OT: Sad news out of Alabama today
Gunman opens fire into a bar around mid-night last night wounds at least 17. It is a location that many students frequent. I just don't understand what drives people to do some of the things that they do. Thoughts go out to all that were injured.
If you're going to report what is "known" in the medical community, then you probably should produce some sort of epidemiological work (or several) which supports your position, and not news stories and anecdotal evidence which are geared towards mass consumption and probably not full of the statistical data you would need anyway - in contrast to what you have said, you'll very much be in need of numbers.
As far as I am aware, statistically, incidences of violent behavior directly attributable to SSRI use remain a statistical rarity, with many studies showing that indeed the drugs do reduce aggression or, at worst, keep it at a level comparable to the general population in the study group. Indeed, several British studies, as I recall, report that one thing that confounds the reporting of "hostility events" in these studies is that some of the people reported for adverse reactions have other known disorders (obsessive-compulvise disorder comes up quite a bit as a driver of behavior in these cases).
There are enough cases out there of abnormal reactions, however, that it would be reasonable to assume that a very small percentage of patients might become violent. Here's one place where I think you're running into walls with your reasoning though - what about those people with no known history who turn unpredictably violent? There are far more cases of that in history than what you're talking about here.
One thing that I think you're missing is that violent behavior is multivariate, and to reduce it to "X, therefore Y" is not doing justice to the study of the behavior nor providing a reasonable explanation of it. Worse, it is almost totally useless to take an event with a low-base rate - like homicide or mass violence - and then attribute it to the use or non-use of a substance. You would likely find the correlation to be shockingly low between those variables.
I'm well aware that SSRIs have been linked to violence and psychotic breaks. But your argument is putting way too much causal burden solely on SSRI use [emphasis mine]:
What drives people to do these kind of things? It's very simple, anti-depressants -- serotonin uptake inhibitors, or SSRI's.If one looks into the most imfamous of these recent incidents one will find that most, if not all, these killers were on SSRI's.
You're arguing (or at least heavily implying) that SSRIs are the direct cause of "most, if not all" of recent high profile violent crimes (I notice you don't specify what group includes "these killers" so I have no idea what your assumed base rate would be). If it were the case that SSRIs caused a spike in mass murders (which I've not actually seen any stats to suggest that these crimes are increasing in frequency), then at the very least there shouldn't be a strong negative correlation with SSRI use and violent crime.
Also, you're committing a massive correlation = causation fallacy. Wouldn't a more likely explanation for the connection between mass murderes who suffer psychotic breaks and SSRI use be that they are mentally ill and are therefore on psychotropic medication prior to their psychotic breaks?
Perhaps I overstated my position a bit, for that I apologize.
"Wouldn't a more likely explanation for the connection between mass murderes who suffer psychotic breaks and SSRI use be that they are mentally ill and are therefore on psychotropic medication prior to their psychotic breaks?"
Not necessarily, and it depends upon what one's definition of "mentally ill." In strict DSM terms "clinical depression" is a "mental illness." However, that being said, the vast majority of "clinically depressed" people don't have a propensity for mass murder that one would characterize as layman's "mental illness." Again, check out http://www.ssristories.com/index.php
and tell me if you think that everyone of these people on the extensive and tragic list were going to be murders or commit sucide had it not been for the SSRI's.
So no, it wouldn't be more likely that the mentally ill to the point where they were as of yet unactualized mass murderers in need of a catalyst. The reports are chocked full of otherwise "normal" people who are put on SSRI's for a few "issues" (nothing psychotic) and then BECOME a completely out of character psychotic maniac.
My taboo political statement which Bronx took such exception to concerning Pharm. corp. profits is again appropriate. These drugs are dangerous, but as is evidence in microcosom in here, everyone wants to argue that they're not and disparage those that think that are.
And spree killers, but if you're trying to insinuate Bigfoot isn't real, well, thems fighting words!!
