Antidepresants and teen violence

[olmontanaboy]

I've been reading alot lately about unexplainable teen violence and killings and the media instantly blames firearms. Well I'm almost 65 years old and I don't remember all these crazy tragic events happining in the 1950's when I was a kid. Sure some kids acted up but it wasn't happening to the extent or severty that we see today. We had guns back then too and even though I grew up in south Jersey we hunted and shot targets and had access to guns and ammo. My daughter was having problems with her marrige a few years ago (her husband was cheating on her and finaly left her and their children for another woman and skipped the state to avoid child support) she went to the doctor for a bad cold and he asked her how she was doing and she told him she was unhappy. In one short doctor visit with no medical test done he told her she had a chemical imbalance in her brain and prescribed an antidepressant. In a couple of short days she went from unhappy to attemping suicide and wound up in the hosipital, the doctor then changed to a different antidepresant and she went to the emergency room with more thoughts of suicide. To make a long story shorter. She finally found a doctor who took her off the drugs and the thoughts of suicide quickly went away.
She now has a decent job and a good man in her life who cares about her and her children and is her old happy self again (no chemical imbalance bs anymore). I beleive these antidepresant drugs do far more harm than good especially in teens and young adults. This is a link with some not reported information by the gun hating media. The Sandy Hook teen killers blood was also filled with the latest antidrepresant. The huge drug companys make billions on these drugs and dont want this information known. http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?p=school

[UtopiaTexasG19]

If you look on the "Contraindications/Data" sheet that comes with all anti-depresents and feel good drugs almost 99% list suicidal thoughts and depression as a side effect. They appear to work well for some but as you say are most probably way over prescribed with not any after care or over sight. Someone on another board said the drug companies are now targeting veternarians. His Mother's dog was "a bit too active" and their veternarian prescribed something like Ritalin for the problem. We live in a society where most think there is a pill to solve every problem. The news media keeps focusing on guns when there are deeper problems in our society and the way we now raise our children. Guns are a easy target one can blame when you are too lazy to delve into the real cause of how our society works. It appeares we now have two generations where personal responsibility is not taught and the "it takes a village" mentality, where everyone talks but nothing is ever done, prevails. Sitting in circles, holding hands, and singing kum-by-ya just plain does not work.

[Bud Helms]

I know this is related to the latest war on guns, but it is actually off topic for this board.

Closed.

Okay, after reconsideration and a polite PM exchange with the OP, this is reopened. I consider it alive by a thread, so please be serious about your contribution to this one and make it related to the specific topic.

Bud

[Merad]

Sounds like you're looking for a scapegoat to deflect blame away from guns.

Millions of Americans own and use guns every day without harming anyone. So when one or two maniacs go crazy of course it's foolish to blame guns.

Millions of Americans also use antidepressants every day without going crazy or killing people. Most of them see significant benefits to their lives and some even see results that are literally life changing. Yet when someone who happens to be taking antidepressants does go crazy, the antidepressants immediately become the evil tools of rich corporations. Interesting how that works....

By the way, I have yet to find a single credible source confirming that the Sandy Hook shooter was even taking antidepressants. All I've found so far is speculation and wishful thinking by a few right wing commentators.

[olmontanaboy]

Well Ok, maybe this thread should be closed. My point was not to find a scapegoat only to point out that even the drug companies that produce this drug admit that it has possible very bad side affects in teens and young adults that are prescribed it. I will try and find a reliable source to show if the Sandy Hook shooter was under the influence of this class of drugs. Not all doctors agree on the benifits of such drugs.
Jim

[wingman]

Personally I believe drugs are related to most of the mass shooting and suicides both civilian and the high rate in the military, I don't view this idea as trying to protect firearms but rather gaining the truth.
I grew up in an era when high school boys carried there deer rifles in the pickup, no one talked of hurting anyone but there were few drugs used prescription or otherwise.

[Mike Irwin]

"Millions of Americans also use antidepressants every day without going crazy or killing people."

I'm alive today because of SSRI antidepressants. No doubt in my mind about that.

Just about every drug can have side effects, including psychological side effects.

Everyone wants absolutely perfect drugs that will be cheap, cure their problems, and have absolutely zero side effects.

Unfortunately, that's not realistic, and never going to happen.

[Tom Servo]

We've had a couple of threads on the issue.

The role of antidepressants is something the media and politicians seem reluctant to address.

[Mike Irwin]

The question is, how do you address it?

The media certainly doesn't shy away from screaming headlines like "Antidepressant laden teen slaughters busload of nuns and puppies!"

Yet there are no screaming headlines telling of how many teens and others whose lives have been saved by these same drugs. Stories like that don't sell.

And you want politicians in the mix? Really?

