, once you stop altogether, you get the full blown withdrawal. Seems like the stepdown process is nothing more than milking as much money as they can out of people looking to get off it.

Anyways, if you asked me two weeks ago, why I was getting ready to quit, I would have said, because it has no effect on me, it's a waste of money. Scary, but I was wrong. I had forgotten what it was like to feel really happy. I had not laughed until I couldn't breath in a long time. I didn't realize any of this, until about two days after I stopped taking it. The withdrawal is interesting, probably helps that I lived through getting at least one migraine a week as a kid, so I have something worse to compare it to. Makes it seem not too bad by comparison.

Very irresponsible to say SSRIs are the sole cause of these mass killings.(people will start buying into it and either tinker with them or quit cold turkey) Not wise

Most people that are prescribed these meds do not follow the directions and they begin to tinker with them or quit.....this is what causes the bad effects.
This includes drinking and partying on meds as well----marijuana, x, coc aine, speed, energy drinks, Narcos, meth etc.

There are a bunch of irresponsible psychiatrists out there as well from newbies out of medical school to elitists.