First, I already agreed with you that SSRIs have been linked to violent behavior. I think where we disagree is the rate at which SSRIs actually cause violent acts. Think of the millions of people on SSRIs in the US (side note: I think SSRIs are way over prescribed), and think of the relatively low rates at which SSRIs can be directly and causally linked to aberrent violent behavior. Basically, I think you're taking very rare occurrences and treating them as the norm.
Second, the site you keep linking to is still simply anecdotal and correlational evidence. No strong connection between SSRI usage, especially any causal connection, and violence can be drawn from that site. And keep in mind that in the context of the number of people in the world on SSRIs, that the number of stories listed on that site make for a very small portion. (Plus, that site seems to be a big list of any side effect to SSRIs, not just violent or suicidal reactions. Not to mention that there are massive comorbidity issues; people were placed on the medication intitially for a reason. Also, it appears that at least a chunk of the stories listed aren't from the medication but from withdrawal symptoms due to not weaning themselves off properly.)
Third, I haven't been disparaging you. If anything, your repeated accusations that everyone who disagrees with you is in the pocket of "big pharma" is pretty insulting and condescending to everyone who is responding to your posts with logic and evidence.
Fourth, regarding actual empirical evidence, research generally agrees with you that there are instances in which SSRI usage has been linked to violent outbursts or suicides. Contrary to what you're arguing, though, research also shows that these events are the exception and that on average, violence is negatively associated with SSRI usage in a population (link, link).
Finally, as to why I'm arguing against you, to put it simply, it's because I think you're wrong. Initially I responded because I thought it was pretty clear that arguing that SSRI usage in the US is responsible for some kind of mass murder outbreak was ridiculous. But now I've been sucked into actually explaining why I think you're wrong and laying out logical and evidence-based responses to back up my position, which is something I'm happy to do and find intellectually stimulating. In short: I think you're wrong and I'm happy to explain why.
delete
Of course there are a lot of causes for violent crime, but it's not flamebait so suggest that one of the causes of mass shootings is SSRI -- unless, of course, you represent a pharma corp. that manufactures and pushes them.
I love me some uncooroberated, unprovable and by extension not-disprovable and entirely random correlation being represented as causation.
Media reports of violent crime have gone way up since Barney came on the air as well. I knew that damn purple bastard was no good.
Don't have to be a patronizing douche bag Blaze.
My point is not "uncoorborated" and far from entirely "random." The discussion comes up in amongst law enforcement routinely -- when they respond to a person going nuts, to a person shooting up a school, or office, or bar, there is a very high likelihood that they're on some sort of SSRI and they've had a psychotic break. I am not drawing a inane conclusion as you inappropriately chararcterize. I don't know what you're all getting so defensive and diparaging about the discussion.
Mentally unstable people get put on medication due to being mentally unstable.
Then mentally unstable people do mentally unstable things.
So the medication is to blame?
All of this, despite the fact that there are millions upon millions of people using and abusing this stuff daily without shooting up clubs or bars.
The use of anti-depressants has gone up astronomically in recent years, while violent crime rates have steadily dropped.
This seems to be one of those bogeymen people like to conjure up because they can't cope with the random, chaotic, nature of life.
Sometimes crazy people are gonna do crazy shit.
Painting people on SSRI's as "mentally unstable" is a very erroneous and dangerous assumtion. As I said above, there millions of people on SSRI's for relatively trivial issues, especially teens -- who, btw, are the most prone to adverse the effects -- who are not "mentally unstable." This is an indictment of both the Pharm. corps. that push the drugs, and MD's that prescribe them. Have you not been watching the news concerning the BILLIONS in fines paid out by Pharm. corps. for illegal marketing practices. They're PUSHING these drugs on MD's, who make significant sums of money by giving them to their patients, whether they're appropriate or not. Those that deny that this occurs are simply hiding their heads in the sand -- it's documental LEGAL FACT.
