Forbes Article "Conveniently" DELETED Yesterday Claims SSRIU Drugs Caused Sandy Hook And Others, page 10

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.

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.

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*

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.

Dumbing down reality
  Posted 5 days ago with 103 member flags

The 800 Pound Gorilla Everyone Ignores
  Posted 16 days ago with 67 member flags

Organic food hit piece to coincide with California proposition 37.
  Posted 2 days ago with 67 member flags

The Illusion of Choice and Truth
  Posted 10 days ago with 52 member flags

The catch all mental health disorder... Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD)
  Posted 15 days ago with 42 member flags

A chronical of the BANKSTER WARS
  Posted 7 days ago with 42 member flags

Conspiracy Theory:The Lost Episode
  Posted 4 days ago with 39 member flags

666, NWO, Aliens and You!
  Posted 13 days ago with 36 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: