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

Well another 2 articles to support the OP.......

www.dailymail.co.uk...


www.nydailynews.com...

A friend of Nancy Lanza told the New York Daily News: 'He was on some serious medications to help deal with his issues, but [Nancy] never told me what they were or if he stopped taking them.' The friend added: 'They told me they think he had a psychotic break and were asking if Nancy mentioned anything about Adam not taking his medications.

I guess it depends what you believe or not. It also says they may find out if he had drugs in his system. If they can't tell anyone what drugs he was on before death due to laws can they say what was in his system?

reply to post by SMOKINGGUN2012


From your link

The toxicology exam, which could take several weeks, involves testing body fluids for psychiatric medications or illegal substances.

So they are testing for it. Just a matter of it being public record.

From all the sources I have seen it's all speculative. Some say he was on an anti-depressant, some say he was on an anti-psychotic. I haven't seen anything definitive for either.

Conneticut State Police Refusing To Realease Toxicology Report

Also, the office of the state's chief medical examiner told CNSNews.com that the results of a toxicology test on Lanza will not be available for "quite some time." Once it is completed, the office said, the cause and manner of death will be made public but not the actual toxicology report.

Looks like we will never know...

reply to post by TKDRL


I guess everyone's chemistry is different but trust me the concern for not quitting cold turkey is not just a trick to milk for more money. For real there are thriving online support communities built solely around dealing with the struggle of quitting anti-depressants. Cold turkey is usually strongly discouraged. I have been on 3, and went cold turkey for 1 and weened for the other 2. Weening was by far the better option for me. If cold turkey is working for you it's working!

As for Effexor not helping, but apparently making it worse...

It's unfortunate but it's not uncommon for someone to try 2-3 before they find one that helps. I took 2 SSRIs that didn't help and or made me feel worse before I found one that did indeed help significantly. As I mentioned before briefly, I believe in my case I needed something that targeted dopamine and not serotonin.

And when I say didn't help or made it worse. I mean they either didn't alleviate the depression or made the depression worse. I never experienced violent thought on any.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


The first law they need to change is to allow us to know what drugs were taken before and after death PERIOD. All the rest of this crap is just NWO agenda smoke and mirrors.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I assume you are aware that many youngsters in grade school and high school are administered such psychoactive drugs. That is the age group I'm talking about when I say 'youngsters'.

Pick any of these SSRI type drugs and see if the label use is approved for youngsters. I'm betting none of them, or very few, are approved for use with children and young adults.

If I'm right, then when they are administered to youngsters, all such use is "off label", and a violation of some rule or the other.

The reason for it is simple--the company bringing it to market NEVER tested it on youngsters.

So to answer your question, I'm not claiming that they "do anything" to anybody. The point I'm making is that NO research has been done on the effects of the drugs on youngsters, and that such OFF LABEL prescribing is against the rules and possibly grounds for a lawsuit.

reply to post by Salander


Okay thank you for clarifying.

I am confused however..

Pick any of these SSRI type drugs and see if the label use is approved for youngsters. I'm betting none of them, or very few, are approved for use with children and young adults.

You're saying they are not approved yet they are widely prescribed by MDs regardless?

If not then it's hardly the fault of anyone but the youngsters or their guardians who are taking them without professional go ahead.

As of early 2005, only fluoxetine is FDA-approved for major depression in patients under age 18

What_are_the_real_risks_of_antidepressants

nd that such OFF LABEL prescribing is against the rules and possibly grounds for a lawsuit.

Okay I see you updated your post. Well I agree this is wrong.

Do you have reason to believe this is prevalent? My personal interactions with MD's seem to show tight adherence to prescriptions.

Originally posted by Salander
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

 

I assume you are aware that many youngsters in grade school and high school are administered such psychoactive drugs. That is the age group I'm talking about when I say 'youngsters'.

Pick any of these SSRI type drugs and see if the label use is approved for youngsters. I'm betting none of them, or very few, are approved for use with children and young adults.

