Bustamante, "top of her class", now thrill killer after Prozac dosage increase

[PaulConventionWV]

This happened a while ago, but the sentence has just been determined.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=8537225


Defenses attorneys had argued for leniency after presenting evidence from family members and mental health experts about Bustamante's troubled childhood. Bustamante was born to teenage, drug-abusing parents; her father was imprisoned and her mother abandoned her, leaving her in the legal custody of her grandmother.

After a suicide attempt on Labor Day 2007 as she was starting eighth grade, Bustamante was prescribed the antidepressant Prozac. Her dosage had been increased just two weeks before Elizabeth's death. A defense psychiatrist testified that the medication could have made Bustamante moodier and more violent and contributed to the murder -- a theory rejected by a different psychiatrist testifying for prosecutors.

"This was a child who had been spiraling out of control, but has treatable conditions," Bustamante's attorney, Charlie Moreland, said after the sentencing.

But Richardson said the life sentence was justified. He described Bustamante as "a truly evil individual who strangled and stabbed an innocent child simply for the thrill of it."

Also,


Juvenile justice officials testified at a November 2009 hearing that Bustamante had attempted to commit suicide at age 13 after receiving mental health treatment for depression and cutting herself. Witnesses at Bustamante's adult certification hearing described her as a bright girl who ranked roughly in the top third of her class at Jefferson City High School. She had not been in trouble at school or with the law before her arrest in Elizabeth's killing.

So how does someone go from a bright young girl in the top third of her class to a thrill killer. The circumstantial evidence would say Prozac was largely involved, but many will refuse to believe that. The thing is, this kind of thing happens all the time. Regardless of what you believe about modern medicine, the circumstantial evidence is intriguing. Just two weeks before the killing, her dosage had been increased.

Why is it that these drugs, which are supposed to help people with their mental problems, only cause them to get worse and possibly lead to unimaginable consequences, such as in Bustamante's case? It is ironic that these things, which are supposed to support mental health, can cause the exact opposite.

Furthermore, this should lead to an interesting discussion of why many of these supposed drugs have potentially lethal "side effects". Is this stuff really healthy?

[Blueskies]

Its pretty stupid to blame the killing on Prozac, which is one of the more popular psychotic drugs. Why was she prescribed it in the first place? She clearly had some kind of mental issues (otherwise she wouldn't be on the drug) and her mental state was probably deteriorating (otherwise her dosage would not have been increased). Do you understand the logic disconnect here? Just to reiterate: the fact that she was on a psychotic drug and was having her dosage increased indicates that she was the type of mentally unstable person who would commit such a crime.

As for the drugs themselves: its a well accepted fact that the scientific community doesn't really understand how these drugs work or even if they're effective. Most studies have indicated that antidepressants are about 50-70% effective, which is just a little better than a placebo.

But mental illness is a very really thing. And these drugs work for some people. Unfortunately, we as a species do not fully understand the brain right now or how to fix it. Maybe one day in the future. In the mean time, do what you can.

[PaulConventionWV]

Its pretty stupid to blame the killing on Prozac, which is one of the more popular psychotic drugs. Why was she prescribed it in the first place? She clearly had some kind of mental issues (otherwise she wouldn't be on the drug) and her mental state was probably deteriorating (otherwise her dosage would not have been increased). Do you understand the logic disconnect here? Just to reiterate: the fact that she was on a psychotic drug and was having her dosage increased indicates that she was the type of mentally unstable person who would commit such a crime.

As for the drugs themselves: its a well accepted fact that the scientific community doesn't really understand how these drugs work or even if they're effective. Most studies have indicated that antidepressants are about 50-70% effective, which is just a little better than a placebo.

But mental illness is a very really thing. And these drugs work for some people. Unfortunately, we as a species do not fully understand the brain right now or how to fix it. Maybe one day in the future. In the mean time, do what you can.

I realize that. Just trying to get people to think. You are correct that there really is no process that verifies these medicines as effective, but that's because it's a sales game, not an effectiveness game. With the limited competition from other forms of medicine due to federal support of the pharmaceutical industry, all they have to do is sell the pills. It doesn't even matter how effective they are. I am a firm believer, however, that they can have negative results. All you have to do is watch a commercial sometime to realize virtually all psychotic drugs warn of an "increase in suicidal thoughts" from taking the drug. What they probably don't tell you is that it doesn't have to be suicidal. It could also be homicidal.

[Philhelm]

Its pretty stupid to blame the killing on Prozac, which is one of the more popular psychotic drugs. Why was she prescribed it in the first place? She clearly had some kind of mental issues (otherwise she wouldn't be on the drug) and her mental state was probably deteriorating (otherwise her dosage would not have been increased). Do you understand the logic disconnect here? Just to reiterate: the fact that she was on a psychotic drug and was having her dosage increased indicates that she was the type of mentally unstable person who would commit such a crime.

Even the commercials for anti-depression drugs state that increased thoughts of suicide may be one of the side-effects. That's the logic disconnect.

[flightlesskiwi]

I realize that. Just trying to get people to think. You are correct that there really is no process that verifies these medicines as effective, but that's because it's a sales game, not an effectiveness game. With the limited competition from other forms of medicine due to federal support of the pharmaceutical industry, all they have to do is sell the pills. It doesn't even matter how effective they are. I am a firm believer, however, that they can have negative results. All you have to do is watch a commercial sometime to realize virtually all psychotic drugs warn of an "increase in suicidal thoughts" from taking the drug. What they probably don't tell you is that it doesn't have to be suicidal. It could also be homicidal.

i agree.

at the same time, i think this was a well thought out execution. mentally unstable and prozac or not, this girl planned the murder and saw it through. my point is that this didn't happen in a moment of craziness psychotic rage-- this was premeditated and precise.


Bustamante was 15 years old at the time of Elizabeth's murder in the small town of St. Martins, just west of Jefferson City. Evidence presented during her hearing revealed that Bustamante had dug a shallow grave in the woods several days in advance, then used her younger sister to lure Elizabeth out of her home with an invitation to play. Bustamante, who had hidden a knife in a backpack, said she had a surprise for Elizabeth in the forest. The surprise turned out to be her demise.

edit: but it should start the dialogue about people relying too heavily on pharmaceuticals to "fix" problems (that possibly aren't even fixed-- or made worse-- by the drugs).

