SSRI drugs (Prozac) report mentioned at capital

[tabberski]

Does anyone know who the individual was who had the report about the SSRI drugs and first person shooter games being tied in with all the shootings. I would like to get a copy of that report. Very interesting stuff, I think it really needs to get out to the media.

[mrShinola]

I haven't seen a scholarly report, but John Noveski's last facebook post listed all the mass shooters and what drugs they were taking.

Here is an article with a screen shot of the post:

http://digitaljournal.com/article/340996

Here's Noveski Rifle Works facebook page. The post is down the page on 12-27-12.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Noveske-Rifleworks/181862575167497

[mrShinola]

OK. Here's a scholarly article:

http://jaapl.org/content/31/3/377.full.pdf+html

[Nalez]

Does anyone know who the individual was who had the report about the SSRI drugs and first person shooter games being tied in with all the shootings. I would like to get a copy of that report. Very interesting stuff, I think it really needs to get out to the media.

It does not look like a report, more information from some google searches. The testifier was Anthony Hulsebus with concerned citizens against violence. the list of 4800 incidents that involved SSRI's looks to be taken from ssristories.com which lists many non-violent events as well. In addition it looks like he was referring to a recent blog article published in psychology today.

I should note that the FDA has required the warning that SSRI and other antidepressant medications may cause the increased risk of suicidal behaviour in patients younger than 24 since around 2008, and therefore this behaviour has been well know for years. This is the reason why patents using SSRI's should be closely monitored by a qualified psychiatrist.

The study regarding video games was done by the university of Indiana.

[tabberski]

Fantastic I will be giving this info to Bob Davis.

[MJY65]

I think the meds are something worth looking into, but I also think we need to be careful. I would suspect that more people are shot by someone who is drunk than those on Rx meds. You also have to wonder about the potential behavior of individuals who are untreated. It's not like they were perfectly fine until the day someone gave them Prozac.

[kollector03]

I think the meds are something worth looking into, but I also think we need to be careful. I would suspect that more people are shot by someone who is drunk than those on Rx meds. You also have to wonder about the potential behavior of individuals who are untreated. It's not like they were perfectly fine until the day someone gave them Prozac.

Yes, but I'd wager that the introduction of psychotropic drugs is either a trigger event or a synergistic element in the pathway to violent or suicidal behavior. I've seen the resulting behavior when the SSRI perscribed is not a good match for the patient and it can be quite an eye opener.

The big problem with these drugs is that the same drug will not necessariarly effect people in the same way. One user may be perfectly fine using it and another on the same drug and same doseage may be vastly different with regards to behavior.

Don

[MJY65]

I think the meds are something worth looking into, but I also think we need to be careful. I would suspect that more people are shot by someone who is drunk than those on Rx meds. You also have to wonder about the potential behavior of individuals who are untreated. It's not like they were perfectly fine until the day someone gave them Prozac.

Yes, but I'd wager that the introduction of psychotropic drugs is either a trigger event or a synergistic element in the pathway to violent or suicidal behavior. I've seen the resulting behavior when the SSRI perscribed is not a good match for the patient and it can be quite an eye opener.

The big problem with these drugs is that the same drug will not necessariarly effect people in the same way. One user may be perfectly fine using it and another on the same drug and same doseage may be vastly different with regards to behavior.

Don

Very true, but when we try to go after a product (drug, video game or rifle) due to the extreme cases, I don't think we are helping our cause. Just like ARs, the vast majority of SSRI users benefit from them and pose no risk to the rest of us.

[Nalez]

Very true, but when we try to go after a product (drug, video game or rifle) due to the extreme cases, I don't think we are helping our cause. Just like ARs, the vast majority of SSRI users benefit from them and pose no risk to the rest of us.

This is the reason I posted the information I did, just so its out there, not to help or hurt the position. I am sure a good number of people you know are on SSRI's or other medications, and do not pose a risk, so tread carefully.

[kollector03]

I think the meds are something worth looking into, but I also think we need to be careful. I would suspect that more people are shot by someone who is drunk than those on Rx meds. You also have to wonder about the potential behavior of individuals who are untreated. It's not like they were perfectly fine until the day someone gave them Prozac.

Yes, but I'd wager that the introduction of psychotropic drugs is either a trigger event or a synergistic element in the pathway to violent or suicidal behavior. I've seen the resulting behavior when the SSRI perscribed is not a good match for the patient and it can be quite an eye opener.

The big problem with these drugs is that the same drug will not necessariarly effect people in the same way. One user may be perfectly fine using it and another on the same drug and same doseage may be vastly different with regards to behavior.

Don

Very true, but when we try to go after a product (drug, video game or rifle) due to the extreme cases, I don't think we are helping our cause. Just like ARs, the vast majority of SSRI users benefit from them and pose no risk to the rest of us.

I would agree with that. The only risk element is, in my non-medical professional opinion, is when the patient is bouncing from one drug/dosage to another in search of the ideal one that gives the desired result.

I've seen anecdotal accounts with regard to psychotropic drugs being linked to violent behavior and quite a few of these shootings involving a younger shooter. It's compelling enough that I would like to see more detailed research into this to establish a definitive link.

Naturally it still boils down to effective parenting. If you have a child that is under the care of a physician and is being perscribed these drugs, the problem isn't solved simply with a pill. You have to monitor the results and ensure that the behavior changes are positive and the side effects are not cause for concern. Additionally, if your a gun owner, enhanced measures to secure firearms and ammunition in your residence should be implemented. A common sense solution that would not require another law to get it done.