If I'm right, then when they are administered to youngsters, all such use is "off label", and a violation of some rule or the other.

The reason for it is simple--the company bringing it to market NEVER tested it on youngsters.

So to answer your question, I'm not claiming that they "do anything" to anybody. The point I'm making is that NO research has been done on the effects of the drugs on youngsters, and that such OFF LABEL prescribing is against the rules and possibly grounds for a lawsuit.

edit on 22-1-2013 by Salander because: (no reason given)

You are quite correct in stating that SSRIs (and many psych drugs, MAOIs, etc) are not approved for pediatric patients. As I stated a few pages back I have degrees in psych/neuroscience and a masters in pharmacology. I'm currently enrolled in medical school and fairly close to finishing, so this subject is of great interest to me. We're taught ad nauseam that "pediatric patients are not merely little adults" from a pharmacological aspect (peds, pregnant pts and geriatric pts all have their own categories pharmacologically because of differences in things like liver function, water percentages, fat percentages, kidney function, etc). That said, take a drug like paroxetine (Paxil). If you look it up in Medscape under peds dosing you'll find that it simply states, "safety and efficacy not established." However, if you look it up in Epocrates you'll find dosing for OCD in peds set at - Dose: 10-60 mg PO qam; Start: 10 mg PO qam, may incr. by 10 mg/day q1-2wk; Max: 60 mg/day; Info: taper dose gradually to D/C (PO means "per os" or "by mouth" and qam means "every morning"). Now look up something like fluoxetine (Prozac) in Medscape and you'll see peds dosing at 10-20mg PO qDay for Major Depressive Disorder, OCD and "orphan" usage for Body Dysmorphic Disorder and autism. However, if you look under Warnings/Contraindications it clearly states, "This drug is not approved for use in pediatric patients." The dosages are listed for >7 and >8 years of age, but still clearly pediatric ages. (I should say that Medscape and Epocrates are simply two of the tools we use on iPhones, iPads, etc. to quickly look up medical reference material.)

I could go on and on with many more drugs and the same findings. As I stated in my earlier post, I consider these drugs dangerous and feel that they are FAR too widely prescribed.

A book was mentioned earlier in the thread - Anatomy of an Epidemic by R. Whitaker. I downloaded the Kindle version and read it over the weekend. While not without faults I would encourage everyone participating in this thread to read it (very quick read at only 360 pages). I'm still parsing through about 40 studies either cited in the book or tangential to the initial studies, but it's raised issues I wasn't aware of and is forcing me to further come to grips with why we need to severely limit the use of these drugs.

There is great blame to be laid at the feet of both Big Pharm companies and physicians, but we all need to educate ourselves as well. I realize this is a controversial topic and for some reason one that many people who use the drugs take to heart (almost like you're attacking their kids - I've seen it often in the debates both in the real world and online). Ultimately, I simply want to help people and give them the best care. I'm unconvinced that psych meds in a great percentage of the population would fit the definition of "best care." Further, I think there is a significant link to these drugs sequela and violent actions (see my previous post).

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by AvisNigra

 

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

I sent you a PM reply on the 19th; not sure how often you check your messages.

How come it be that the school shootings in Europe are extremely rare despite there are schools, students and also SSRI's are used as most common treatment for depression? It has to be the climate.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Yes, I'm suggesting that they are prescribed "Off Label", and I think that is grounds for a lawsuit. I hope I am wrong.

It is simply 'fashionable' to prescribe these drugs for kids, and from what I understand, here in the US many school authorities request parents medicate those children who are not docile and submissive.

Originally posted by SCITK
How come it be that the school shootings in Europe are extremely rare despite there are schools, students and also SSRI's are used as most common treatment for depression? It has to be the climate.

I truly suspect that an epiphenomenon is occurring that explains this. It's a very good question though. Read about epiphenomena if you're not clear on what I mean (I thought I understand that while working on a master's degree a few years ago, but it wasn't until med school that I truly got it).