[Acala]

Literally millions of people take prozac. How many murder someone? And of those who do (all of them demonstrably suffering from some kind of problems to begin with), how is it possible to say they would not have murdered someone anyway? Using this anecdotal evidence to support a connection between prozac and homicide is faulty. To even begin to prove up a connection you would need to compare a population of chronically depressed people who are not taking anti-depressants with a similar population who are taking prozac, and then see if there is a statistically significant increase in acts of violence. I have no idea if there would be or not. But this incident proves nothing whatsoever about prozac EXCEPT that it does not uniformly PREVENT murder.

That having been said, there are much better ways to work with depression.

[PaulConventionWV]

at the same time, i think this was a well thought out execution. mentally unstable and prozac or not, this girl planned the murder and saw it through. my point is that this didn't happen in a moment of craziness psychotic rage-- this was premeditated and precise.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a "moment of psychotic rage". The point is that these drugs facilitate the thought process that would justify doing this. Not all mental side effects of drugs have to be irrational outbursts. I'm not even saying that's what happened. I'm just saying the drug could have been involved in the crime without it necessarily being a crazed outburst of explosive psychotic violence.

[PaulConventionWV]

Literally millions of people take prozac. How many murder someone? And of those who do (all of them demonstrably suffering from some kind of problems to begin with), how is it possible to say they would not have murdered someone anyway? Using this anecdotal evidence to support a connection between prozac and homicide is faulty. To even begin to prove up a connection you would need to compare a population of chronically depressed people who are not taking anti-depressants with a similar population who are taking prozac, and then see if there is a statistically significant increase in acts of violence. I have no idea if there would be or not. But this incident proves nothing whatsoever about prozac EXCEPT that it does not uniformly PREVENT murder.

That having been said, there are much better ways to work with depression.

I'm glad you agree. Even the possibility that stuff like this could happen while someone is on this supposed "medicine" is testament to its failure, but the point is that it raises even deeper questions about the drug because there is the distinct possibility, with all we know about pharmaceuticals, that it could be a causal relationship, or at least partially causal. That should be enough to convince anyone that pharmaceuticals are not the answer.

[Kilrain]

Just based on my own experience, Prozac can be really awful. My wife got the stuff like six months ago, and it messed her up beyond words. She has issues, no doubt about it, but when she started taking this drug, she basically flatlined completely and wanted to do bad things.

The scary part is that she didn't make the connection herself. She had to be told that it was messing her up, and her doctor never understood what it was doing to her, or at least never said anything about it. There's stuff I don't feel comfortable talking about, but it also caused her to go through things she wouldn't have had to if she hadn't started taking the stuff...

Anyhow, this is not to say that some sentence was right or wrong. I'm firmly in the "you're always responsible for your actions" camp, so I don't think it's a good defense to blame a drug that you took voluntarily, but I wouldn't be completely opposed to also indicting people who prescribe drugs when there are adverse effects. If I feed you PCP and you kill someone, I should share in the blame. It's no different when the "drug" is approved by big pharma. And I have no trouble believing that Prozac can trigger people to do bad things. I know it can trigger people to want to do bad things.

If you want the profit when it works, you also have to pay when it fails.

[Romulus]

Prozac is said to have some serious effects on younger people taking it.... Even the company warns about that... if a product is faulty, then they should hold some degree of liability.

[satchelmcqueen]

hey guys. i agree with this story. i got on depression meds years ago for only 9 months and then i stopped cold turkey because my dosage was increased. thank god i still was able to recognize that my mind was starting to change. i was thinking of some bad stuff. i even had dreams that i didnt know if i really killed my kids or not until i walked in their room and checked after i woke up. there is some bad stuff in those meds. i was on effexor though. it took a few months before i felt like me again, but it does screw with your mind. it also made me realize how fragile your real mind and self is compared to drugs and outside influences.

until i took these drug i never believed they could make people turn into someone they werent. so until youve been there.....

[Brian4Liberty]

Nearly all of the "thrill killers" are taking these drugs. Obviously they have issues to begin with, but a known side effect in some people, especially younger people, is for them to become dangerous to others. Without the drugs, they are usually only dangerous to themselves. The medical profession needs to do more than dispense pills.

[dannno]

My girlfriend had been taking Prozac and other SSRIs, xanax and adderall for about 6 years before she started going out with me. I talked her into quitting them, and she has been off the Prozac for over a month, adderall for about 2 or 3 weeks now and is only taking xanax when she really needs to. She has been doing quite well.

The most serious side effect from withdrawal so far has been severe night sweats.

[dannno]

i even had dreams that i didnt know if i really killed my kids or not until i walked in their room and checked after i woke up. there is some bad stuff in those meds.

That is fucked up.

[dannno]

Prozac is said to have some serious effects on younger people taking it.... Even the company warns about that... if a product is faulty, then they should hold some degree of liability.

Nah, the government really just needs to get out of the way. There are plenty of natural substances that are less harsh and don't have these negative effects. If they could be marketed as treating the same types of conditions, then people would have a choice, or at least a stepping stone before going onto these chemical anti-depressants. Instead the government doesn't allow these safer substances to even be marketed because nobody spent tens of millions of dollars to "research" them at an FDA approved facility...

If we had safer alternatives from nature, not only would they be cheaper so insurance prices could fall, but most likely the chemical anti-depressants would only be used in a clinical setting for people with serious issues.

[Romulus]

Nah, the government really just needs to get out of the way. There are plenty of natural substances that are less harsh and don't have these negative effects. If they could be marketed as treating the same types of conditions, then people would have a choice, or at least a stepping stone before going onto these chemical anti-depressants. Instead the government doesn't allow these safer substances to even be marketed because nobody spent tens of millions of dollars to "research" them at an FDA approved facility...