[cen]

I've been prescribing antidepressants for 13 years to patients that I determine need them. None have a "side effect" per say of suicide or suicidal thoughts. The problem of suicide is inherent when someone truly depressed is prescribed these medications. Many depressed individuals lack the energy or drive to do anything, hence "depression". When a person starts taking antidepressant medication, their energy (mental) increases, they feel more motivated, ( albeit on the wrong things sometimes) and they act on their thoughts of suicide or violence. Many people are so depressed that they are contemplating suicide but simply lack the ability to plan and carry it out. These people are best hospitalized or institutionalized during the period that they are first started on medication,( in an ideal world). While I don't prescribe to children, I feel these medications, when prescribed appropriately, have done exponentially more good than anyone could imagine. Certainly a minority of persons will have less than optimal results and I'm certainly sorry to hear about olmontanaboy's daughter.

[sakeneko]

Not politicians, yet. But the public, absolutely. There are too many people who don't know what SSRIs do, don't understand antidepressants, and have unrealistic expectations of them. (It reminds me of some folks and guns, to be honest.) Even UtopiaTexasG19's comment about "feel good drugs" is misleading as hell, although he might not have meant it to be.

SSRIs don't medicate mood like earlier antidepressants (say, Valium) do. As I understand it (and I am NOT a doctor or pharmacist), they fix a specific chemical trigger in the brain instead of applying a "chemical cosh" to many or all of the hormones associated with emotions. In other words, they treat the actual problem to at least some extent instead of simply suppressing or altering symptoms.

They're also relatively new (less than 20 years in use). People are different. Some drugs that save my life (I'm diabetic) would probably hurt or kill a number of you if you took them, especially in the doses that I do. Penicillin has saved millions of people, but it almost killed my father, who was allergic to it. *No drug* is going to be good for everybody, or always do exactly what the doctor wants it to do and nothing else. That doesn't mean you ban the drug, though! It means you learn what it can do, learn how to administer it, learn what doses and treatment protocols to use, and learn who is better off not taking it at all. That's true of SSRIs as much as any other drug.

Black and white thinking is a scourge. :/ Like drugs in the wrong bloodstream, guns in the wrong hands are a very bad idea. Even the most rabidly pro-gun people (looking into the other room at my husband) support keeping them out of the hands of people who are malicious, enraged and out of control, or are known to have mood swings that lead to unpredictable violence. That doesn't mean you ban the drugs, and it shouldn't mean that you ban the guns. You *learn where the problem lies* and fix that.

Rant over. For today.

[Scouse]

Fully agree with sakeneko above.

If there is one topic over which public ignorance reigns, even more so than on firearms, it is issues around mental health.

[cen]

Well said sakeneko

[olmontanaboy]

I still beleive there is enough evidence about antidepresants and school shooting that this should at least be looked into more closely. Like I said in my first post These shootings seem much more prevalent today than they did 20 years ago. I'm not saying I have all the answers, I know I don't but this link makes a lot of sense to me. http://www.drugawareness.org/recentc...hool-shootings

[Tom Servo]

And you want politicians in the mix? Really?

Nooooo...but I agree with sakeneko. I seem to remember the anti-gun crowd crowing about how they wanted a "conversation." Any such conversation should involve the ways in which we dope our kids up.

[ScottRiqui]

Interesting question, but be careful not to confuse correlation with causation. It's possible that the same kinds of people who engage in mass shootings are the same people who are likely to be taking prescription anti-depressants.

[cen]

I would say its much MORE likely that people that theoretically need to be on antidepressants but are not, for whatever reasons, would have a greater likelihood to be a mass shooter. Or at least be more likely to engage in violent behavior.

[Nitro96]

don't know how reliable this is but is worth checking out


at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant...vy5QulUZgLy.99

[olmontanaboy]

The problem of suicide is inherent when someone truly depressed is prescribed these medications. Many depressed individuals lack the energy or drive to do anything, hence "depression". When a person starts taking antidepressant medication, their energy (mental) increases, they feel more motivated, ( albeit on the wrong things sometimes) and they act on their thoughts of suicide or violence. Many people are so depressed that they are contemplating suicide but simply lack the ability to plan and carry it out.

I would say its much MORE likely that people that theoretically need to be on antidepressants but are not, for whatever reasons, would have a greater likelihood to be a mass shooter. Or at least be more likely to engage in violent behavior.

Well, I don't know, but to me anyway, those two statements sound like they contradict one another a little. If a person is so depressed that they might desire to take a weapon and harm himself or worse innocent children why would they be given a drug that could motiviate them to carry out their plans. I would think that before being prescribed such a drug any person should go through some serious testing by a licensed psychirtrist to determine their true mental state, few people would freely admit to being homicidal to their family doctor in my opinion. People who's only excuse for not committing violent antisocial acts, is that they lack motivation need to be institutionalized until cured and not drugged and turned loose on society. Some doctors prescribe antidepresants to children for crying out loud, because they mearly act up in class, thats more than sad.