The doctor or pharmacist that should be warning of possible side effects could easily include a redommendation for implementing these enhanced storage recommendations tomorrow if they wanted, but I think that they are terrified to introduce the possibility of a link between the drugs perscribed to violent/suicidal/homicidal behavior out of fear of legal litigation.

[MJY65]

You have to monitor the results and ensure that the behavior changes are positive and the side effects are not cause for concern. Additionally, if your a gun owner, enhanced measures to secure firearms and ammunition in your residence should be implemented. A common sense solution that would not require another law to get it done.

The doctor or pharmacist that should be warning of possible side effects could easily include a redommendation for implementing these enhanced storage recommendations tomorrow if they wanted, but I think that they are terrified to introduce the possibility of a link between the drugs perscribed to violent/suicidal/homicidal behavior out of fear of legal litigation.

Now that sounds like a great idea. Including a warning just like the "don't operate heavy machinery" is something we could all get behind. Safe storage (personally monitored, not by gov't inspection) also makes sense to me. A few years ago when I had outpatient surgery and was on pain meds for a few days, I placed all my firearms in the safe, locked the combination lock with the secondary keylock and gave it to my wife before heading to the surgical center. I didn't know how I would react to the meds and didn't trust myself around the guns during that brief time period.

[tabberski]

I spoke with a few doctors and nurses today. They feel that these drugs are for the most part very beneficial . their use is more widespread then people realize. Patient monitoring is very important until a dosage that works has been established.

[Mn01r6]

I am reposting my answer from the last thread that addressed this topic: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=37620&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=ssri

SSRI's are some of the most commonly prescribed antidepressants on the planet and include Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, and Celexa, to name a few. You likely know a few coworkers and family members on these - they are very, very common.

So, a few things to remember: 1) Correlation does not mean causation. 100% of mass shooters drank milk as babies - a perfect correlation. 100% also possessed a firearm at the time of the shooting. Neither Milk nor Firearms caused the shootings. 2) When people die of cancer and they have chemotherapy drugs in their system, do we say the chemo caused them to get cancer and die, or do we rightly conclude that the medicine used to treat their condition didn't do enough to help, and that they succumbed to the disease? 3) Unlike other medical issues, psychiatry is almost purely interview based. That is how we interrogate the mind for mental illness. If people are not floridly psychotic, they can hide their plans to perpetrate evil from even the best trained clinicians.

I am not saying there isn't a link, but researchers have studied this issue and have not found anything close to what is being insinuated here.

There are no easy answers to the problem of gun violence. Poverty and the prohibition of recreational drugs certainly plays a major role in the common, day to day gun violence. As for spree killings, better access to mental health professionals and better awareness by friends and family of warning signs and the family restricting access to all potentially harmful objects/substances (from rat poison to firearms) would go a long way.

[PaperPuncher]

Be careful of what brush and how wide of a brush you start to paint with, because the medical conditions mentioned are NOT the cause of gun deaths. Medical conditions and mental health issues are a VERY sensitive area to start pointing fingers at members of society and saying, you, you and YOU, no guns allowed, when in fact the medications and medical conditions aren't the issue at all.

People that need help in the future may well avoid getting it, knowing they will be heavily stigmatized, as well...should the govn place darker insinuations on the conditions. Asking society to quantify who should and should not be allowed a right to own guns based solely on their mental health is a very sticky situation and we had better be very careful who we allow to set those parameters.

Keep in mind that mental health professionals lean heavily left/liberal and they may be all to willing to set very low standards for prohibiting gun ownership, just so they aren't later sued for malpractice or erring in judgement. Worse yet, they may just set the standards low so they can satisfy their own personal bias. I trust noone when it comes to telling the world who should and should not, be allowed to own guns.

Gun deaths have yet to be identified as caused by one typical mental health condition, however, the mental health industry will probably be glad to state for the record that people on anti depressants, anxiety, or PTSD medications might be likely. People today on anti-depressants probably number 5-10% of society, if not much more. Thats a pretty wide and ugly brush to use...and probably not accurate or honest.

[kollector03]

Be careful of what brush and how wide of a brush you start to paint with, because the medical conditions mentioned are NOT the cause of gun deaths. Medical conditions and mental health issues are a VERY sensitive area to start pointing fingers at members of society and saying, you, you and YOU, no guns allowed, when in fact the medications and medical conditions aren't the issue at all.

People that need help in the future may well avoid getting it, knowing they will be heavily stigmatized, as well...should the govn place darker insinuations on the conditions. Asking society to quantify who should and should not be allowed a right to own guns based solely on their mental health is a very sticky situation and we had better be very careful who we allow to set those parameters.

Keep in mind that mental health professionals lean heavily left/liberal and they may be all to willing to set very low standards for prohibiting gun ownership, just so they aren't later sued for malpractice or erring in judgement. Worse yet, they may just set the standards low so they can satisfy their own personal bias. I trust noone when it comes to telling the world who should and should not, be allowed to own guns.

Gun deaths have yet to be identified as caused by one typical mental health condition, however, the mental health industry will probably be glad to state for the record that people on anti depressants, anxiety, or PTSD medications might be likely. People today on anti-depressants probably number 5-10% of society, if not much more. Thats a pretty wide and ugly brush to use...and probably not accurate or honest.

I agree with you on this one. As I stated previously, I believe that the only risk element is when the patient is bouncing from one drug/dosage to another in search of the ideal one that gives the desired result. That is when the maximum amount of monitoring and awareness is needed to ensure safety for all involved.