If we had safer alternatives from nature, not only would they be cheaper so insurance prices could fall, but most likely the chemical anti-depressants would only be used in a clinical setting for people with serious issues.

The courts can punish Phizer for some liability.. these drugs can be dangerous, especially when given to younger people. Even their disclaimer says that.

[Brian4Liberty]

Literally millions of people take prozac. How many murder someone?

How many really need the Prozac? When Prozac first came out, it was surprising how many people started taking it. It was supposed to be this wonder drug that made you feel good. It was almost like a new kind of coffee, for anyone and everyone to use. It would have to be a severely defective drug to turn normal people into homicidal maniacs.

[trey4sports]

i'm ready for this shit to be over. This shit is always on the local news.

[Kilrain]

My girlfriend had been taking Prozac and other SSRIs, xanax and adderall for about 6 years before she started going out with me. I talked her into quitting them, and she has been off the Prozac for over a month, adderall for about 2 or 3 weeks now and is only taking xanax when she really needs to. She has been doing quite well.

The most serious side effect from withdrawal so far has been severe night sweats.

Just know that it takes a while for the drugs to clear out of her system. We're talking several months before you can begin to know what she's like without the drugs. Been there, done that. I've seen my girl go off her meds and feel fine for a few months and then start to crater. If it's just in her head or not, well, it's in her head to begin with, so...

Some drugs can help and some drugs can hurt. Knowing what is what is a bitch if you're not level-headed to begin with, and you don't take the drugs if you are level-headed. Basically it's a mess.

[Acala]

Nearly all of the "thrill killers" are taking these drugs. .

Nearly all of them smoke and took sleeping medication and drank alcohol and watched tv and ate transfats and on and on. So which actually CAUSED their murder? You are using the IDENTICAL flawed logic as this: nearly all heroin addicts smoked pot first so smoking pot CAUSES heroin addiction.

The vast majority of people who take prozac never hurt anyone and before the invention of prozac lots of murders took place. So the ONLY thing you can conclude from the data is that prozac does not prevent murder. Nothing more.

I am not defending prozac. I am defending sound reasoning. It is important.

[dannno]

The courts can punish Phizer for some liability.. these drugs can be dangerous, especially when given to younger people. Even their disclaimer says that.

So they straight up tell people how bad their drugs are and people still take them. That is more than what they should be responsible for, imo.

As much as I hate these companies, they should be treated just like everybody else. Buyer beware. Right now it just sucks because anybody who is depressed is going to end up taking dangerous substances if they decide to use "the western medicine industrial complex" to heal themselves, which is not only govt. approved but it is difficult or impossible to market anything else.

We just need freedom, more choices, stop letting the govt. limit our choices.

It's one thing to sell somebody substance A and find out later that they sold you substance B, that would be fraud... but as long as they are truthful about what they are selling, I don't think the seller should be liable for anything beyond that. Otherwise you drive up the cost of doing business because inevitably people are going to come in with dishonest claims about what these substances did to them when really they are just looking for a cash handout.

[Acala]

How many really need the Prozac? When Prozac first came out, it was surprising how many people started taking it. It was supposed to be this wonder drug that made you feel good. It was almost like a new kind of coffee, for anyone and everyone to use. It would have to be a severely defective drug to turn normal people into homicidal maniacs.

I have known some people who benefited from prozac when they fell into chronic depression. It boosted them out of the cycle and after a few months they could stop taking it without falling back into depression. But many other people take it forever.

I advise meditation for depression. But people who are deeply depressed often are incapable of summoning the effort to do the meditation practice. They often need medication at first before they can do anything else.

[Diurdi]

So they straight up tell people how bad their drugs are and people still take them. That is more than what they should be responsible for, imo.

As much as I hate these companies, they should be treated just like everybody else.

Shouldn't the liability in first hand lie with the prescriber then, if the drug company correctly stated how "bad" the drug is?

[Kilrain]

Nearly all of them smoke and took sleeping medication and drank alcohol and watched tv and ate transfats and on and on. So which actually CAUSED their murder? You are using the IDENTICAL flawed logic as this: nearly all heroin addicts smoked pot first so smoking pot CAUSES heroin addiction.

The vast majority of people who take prozac never hurt anyone and before the invention of prozac lots of murders took place. So the ONLY thing you can conclude from the data is that prozac does not prevent murder. Nothing more.

I am not defending prozac. I am defending sound reasoning. It is important.

No offense, but it's not the same. I've seen a person start taking Prozac, no other changes in lifestyle, and she cratered bad. There is no doubt in my mind it was the Prozac. After she stopped taking it, she improved. We're talking causation, not correlation. She chewed gum before and she continued chewing gum. Gum was in all likelihood not the cause.

[angelatc]

So, despite the fact that this is a popular product that (based on the numbers above) relieves the symptoms of depression and therefore improves the lives, of up to 70% of the people that try it, it's evil, and shouldn't be allowed on the market according to the libertarian leaning crowd.

Using the logic above, psychiatrists should be illegal, because there's a strong tie between them and people that commit suicide.

[dannno]

Nearly all of them smoke and took sleeping medication and drank alcohol and watched tv and ate transfats and on and on. So which actually CAUSED their murder? You are using the IDENTICAL flawed logic as this: nearly all heroin addicts smoked pot first so smoking pot CAUSES heroin addiction.

The vast majority of people who take prozac never hurt anyone and before the invention of prozac lots of murders took place. So the ONLY thing you can conclude from the data is that prozac does not prevent murder. Nothing more.

I am not defending prozac. I am defending sound reasoning. It is important.

A relatively small percentage of people take these types of drugs, yet in almost every case where you have these types of strange killings you have someone who was on a cocktail of these drugs nearly every time.

Granted the types of people who do these things have been recognized and put on medication, you also have a lot of stories like satchelmcqueen told above where we see that these drugs can be a direct cause of dark thoughts and potential violence.

[Kilrain]

So, despite the fact that this is a popular product that (based on the numbers above) relieves the symptoms of depression and therefore improves the lives, of up to 70% of the people that try it, it's evil, and shouldn't be allowed on the market according to the libertarian leaning crowd.

Using the logic above, psychiatrists should be illegal, because there's a strong tie between them and people that commit suicide.

I'm not saying anything should be illegal, but if you market a product that helps X amount of people and hurts Y amount of people, you can't say "Eff it, I'll profit from all of you". You profit for the people you help and suffer for the people you hurt. Eventually, you'll find a balance. If serving time and paying compensation for the people you hurt is less than the profits made from the people you help, you get to stay in business. Basic economics. But you can't expect society to bail you out for the pain you cause just because you do some good. It's like the financial crisis all over again, trying to pawn off the problems on others while keeping all the rewards for yourself.

[dannno]

Shouldn't the liability in first hand lie with the prescriber then, if the drug company correctly stated how "bad" the drug is?

Except that this information is available to the patient as well as the doctor.

Then you'll end up having expensive doctors because they will have to have insurance in case they get sued. And you will have people suing doctors, again, trying to get free cash handouts. I don't want to pay for those, I want people to take responsibility for what they are putting into their own bodies. A doctor should be a guide. In a free society, consultations would be very cheap and you could potentially see multiple doctors and shop around until you found one who you think is best at guiding you and your health care.

Right now it is tempting to want to be able to sue doctors because most people want to use that as an incentive to keep them performing well because they don't have a choice of what doctor to go see due to how insurance is setup. Well, in a free market, the incentive for performance would be keeping and getting more customers.

[dannno]

So, despite the fact that this is a popular product that (based on the numbers above) relieves the symptoms of depression and therefore improves the lives, of up to 70% of the people that try it, it's evil, and shouldn't be allowed on the market according to the libertarian leaning crowd.

Using the logic above, psychiatrists should be illegal, because there's a strong tie between them and people that commit suicide.

The true libertarian stance would be to get the government out of it, period. Buyer beware, unless the seller commits fraud.

If I sell two people a 24 pack of beer and one guy drinks 2 beers a night for 12 days and the other guy drinks all of the beers in one night, why should I be liable for what the guy does who drank all the beers in one night?

If I recommend two people Effexor and one of them takes the medicine as recommended and the other goes out and buys twice as much at a pharmacy and ends up killing people and then killing themselves, how does anybody prove what my role in the killing was?

[dannno]

I'm not saying anything should be illegal, but if you market a product that helps X amount of people and hurts Y amount of people, you can't say "Eff it, I'll profit from all of you". You profit for the people you help and suffer for the people you hurt. Eventually, you'll find a balance. If serving time and paying compensation for the people you hurt is less than the profits made from the people you help, you get to stay in business. Basic economics. But you can't expect society to bail you out for the pain you cause just because you do some good. It's like the financial crisis all over again, trying to pawn off the problems on others while keeping all the rewards for yourself.

You "suffer" from the people you "hurt" because they stop buying your product and a consumer magazine does research and lets the public know that Product A helps X% of people and hurts Y% of people. Then the consumer mag might highlight Product B which helps 90% of people and hurts 0% of people.

The market will root it out, we don't need the courts and lawyers to deal with all the petty bullshit.

If something is wrong with you and you find a product that might fix it, it is your responsibility to ensure that what you are putting into your body is going to be good for you. Otherwise people will take greater risk thinking that they can just sue the producer later on.

People SHOULD be cautious, which is why what I'm advocating is best, because it FORCES people to be more cautious about the substances they put into their body.

I researched cannabis for at least 6 months or a year before I tried it. I tried it, liked it, eased my way in and now I've been using it daily for 10 years with amazing results.

I researched raw apricot pits for at least a month before deciding to try it. The establishment says that eating the pits can cause cyanide poisoning. I decided the establishment was full of shit and eating the pits will help to avoid getting cancer. Unfortunately there are few studies to look at because of the government restrictions, yet I STILL decided to do it. That was my decision and I'm willing to take the consequences for my actions.

[Kilrain]

You "suffer" from the people you "hurt" because they stop buying your product and a consumer magazine does research and lets the public know that Product A helps X% of people and hurts Y% of people. Then the consumer mag might highlight Product B which helps 90% of people and hurts 0% of people.

The market will root it out, we don't need the courts and lawyers to deal with all the petty bullshit.

If something is wrong with you and you find a product that might fix it, it is your responsibility to ensure that what you are putting into your body is going to be good for you. Otherwise people will take greater risk thinking that they can just sue the producer later on.

People SHOULD be cautious, which is why what I'm advocating is best, because it FORCES people to be more cautious about the substances they put into their body.

I researched cannabis for at least 6 months or a year before I tried it. I tried it, liked it, eased my way in and now I've been using it daily for 10 years with amazing results.

I researched raw apricot pits for at least a month before deciding to try it. The establishment says that eating the pits can cause cyanide poisoning. I decided the establishment was full of shit and eating the pits will help to avoid getting cancer. Unfortunately there are few studies to look at because of the government restrictions, yet I STILL decided to do it. That was my decision and I'm willing to take the consequences for my actions.

If a product does 80 % good and 20 % bad, the 20 % bad must be the responsibility of the company selling it. If they pawn it off on others, it's nothing but a bailout.

[dannno]

If a product does 80 % good and 20 % bad, the 20 % bad must be the responsibility of the company selling it. If they pawn it off on others, it's nothing but a bailout.

LOL, it is not a "bailout" to put the responsibility of what people put into their bodies onto the individual...

What you are saying doesn't make any sense, can you address what I said about the two people buying the 24 pack of beer? Should we sue sellers of alcohol when somebody drinks too much, or is it the responsibility of the person who drinks the alcohol? They know damn well if they drink too much they might hurt somebody, so why put the responsibility on the seller of the alcohol?

If I know I can go out and buy a 24 pack of beer, drink it and crash into my neighbor's new Corvette and sue the person who sold me the alcohol and make them pay for the Corvette, how does that make any sense?! How does that make people responsible for their own actions?

[Kilrain]

LOL, it is not a "bailout" to put the responsibility of what people put into their bodies onto the individual...