Saying that there are million of people on SSRI's that don't become mass murderers is saying nothing at all. The point is that there are some people who would have NEVER committed such act, but when they're put on SSRI's they do.
I find it ironic that you attempt to indict me as being unable to "cope with the random, chaotic nature of life" when it you that grasp at the easiest rung of "hey, they're nuts, that's why they're on meds, and crazy people do crazy things" when the evidence is overwhelming opposed to your contention.
I never said everyone who is on an SSRI is mentally unstable, however, I tend to think that people who walk into a bar and indiscriminantly shoot at people are mentally unstable.
I have no doubt that MDs get wined and dined by pharmaceutical companies, and that after a weekend golf retreat they return to work ready to peddle the next Zoloft.
I do, however, have strong doubts about the link you're trying to make between these drugs and an uptick in "mass murders."
So far, you've provided a list of anecdotes, but above I provided a website that has thousands of anecdotal "encounters with Bigfoot." My point in posting that should be fairly obvious.
You may have strong doubts, but the people that arrest and prosecute the perpertors, and write for scientific journals most certainly do not.
As far as "evidence" goes, obviously you didn't look at the key at the bottom of the site. All the puple cases are "Legal Cases Won using SSRI Defense" -- i.e., the ANTITHESIS of antecdotal. Further, all the cases in red are "Important Journal Articles" -- again, not antecdotal in the least.
Show me a scientific journal or a legal case in which one uses a "Bigfoot Encounter Defense" and we'll be on the same page. Your attempt to "zing" only illustrates your ignorance and refusal to properly read the material.
Again, you can have strong doubts, but your opinion is nothing but denial in the face of such damning evidence to the contrary.
I have no doubt lawyers can lawyer their clients out of things, but that doesn't prove a direct link exists, just that lawyers are good at their jobs.
You haven't really provided any strong evidence, or hard science to back up your claims.
A lot of your "evidence" isn't even internally consistent.
In the "important" (whatever that means) journal articles section, there are several articles that claim the medicine is directly responsible for a rise in violence among patients. There are also several articles that claim the medicine doesn't even work, or have any greater effect on a patient than a placebo.
So which is it? Does the medicine not have any better effect than a placebo, or does it have such a great effect that it's causing otherwise sane people to lose their minds and become violent psychopaths?
This is aside from the fact that there are many variables that need to be accounted for in order to make a definitive claim.
EDIT: Some of those "important journal articles" are patently ridiculous. There are several which essentially try to pin the entirety of the financial crisis on widespread use of SSRIs by "traders on Wall Street."
It would be laughable if it weren't so earnest in its hysteria.
I'm not sure you know what "anecdotal" means. A list of legal cases won using an SSRI defense is still anecdotal evidence (i.e., each legal case is a single anecdote). Also, a lot of the journal articles covering SSRIs and violence are individual or collections of case studies, which are themselves anecdotal evidence.
Convincing evidence to the contrary would include research looking at the correlation between SSRI usage and violence within a population (e.g., a study looking at changes in homicide rates compared to changes in SSRI usage over a specified period of time), within a randomly selected sample (e.g., a laboratory-based study in which half the sample received an SSRI and half received placebo and changes in rates of violent behaviors were tracked over a period of time), or some neurobiological evidence showing the exact mechanism through which SSRIs may be increases the propensity for violence (e.g., the use of SSRIs decreases prefrontal cortical functioning, and in turn decreases behavioral inhibition leading to more impulsive and aggressive behaviors - this example is actually totally wrong, because serotonin actually increases behavioral inhibition, in part, via its effects on the PFC).
Do you even know what SSRI's do?
http://www.ssristories.com/index.php
Uncoorborated? Really? Again, I don't understand the reaction y'all are having to this aspect of the dicussion. You're acting defensive and disrespectful towards me. Why?
This is just a list of stories. This isn't data that corroborates anything. This website isn't going to report any crimes that don't involve people who are taking SSRIs, so there's no wider data set to compare this to. There isn't any "watchdog" group compiling examples of murders that don't involve anti-depressants.
Whatever guys. It's obvious that no matter what I bring up y'all are going attack in and claim that it's not corralative. Have it your way. I tend to defer to those that have their finger on the pulse of this issue, not a message board population that likes to lash out at those outliers that might happen to raise an unpopular point. Which, bring up my inabilty to wrap my mind around why so many find this point so unpopular? Have I inadvertantly stumbled onto a Big Pharma. blog cleverly disguised as a Michigan Sports Blog? It's like the mathmaticians and engineers in here will oppose any contention that doesn't fit within their technical criteria and are thus unable to even discuss an issue with out being dismissive.
People disagree with you because you haven't produced an argument backed by relevant evidence.
Not because we're on the payroll of pharmaceutical companies, or victims of groupthink, or anything else.
Everything you're linking to seems like it's to a website for an advocacy group or some other group with an agenda about the issue. That's not really the best place to look for objective, scientific data.
The problem is that even if 100% of mass killers were on medication that still does not constitute causation. I could just as easilly make an argument in that case that there is a better understanding of mental illness today, and with more attentive doctors, teachers, etc. almost all sociopaths are identified and placed on medication in an attempt to curb their behavior and prevent random violence. Unfortunately, the medication is not enough to prevent every incident, so although it stops many tragedies from occuring, some still do.
-I am not necessarily making that point, only illustrating the dangers of using that method.
Monty Python view of the dark ages "Bring out your dead!". I'd rather be now despite problems like this.
Again with the politics and pulling stuff out of your butt.
Seriously, before posting please just read the FAQ - it's why it is there.
How is this overtly political? I am simply responding to the OP's "I just don't understand what drives people to do some of the things that they do" with one plausible drive. Telling me that I am "Pulling stuff out of my butt" is a sorry excuse for a discussion.
You said this:
What drives people to do these kind of things? It's very simple, anti-depressants -- serotonin uptake inhibitors, or SSRI's.
And insinutated it was the cause for much (if not all) violent crime. With no additional evidence, that seems pretty butt-worthy. As you stated later on in other responses, you were making a general point, there are other factors, etc. I was responding to your initial post, and I stand by my statement at that time.
For the record, I do believe chemical imbalances are at the root of SOME violent crime, and medical drugs play a factor in that. But blanket statements on such deep and nuanced topics drives me crazy.
It sounds like you have not the slightest clue what you're talking about.
Right backatcha Drew.
Two things. First, "if one looks into the most imfamous of these recent incidents one will find that most, if not all, these killers were on SSRI's." Care to name even one? Second, you obviously do not know anyone who has suffered from depression and benefited from SSRI's. They are perhaps one of the better examples of how the world is better now than ever.
Sixty years ago you could keep your doors unlocked and rarely had to worry about theft.
I remember just twenty-five years ago you could live in Flint and raise a family. Now people are fleeing the city in droves.
I don't think you have an argument that my hometown was just as bad twenty-five years ago than it is today. It wasn't.
---- Statistics ----
Flint had 2,208 violent crimes per 100,000 people. There were 49 murders per 100,000 people, more than five times the national average, and 84 forcible rapes per 100,000 people, more than double the national average.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/449022472.html?dids=4…
and now it's pretty nice. but that seems as irrelevant as flint's decline, right?
but the murder rate is "soaring", up to 275 murders so far this year, "worse than Kabul" according to HuffPo. The Tribune today reports on a new game called "Pick 'em Out and Knock 'em Out", whereby random victims are selected for sport. The use of an i-phone is liable to attract a flash mob. None of this proves anything statistically, but Chicago is an unlikely choice to represent the other side of a coin than Flint right now.
Yeah, awesome, you found one of the very few places in America that, when you cherry pick stats, fits your story. Maybe you would prefer to life 60 years ago in Flint, but would you like to live in a Flint sized city 600 years ago?