[Mike Irwin]

"Like I said in my first post These shootings seem much more prevalent today than they did 20 years ago."

But which of the factors is the trigger in the rise in school shootings?

1. Increased use of pharmaecuticals?

2. Increased exposure to violence on TV?

3. Increased exposure to violence in video games?

4. Unknown/unrecognized societal factors and pressures?


For the past 20 years, since that guy shot up the printing plant in Kentucky, some people have been trying really hard draw a conclusive link between SSRI-type antidepressants and violence.

Not unlike the same way some people have been trying to draw a conclusive link between firearms and violence.

The studies that have been conducted are, at best, inconclusive.

[olmontanaboy]

But which of the factors is the trigger in the rise in school shootings?

1. Increased use of pharmaecuticals?

2. Increased exposure to violence on TV?

3. Increased exposure to violence in video games?

4. Unknown/unrecognized societal factors and pressures?

I can't say positively Mike, but:

1. Increased use of pharmaecuticals?
They gave us a spanking if we were bad enought in the 1950's, not drugs

2. Increased exposure to violence on TV?
When I was a boy in the 1950's we watched TV after school and it was pretty darn violent, mostly westerns and war movies maybe not as graphic but plenty of shoot em ups.


3. Increased exposure to violence in video games?
We played outside and got plenty of exercise running around and shooting at each other playing cowboys and indians and war. Good guys against the baddies. lol.


4. Unknown/unrecognized societal factors and pressures?
Don't know about that but I'm sure it has some merit with the breakdown of the family and it's values.

[olmontanaboy]

In looking for more information on this subject of mass shootings and antidepresants I find that the pharmaceutical companys would rather settle out of court that defend their drugs and subject themselves to public scrutiny. As shown in this article by Dr. Peter Breggin http://breggin.com/index.php?option=...ask=view&id=51

[lcpiper]

Well, like the OP and I am sure many others here. I don't remember hearing anything about mass shootings when I was growing up. The closest thing was the ex-marine Vietnam Vet that went UT sniper mid 60s.

Truthfully I probably don't actually remember the event on TV as I do all the documentaries on History channel and such over the years.

But now, well now it's just crazy. And people still want to blame the inanimate object and not the individual. And something or things that are having a dramatic effect on his life and what it is that is motivating him.

And let's not fail to forget the media and two weeks of fame for someone who has decided they are a loser. The media knows the effect they are having and they have not a care one. As far as I am concerned, when the media lost their objectivity and their cherished journalistic professionalism, that's when they gave up their right to their journalistic liberties.

I shut them all off, no satellite, no cable, no TV at all. I no longer care what any news network has to say. When I pick up on a story or event I hit the internet and look for the local papers on site.

[cen]

Lcpiper, your right, I'm 45 and growing up I honestly never remember hearing about a mass shooting ,( might have been one at a McDonald's in like 84'). I don't know if it was just no internet, or 3 channels on TV, you just didn't hear about it. So when that happens you don't get copycats doing it. I'm sure there was one guy who was going to kill himself and said "hey why don't I take as any people as I can with me". So with that mindset, a school, mall, theater, etc is the perfect place to do that. You have to wonder, if no one every committed a mass shooting or other violent things, where would people get the ideas to continue to do them.

[tyme]

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

Just about every drug can have side effects, including psychological side effects.

Not directly. Not every drug directly manipulates dopamine, serotonin, or norepinephrine concentrations in the synapse.

It's well documented that SSRIs, over time, affect the post-synaptic serotonin receptor density, leading to tolerance. It's suspicious that people who have been on these drugs long-term claim to receive benefits from them long after their last dosage increase. If there are any studies showing continued efficacy after a year or two of taking this class of drug at the same dosage, saying "it just works" begs the question: how? What mechanism of action is allowing these drugs to work if the brain has adapted to that increase in serotonin availability by decreasing serotonin receptor density?

If people were being prescribed cocaine (another neurotransmitter-related drug, although it affects more than serotonin) long-term, by the millions, and for psychological problems, would you not be the least bit skeptical, and would you not encourage them to investigate other solutions before they resort to such drastic measures?

Here's a hypothesis for why SSRIs might be psychologically harmful:

Serotonin levels vary a certain amount without medication, but apparently not much:
(that's from a journal article on circadian rhythms: unmedicated serotonin levels)

I have not found similar graphs for serotonin density in the synapse, before and after taking a SSRI, but I would expect there to be a more dramatic variation when taking a SSRI (due to the drug concentration and therefore its efficacy fluctuating over the dosage period), except in the case of continuous-release / sustained-release versions available for some SSRIs.

If there is higher variance, that must not be a major problem for most people (or else it would show up in medical trials), but who knows what effects that might have on someone who's already unstable.