What you are saying doesn't make any sense, can you address what I said about the two people buying the 24 pack of beer? Should we sue sellers of alcohol when somebody drinks too much, or is it the responsibility of the person who buys the alcohol? They know damn well if they drink too much they might hurt somebody, so why put the responsibility on the seller of the alcohol?

If I know I can go out and buy a 24 pack of beer, drink it and crash into my neighbor's new Corvette and sue the person who sold me the alcohol and make them pay for the Corvette, how does that make any sense?! How does that make people responsible for their own actions?

Nope, but when you go to the doctor, you purchase a service, from the doctor and by extension from the drug company. If they say "take two of these a day" and it causes you to do something bad, you've been cheated.

It's like if you have a leaky roof and hire someone to fix it, only their "fix" makes the roof leak even more and causes X dollars worth of damage. In both cases, the person(s) selling you the service sold you a faulty service.

The roofer shouldn't be able to charge you if he screwed up. In fact, he'd be liable for the damages incurred. It's the same with doctors and drug companies.

Unless they have to suffer the consequences when their actions cause harm, there's no incentive to fix what's wrong. Why would they? They're still making money off of every customer and incur no penalty when their "fix" backfires.

You're saying I could sell cyanide as a health product and that it's only the customer's fault when they die.

[Brian4Liberty]

The vast majority of people who take prozac never hurt anyone and before the invention of prozac lots of murders took place. So the ONLY thing you can conclude from the data is that prozac does not prevent murder. Nothing more.

I am not defending prozac. I am defending sound reasoning. It is important.

The vast majority of people who drink alcohol and drive do not get into accidents.

It is impossible to test the theory that these drugs may make people homicidal. Each person is an individual. What can you do, find two mentally disturbed twins, give one a placebo, give one the real drug, and wait around to see if they kill anyone?

The drug companies know enough about this possibility that they give warnings and precautions. The evidence is that they see disturbed thoughts in some people who take the drugs, and some of them go out and kill people. That's about the best evidence we will ever have.

No one is saying ban it. Some of us are saying that it shouldn't be dispensed like candy, and when it is given, the medical provider needs to do their job and follow-up and monitor the person.

[dannno]

Nope, but when you go to the doctor, you purchase a service, from the doctor and by extension from the drug company. If they say "take two of these a day" and it causes you to do something bad, you've been cheated.

How do you prove that the drug caused you to do something bad? When somebody who takes anti-depressants kills themselves, is it because they were depressed or because they were on anti-depressants? What if that person was Kurt Cobain, making $10 million+ a year, he kills himself.. Does Courtney Love get to sue the makers of the anti-depressant for $100 million in lost revenue that he would have made had he been alive?




It's like if you have a leaky roof and hire someone to fix it, only their "fix" makes the roof leak even more and causes X dollars worth of damage. In both cases, the person(s) selling you the service sold you a faulty service.

Then tell your friends what a shitty roof fixer they are and hire somebody better!! Or, better yet, make a contract with your roofer that guarantees your roof doesn't leak for X amount of months or years after they fix it. Then when your roof leaks, you can take the contract to court and force them to fix your roof or pay you back, whatever the contract stipulates.

The point is, that roofer is going to go out of business. That is how the market works. Your solution is to throw a bunch of greedy lawyers into the mix, and all that does is make everything really expensive because all these producers now have to have insurance in case somebody misuses their product or lies and wins a frivolous lawsuit..

You're going to have frivolous lawsuits out the yin yang, and everything is going to be really expensive.




Unless they have to suffer the consequences when their actions cause harm, there's no incentive to fix what's wrong. Why would they? They're still making money off of every customer and incur no penalty when their "fix" backfires.


No, they will have a tarnished reputation and people will go to other roofers who are better at their job.




You're saying I could sell cyanide as a health product and that it's only the customer's fault when they die.

If you're selling cyanide AS cyanide and people buy it and die then it's their fault, yes, absolutely. That's called personal responsibility.

So here is what I want you to do. Go down to the bank and try and get a loan for a start-up business. You are going to sell cyanide to customers as a health product. See how many banks will be willing to finance your loan.

I'll tell you how many, NONE. That is because nobody is retarded enough to start a business selling cyanide as a health product. People are in business to make money. You make money by selling quality products and getting return customers.

A roofer who does a shitty job on people's roofs will go out of business. A person selling cyanide as a health product probably won't have many customers to begin with, but if they do, they will die off and they will lose their customer base. It doesn't make any business sense.

The free market works wonders in this way, where government intervention causes people to be less cautious and things become more expensive. You have more frivolous lawsuits and fraud occurring than if you just let people trade voluntarily and uphold contracts, prosecute fraud, etc..

[PaulConventionWV]

So, despite the fact that this is a popular product that (based on the numbers above) relieves the symptoms of depression and therefore improves the lives, of up to 70% of the people that try it, it's evil, and shouldn't be allowed on the market according to the libertarian leaning crowd.

Using the logic above, psychiatrists should be illegal, because there's a strong tie between them and people that commit suicide.

That's where you're wrong. The overwhelming amount of people who have experience with this stuff, even on this thread, have specifically said it does not work and probably hurts way more than it helps. Maybe YOU think it's a helpful drug that would thrive in a free market, but the fact that it thrives in a market that is not free is probably already an indicator that it is not as good as you think. You just pulled that "70%" figure out of your ass and then ignore the people on here who say it messes you up.

Also, relieving symptoms is not the same as removing the problem, or even making one's life better. Some people actually report feeling like zombies, which is probably a result of the drug's intended effect of making you lose the ability to feel. They don't make you feel better, they just turn off your ability to feel both pleasure and pain.

I, for one, don't think that Prozac would survive in a truly free market. I'm sure angela knows this is not a free market, so it is very suspicious that she thinks Prozac's success in THIS market is testament to its success in a free market where medicine isn't controlled by government organizations, such as the FDA. Also, the fact that Prozac is a "popular" drug just means it was marketed well with billions of your tax dollars.

[osan]

Its pretty stupid to blame the killing on Prozac

It is pretty stupid to open your yap before doing some research and engaging in a competent analysis, assuming you are able to do either. Let us all take a look together and see what I mean


which is one of the more popular psychotic drugs.