Average life spans are going up as are quality of life metircs. The world is getting, on average, a much better place to live.
I guess the best way to measure the crime rate is to look at the number of crimes per population (say 50-60 years) and determine a percentage then compare it to those same numbers today.
I used Flint because it was my hometown and is in a sad shape. I think it only fitting when one considers the idea "the world being a more dangerous place" that they start with their hometown.
I agree with the idea that the world has always been dangerous and also that life expectancy has gone up. Obviously not having to fight a World War in our generation helps as well. Medical innovation has also played a roll.
However, in the case of my hometown there is no question that violence has increased.
is the most dangerous city in america. so your method is flawed beyond repair in your case.
A couple holes in your argument.
Chicago was growing at the time that it was the "Murder Capital of US." The population grew 25% between the 20's and 30's. Flint's population has declined for fifty years. This flies in the face of "but all the good people left." No way of determining if criminals moved along with the "good" people or in the case of Chicago if criminals joined the city along with the "good" people.
A way to measure this scenario would be to look at Chicago 1925 and compare it to Flint 2010.
Chicago had 16 murders per 100,000 people in 1925*
Flint had 60 murders per 100,000 population in 2010
Therefore Flint is nearly four times worse in regards to murder today than Chicago was in 1925. If Chicago had the same murder rate in 1925 that Flint does today then the total number of murders would have been 1620. Chicago 1925 was DEFINITELY much safer than Flint is today.
*This assumes a lesser population as I calculated the 1920s census figures and assumed that the murder rate would stay the same. The article provided reported 108 murders in the first quarter of 1925 (432 assumed for the year).
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint,_Michigan
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2010/12/a_chronology_and_map_of_flints.html
nobody, at any point, has disagreed with you about flint being extremely dangerous. the only thing people are trying to get you to understand is that you can't draw a conclusion about the world being a more dangerous place just because flint has become a more dangerous place.
the only reason i brought up chicago was that even though it's gotten safer, it would be ridiculous for me to say "hey, chicago's gotten safer, so the world's gotten better." because then you could say, "nope, look at flint." the point is that the fact that flint has become more dangerous does not reflect a general trend about crime statistics.
The population of Flint 60 years ago was double what it is today. The half that fled did not do so to find a better place to practice violent crimes. They did so to get away from it and to find a job... so the no criminals left, the criminals stayed behind (generalization yes).
Still overall the population of the US, of Earth is rising and the violent crimes per capita are? are not? (I really have no idea) Just saying that an isolated city proves little when talking about "the World"
Nationally, crime rates peaked in the early '90s, and have been steadly declining ever since. Current crime rates (both violent and property) are roughly what they were in the late 1960s. [Link - Wikipedia, yes, but it's a good review of the FBI's and DoJ's numbers from the past 50 years.] Claims of "things are worse than ever now" are simply wrong (at least in terms of crime rates).
Just because Flint has gotten worse, doesn't mean that the world or even the country is in the gribs of some kind of crime-ridden decline. If anything, your quote highlights what an outlier Flint is ("more than five times the national average...more than double the national average").
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
-Socrates
Pretty much any claim that "things used to be better" makes me roll my eyes.
You at least willing to admit that there is no question that Flint is worse?
Am I willing to admit that a single massive statistical outlier is trending in the opposite direction of the rest of the country? Sure, I'll cop to that.
Even if the world gets worse or better there is one thing we can all agree on:
It's great to be a Michigan Wolverine!
it just fails to reflect anything interesting about the world at large. that's the point.
i've never seen it before, which made me suspicious. this website also says it's not socrates/plato: http://quotationsbook.com/quote/44998/
edit: here's a better link.
Fair point. But then:
"I would there were no age between sixteen and three-and-twenty, or that youth would sleep out the rest; for there is nothing in the between but getting wenches with child, wronging the ancientry, stealing, fighting–"
-Shakespeare
i knew i did those years right!