And here we begin with the use of one of the more popular errors in logic - the old "everyone else is jumping off the freeway overpass at rush hour on the Harbor, therefore it is a smart and safe activity" fallacy. Yes folks, this one really goes back a long time. Why, back in the 13th century burning "witches" and "heretics" in Christian-dominated Europe was so very popular with the Holy See. In Roman times, crucifixion got rave reviews. During the reigns of the esteemed Mao and Stalin, purging counter-revolutionaries was all the rage. During the French Revolution, lopping the heads off of innocent and guilty alike proved most satisfying to the blood-thirsty Frog peasants and urbanites. And we can't leave out "the world is flat" now, can we? In meso-America cutting the beating hearts from those slated for live sacrifice left the crowds always wanting more. FUCK YEAH! God I miss those heady days of "truth by consensus" where just about any idiotic barbarity qualified as truth just because some dildo in "authority" said so and the rafts of idiots following along by the ends of their hooked little noses chose to come along for the ride because "truth" appealed to them.

We could go on and on down a litany that is longer than most people appear to have functioning brain cells and still have plenty of examples of this most riotous arbiter of truth.


Why was she prescribed it in the first place?

What's this?! A glimmer of intelligence? Please say it ain't so!


She clearly had some kind of mental issues (otherwise she wouldn't be on the drug)

Oh thank GOD! No real sign of intelligence at all. Jesus tapdancing on the water be praised!

Seriously d00d - are you out of your fucking mind? Are you? Who in hell are you, regardless of any credential you may possible but probably do not hold, to make such an assumption, which goes wrong on so many levels I could write a small book on it alone. Clearly had mental issues? What does that even mean? Show me so much as a single human being that has ever lived who has not had a "mental issue" and I will take my .45 SIG into the pasture and blow my brains out as a gesture of apology to you. It completely fucks my brain to near-explosion when I consider the vacuous, inanely stupid things that they write. Here is a hint: God's gift to you of a brain was NOT as a fucking hat rack. But it was given to you and you are free to do with it how much, or in this case how little, you please.

In case you feel I have not backed by rejection with reason, let you rest at ease. Define "mental issue". By what standard is the "issue" a problem? Where did the standard come from and how do we know it is valid? How do we know those certifying it as valid are credible? By what standard is THAT determination made and by whom and why should we accept it? I could go on infinitely down that poo-hole, but perhaps the point is made?

Next, who says that the "issue" needs treatment? Who says Prozac is the way to go, especially in the face of mountains of evidence that these drugs, which all fuck with fundamental brain chemistry, not only do not help children but actually make them WORSE? Or do you perhaps think that there are thousands of researchers out there whose only goal in life is to falsely discredit such drugs with the aim of denying the po' PO" chillen their mental health? HELLO? Anyone home?

Would it not be just a sooper-dooper slam to the nooties if we could borrow god's crystal ball of truth just to find that there was NOTHING wrong with the child? That what is considered "wrong" is nothing more than truly and perfectly normal child behavior? You may balk at this, but as we type there are literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of young people in perfect, and I mean PERFECT health being drugged with this or that because some ignorant cock-sucking school nurse decided that Little Johnny and Janey are not behaving the they "ought" to. And the criminally ignorant, lazy, and WILLFULLY stoopid parents stand by and allow this chemical vivisection of their offspring. After all, it's all "free", so why not git some?


and her mental state was probably deteriorating (otherwise her dosage would not have been increased)

And precisely HOW is it that you speak with such authority on this matter? Please regale us with your unimpeachable credentials to which we should all have our sphincters a-twitchin'. Please. I'd love to know.

And in case you make the attempt to turn my question back at me, I have two years of formal training in cognitive psychology. On top of that, I grew up in the home of a medical doctor - a rather accomplished one at that - and was awash in NEJM and other professional medical journals. I know how to read these dealies and when I do not understand something, I look it the hell up. And finally, I am not spouting off about a medical case with which I have no familiarity. Do you know this case? Have you examined the child along the chain of progression? I have not and I have not spoken in the specific terms that you have chosen, but rather in general terms and with a large body of research that backs up my assertions, broad as they may be.


Do you understand the logic disconnect here?

I suspect I understand it perfectly - something I further suspect you most certainly do not.


Just to reiterate: the fact that she was on a psychotic drug and was having her dosage increased indicates that she was the type of mentally unstable person who would commit such a crime.

Of course - and the fact that Johnny Negro is on death row for raping and murdering that white girl stands as proof that he is guilty. You were saying something about "logical disconnect"? Are you familiar with a very basic bit of logical jargon, "nonsequitur"? You should be.


As for the drugs themselves: its a well accepted fact that the scientific community doesn't really understand how these drugs work or even if they're effective. Most studies have indicated that antidepressants are about 50-70% effective, which is just a little better than a placebo.

Wow... no really... wow.... This leaves me speechless. If you do not know why, then truly there is no hope here and perhaps the vet should be called in for a house visit.


But mental illness is a very really thing. And these drugs work for some people. Unfortunately, we as a species do not fully understand the brain right now or how to fix it. Maybe one day in the future. In the mean time, do what you can.

"He has appendicitis and we are stranded on this desert island, forty thousand miles from civilization. The best we can do is saw off his leg."

"Sounds good to me."

Holy shit... the human race is so fucking doomed my brain cannot contain even the smallest part of it.

I pray for death to take me ASAP, if not sooner.

[Acala]

No offense, but it's not the same. I've seen a person start taking Prozac, no other changes in lifestyle, and she cratered bad. There is no doubt in my mind it was the Prozac. After she stopped taking it, she improved. We're talking causation, not correlation. She chewed gum before and she continued chewing gum. Gum was in all likelihood not the cause.

Sorry, but that is nothing but anecdotal evidence. It proves nothing at all.

[Acala]

A relatively small percentage of people take these types of drugs, yet in almost every case where you have these types of strange killings you have someone who was on a cocktail of these drugs nearly every time. .

MILLIONS of people take these drugs. The percentage of those people who murder others must be down in the thousandths of a percent.

If you are going to make claims of causation, and have them be credible to people who understand science and statistics, you are going to have to do much better than that.

[Acala]

The vast majority of people who drink alcohol and drive do not get into accidents.

It is impossible to test the theory that these drugs may make people homicidal. Each person is an individual. What can you do, find two mentally disturbed twins, give one a placebo, give one the real drug, and wait around to see if they kill anyone?

The drug companies know enough about this possibility that they give warnings and precautions. The evidence is that they see disturbed thoughts in some people who take the drugs, and some of them go out and kill people. That's about the best evidence we will ever have.

No one is saying ban it. Some of us are saying that it shouldn't be dispensed like candy, and when it is given, the medical provider needs to do their job and follow-up and monitor the person.

If you want to prove that prozac causes violent outbursts, you need a control group and a test group that both have the same diagnosis. Then you give one group the drug and the other group a placebo. Then you watch the results. The test group must be as large as possible and the duration long enough to get a meaningful number of incidents of violence. Then you can say something with statistical significance. That is science.

Simply observing that many people who commit violent acts take prozac proves nothing other than that prozac does not prevent violent acts.

[John F Kennedy III]

With modern medicine they are not "side effects", they are simply "effects".

[ItsTime]

I know a guy (personally) who was on psych meds and ended up in a very high profile murder. He was dealing with emotions form a violent school bus crash where he was one of the only survivors. They changes his med dose 2 weeks before he blacked out and brutally murdered his friend. Sad really.

[dannno]

I know a guy (personally) who was on psych meds and ended up in a very high profile murder. He was dealing with emotions form a violent school bus crash where he was one of the only survivors. They changes his med dose 2 weeks before he blacked out and brutally murdered his friend. Sad really.

That's anecdotal evidence.






































;)

[Acala]

I know a guy (personally) who was on psych meds and ended up in a very high profile murder. He was dealing with emotions form a violent school bus crash where he was one of the only survivors. They changes his med dose 2 weeks before he blacked out and brutally murdered his friend. Sad really.

I know at least fifty people who have been on psych meds and never killed anyone. I win.

[nbhadja]

These poison chemical drugs are trash. There are natural much cheaper alternatives that help much more.

Keep in mind you CANNOT seperate the FDA from the big drug companies. The big drug companies are the FDA and they use the FDA to destroy the truth that would bankrupt them. As a result, I hope they get sued big time.

[osan]

MILLIONS of people take these drugs. The percentage of those people who murder others must be down in the thousandths of a percent.

If you are going to make claims of causation, and have them be credible to people who understand science and statistics, you are going to have to do much better than that.

Agreed, but a more interesting question arises, one directly relating to freedom and basic rights revolving around manufacturer culpability, which in this case is not the same as the loose analog found in holding gun manufacturers responsible for deaths where their product served as the instrument. It is well established that these drugs alter fundamental brain chemistry. The complexity of the brain is beyond dispute. Given the biochemical complexity of the brain, it is virtually certain that the combinatorial complexity is simply staggering; far more so when one considers the wide variance between individuals. It is there that I see some very profound problems in establishing linear models for even the most basic functions. Everyone is different and the things we put into our bodies can have widely varying effects between individuals.

For instance, when I was in engineering school at UC Davis, I knew a guy named Brent who spend two years in a psych hospital getting his personality put back together after smoking a joint. Hundreds of millions of people smoke dope daily with no apparent ill-effects, yet Brent took ONE hit off a joint when he was 16 and promptly went to pieces. They discovered that Brent had a very rare "allergy" to the components (probably THC). Whoda thunk? It's all safe, right? Wrong. Some people eat peanuts and drop the hell dead for similar reasons. The point here is that even in the most innocuous seeming cases wild things can happen. It takes no great leap to deduce that alterations of the fundamental chemistry of something as complex as the human brain opens vistas for far ranging variability in effect.

Given this, if the product of a manufacturer alters a user's fundamental makeup with the same iron-clad effectiveness of, say, brain lesions then should they not be held responsible for the results, particularly when the user becomes a self-contained weapons system gone awry? AFAIK, people with certain types of lesion may not be held responsible for their actions. Why is it not the case where biochemical alteration of the personality may be at issue? It is easy to say "you can't prove it", which is what the pharmaceutical companies hide behind. I think "reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of evidence" rule out the requirement of absolute proof, but where does one draw the line?

The apparently inherent imperfection and risk in all this (life in general) seems to underscore the need for individual liberty and the responsibility that goes with it. I also believe that these sorts of risk posed by super-organisms (large corporations) may be validly restricted, but that is perhaps an orthogonal issue. But in the cases where alteration of the very fabric of a human being results in that person committing murder, I can see how a manufacturer could and perhaps should be held to account for the unintended consequences of its creations... at least in theory. But what of fakers using precedent to excuse such behavior? Thorny issues - all good reason to keep the kids at home until they are old enough and reasonably able to take care of themselves. This is but another example that strongly suggests support for human rights. If corporate entities are going to make available products capable of such results, so much more the reason for people to be at liberty to exercise their right to keep, bear, and use arms in defense of self, family, friends, community, nation, and complete strangers.

[satchelmcqueen]

youre telling me? lol yes it was scary as hell. my dreams were so real i actually thought i did most of what i dreamed. i had to go look after i woke up just to be sure. it scared me. thats when i flushed them and never took them again. the dream/reality phase after waking up in the morning was non existent.
That is fucked up.

[PaulConventionWV]

Sorry, but that is nothing but anecdotal evidence. It proves nothing at all.

It is easy to say that as a response to each individual piece of anecdotal evidence, but the fact that you hear about this stuff a lot should indicate there are more than a few instances of this happening. If you actually knew the real numbers, you might not be so hasty to dismiss this "anecdotal evidence" because even anecdotal evidence is still evidence. If you see a million cases of this one by one and respond to each of them by saying it is anecdotal, you will eventually get to the point where you can plainly see that the evidence you have collectively encountered up to that point is more than anecdotal.

[satchelmcqueen]

another thing that was scary to me was the fact that my doctor had no clue what i was talking about when i told he of this and many more side effects. i found out more info online than my dr knew about. all i can say is thank god i had enough of my thought process left and ability to reason to get off of this crap.

thats what was weird to. i lost almost all reasoning when it came to morals. i went on the drugs for severe depression over friend, family, church issues. i just simply couldnt take it anymore. i was very strict in my life style. i never drank or cussed. i was straight up self control dude. never even tempted to drink. on this med, one day i just thought "fuck it ill start drinking because everyone else does, so fuck it." and i started drinking. also being the guy i am, i always researched things before id buy something, or whatever because im cheap. sooo before i even bought my first drink i researched the cheapest way to drink. i settled on Everclear mixed with cola. for 4 months i drank that mix! then i started with beer and whatever else. started cussing alot. it was so unlike me. i wasnt a drunk at all, just started drinking at 32.

now that was back in 2007. i still drink and cuss. lol but other than that im back to my normal reasonable self. my moral thought process came back. it actually , looking back on it all, helped me to not be depressed. i now know there is worse ways to be (on meds) so im fine with dealing with whatever issues i must deal with. so i now deal with it and move on. so in that way the meds helped me.

[Brian4Liberty]

The test group must be as large as possible and the duration long enough to get a meaningful number of incidents of violence. Then you can say something with statistical significance. That is science.

I believe we are the middle of that experiment right now. Who has the numbers? Do we count all acts (and attempted acts) of violence?

[Blueskies]

It is pretty stupid to open your yap before doing some research and engaging in a competent analysis, assuming you are able to do either. Let us all take a look together and see what I mean

It's very simple: if you think Prozac causes people to murder other people, you lack basic logical reasoning skills. Nothing else needs to be said.

Honestly no idea why I would have to argue this point on this forum. It is literally EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT as people who say that pot causes you to become a worthless member of society. EXACTLY THE SAME. No different. At all.

[dannno]

It's very simple: if you think Prozac causes people to murder other people, you lack basic logical reasoning skills. Nothing else needs to be said.

Honestly no idea why I would have to argue this point on this forum. It is literally EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT as people who say that pot causes you to become a worthless member of society. EXACTLY THE SAME. No different. At all.

Actually if you are told that drugs are dangerous your whole life, smoke cannabis and realize how benign it is, then you might go on to use other drugs including heroin thinking that maybe they lied about those other substances as well.

That isn't cannabis causing you to do heroin, that is the war on drugs lying to people, then people finding out they have been lied to, then having to find out the entire truth on their own.

Prozac and these other substances, on the other hand, actually do cause some people to get much worse either while on the drugs or when trying to get off them.

Why is it never the crazy kid whose parents refused to let their child take these anti-psychotic drugs that end up doing these types of things? Why is it always the person who is actually on the drugs themselves? Why is it almost always after a boost or change in the prescription, or when they are coming off the drugs that horrible things seem to happen more often?

Are you skipping over satchelmcqueen's posts? What about everybody else who has had first, second or third hand experiences who are right here on this board?

[Blueskies]

It is easy to say that as a response to each individual piece of anecdotal evidence, but the fact that you hear about this stuff a lot should indicate there are more than a few instances of this happening. If you actually knew the real numbers, you might not be so hasty to dismiss this "anecdotal evidence" because even anecdotal evidence is still evidence. If you see a million cases of this one by one and respond to each of them by saying it is anecdotal, you will eventually get to the point where you can plainly see that the evidence you have collectively encountered up to that point is more than anecdotal.

Uh...yeah no.

Show me the studies.

It doesn't matter how many times you "hear about this kind of stuff." That doesn't prove anything. Do you understand the concept of bias? The fact is, you're not going to hear about stories like "Bill took Prozac for a few months and then he was ok" because that kind of stuff is boring. It won't be reported on. It won't be talked about.

This kind of stuff, this sensationalism, gets spread around because its entertaining. Trust me, there are people you know in your daily life--teachers, friends, whatever who are on Prozac right now. They don't tell you. They don't shout it out to the world.

The vast majority of people who take Prozac are OK. So a few pieces of anecdotal evidence (and this doesn't even qualify as anecdotal evidence because, to go back to what I said earlier--there are other logical biases in this story) proves absolutely nothing.

[Blueskies]

Actually if you are told that drugs are dangerous your whole life, smoke cannabis and realize how benign it is, then you might go on to use other drugs including heroin thinking that maybe they lied about those other substances as well.

That isn't cannabis causing you to do heroin, that is the war on drugs lying to people, then people finding out they have been lied to, then having to find out the entire truth on their own.

Uh yeah. This is what I was saying. Smoking pot leading to hardcore drug use has the same logical flaws as arguing that Prozac leads to murder.


Prozac and these other substances, on the other hand, actually do cause some people to get much worse either while on the drugs or when trying to get off them.

I'm not denying this.


Why is it never the crazy kid whose parents refused to let their child take these anti-psychotic drugs that end up doing these types of things?

Well, first of all you're completely wrong here because actually this does happen. Please see this story about how a schizophrenic Scientology kid was denied treatment because his parents didn't believe in it and then he ended up killing them:
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/killed-by-vitamins.htm

Second of all, I think that many people in society that do terrible things have a form of mental illness that is never diagnosed (mostly because we don't understand the nature of mental illness anyway). What rational human being kills another human being in cold blood? If you commit first degree murder, I'm inclined to believe that you're mentally ill in some way.


Are you skipping over satchelmcqueen's posts? What about everybody else who has had first, second or third hand experiences who are right here on this board?

Again, anecdotal evidence proves nothing. Just because you go on Newegg and read a review that some kid got his video card delivered and it was dead doesn't mean that if you order that video card yours will be dead too.

[dannno]

Show me the studies.



lol... who exactly is going to fund these studies??

Why would drug companies fund studies that make their drugs look bad?

If there was competition, then there would be a reason to fund a study.. but the FDA doesn't allow competition, the drug companies own the FDA.