Ban ALL People on Psych Meds from Owning Guns, Driving, & Voting

[presence]

The solution to the insanity: Ban all people on psychiatric medication from owning guns, driving cars or voting for President

Tuesday, December 18, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com


http://www.naturalnews.com/038376_psychiatric_medications_guns_voting.html (http://www.naturalnews.com/038376_psychiatric_medications_guns_voting.html)


(NaturalNews) I know how to stop the next school shooting, save the children and restore some sanity to America. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter, was on medication, we now know. So were previous shooters like the two students at Columbine High School in the 1999 Colorado shooting. Medication makes some people go crazy with violence.

There has been a lot of talk these past few days about banning guns. But the idea of banning guns from all the GOOD people -- the sane, law-abiding citizens of America -- is ludicrous. What really makes sense is banning gun purchases and ownership among mentally MEDICATED people.

Yep. If they're on psychiatric meds, they get no guns. But why stop there? Vehicles are very dangerous metal machines, too, and if people on meds are too dangerous to own guns, they should be too dangerous to operate high-velocity rolling chunks of metal (cars and trucks) on public roadways, no?

That's why I say ban all medicated people from operating motor vehicles. Given that there are currently 32,000 deaths each year in America from motor vehicle accidents, we're talking about saving a thousand times the lives of the children in Sandy Hook!

But why stop there? Electing the wrong President can be just as dangerous as operating a motor vehicle or shooting up a school. The wrong President, you see, can drag a nation into deadly wars, just as we've seen with Bush and Obama. So for those people who are too dangerous to own guns, and too dangerous to drive motor vehicles, they should also be declared too dangerous to VOTE.

Voting, obviously, should be conducted only by someone in a clear state of mind, should it not?

And why even stop there? I think we should ban people on psych drugs from becoming members of Congress. After all, Congress is where the most insane people tend to congregate, and probably at least half of them are on mind-altering meds (and brain-numbing cholesterol drugs). No wonder they can't even read the bills they vote on!

Allowing medicated members of Congress to vote on legislation is a lot like allowing medicated, video-game-playing teenagers to own assault rifles. The outcome is sometimes disastrous...

I'm serious...
This article is only partially satire, by the way.

[brandon]

I say we should ban people people who write for natural news from sitting at the adult table.

[presence]

I say we should ban people people who write for natural news from sitting at the adult table.


Guns, cars and votes should only be commanded by people of sound mind who are NOT subjected to chemical influences. In society today, we don't tolerate people drinking and driving. So why do we tolerate people medicating and voting?

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038376_psychiatric_medications_guns_voting.html#ix zz2FQ2RfcfI

[KingNothing]

I say we should ban people people who write for natural news from sitting at the adult table.

Agreed completely, though I still think the number of drugged people milling about is disturbing.

[tod evans]

The argument could be, and has been, made that folks on these medications are far more stable than before they started taking the meds.....:eek:

[aGameOfThrones]

Anyone who watches Honey Boo Boo or the Chris Matthews show should not be allowed to own guns, vote or drive.

[presence]

The argument could be, and has been, made that folks on these medications are far more stable than before they started taking the meds.....:eek:

America's Medicated Army
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1812055,00.html

America’s Medicated Army, 2.0
http://nation.time.com/2012/04/09/americas-medicated-army-2-0/


http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0806/360_warmy_0616.jpg


One a Day: Soldiers and Suicide in the U.S. Military

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,1730959652001_2119284,00.html#ixzz2FQ43xrI 0

[Natural Citizen]

The solution to the insanity: Ban all people on psychiatric medication from owning guns, driving cars or voting for President


Tuesday, December 18, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com


NaturalNews) I know how to stop the next school shooting, save the children and restore some sanity to America. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter, was on medication, we now know. So were previous shooters like the two students at Columbine High School in the 1999 Colorado shooting. Medication makes some people go crazy with violence.

There has been a lot of talk these past few days about banning guns. But the idea of banning guns from all the GOOD people -- the sane, law-abiding citizens of America -- is ludicrous. What really makes sense is banning gun purchases and ownership among mentally MEDICATED people.

Yep. If they're on psychiatric meds, they get no guns. But why stop there? Vehicles are very dangerous metal machines, too, and if people on meds are too dangerous to own guns, they should be too dangerous to operate high-velocity rolling chunks of metal (cars and trucks) on public roadways, no?

That's why I say ban all medicated people from operating motor vehicles. Given that there are currently 32,000 deaths each year in America from motor vehicle accidents, we're talking about saving a thousand times the lives of the children in Sandy Hook!

But why stop there? Electing the wrong President can be just as dangerous as operating a motor vehicle or shooting up a school. The wrong President, you see, can drag a nation into deadly wars, just as we've seen with Bush and Obama. So for those people who are too dangerous to own guns, and too dangerous to drive motor vehicles, they should also be declared too dangerous to VOTE.

Voting, obviously, should be conducted only by someone in a clear state of mind, should it not?

And why even stop there? I think we should ban people on psych drugs from becoming members of Congress. After all, Congress is where the most insane people tend to congregate, and probably at least half of them are on mind-altering meds (and brain-numbing cholesterol drugs). No wonder they can't even read the bills they vote on!

Allowing medicated members of Congress to vote on legislation is a lot like allowing medicated, video-game-playing teenagers to own assault rifles. The outcome is sometimes disastrous...

I'm serious...
This article is only partially satire, by the way.












The rest of the paper....:rolleyes:

This article is only partially satire, by the way. If we're going to talk about banning things in America, let's get serious about the altered mental states being caused by psychiatric drugs, and let's get psych drugs to come with warnings and red flags that preclude people who take those drugs from operating firearms, vehicles or voting booths.

Guns, cars and votes should only be commanded by people of sound mind who are NOT subjected to chemical influences. In society today, we don't tolerate people drinking and driving. So why do we tolerate people medicating and voting?

And if there's any effort to ban guns at all, it needs to be concentrated on those medicated individuals who are not of sound mind.



Mike is spot on in that regard. We need to stop giving Big Pharma a free pass. As well, complicit psychiatrists need to be exposed for their roles.

[tttppp]

Banning people on psych meds from doing stuff will just force them to go off their meds and that could potentially create more problems. I guess this guy doesnt want people on psych meds to work becuase you cant work without a car. Anyways, sounds like a great Obama program.

If you want to ban anything, ban these companies from making drugs loaded with side effects. Put the blame where it belongs.

[Maximilian American]

How are the ban-happy of ya going to enforce such laws? Bigger more intrusive government, probably? Also, the unintended consequences when forcing a prohibition upon another are historically resulting in a more negative and troublesome outcomes. Not worth it.

There is one choice that I think is a good way for a manifestation of our current discussion here and that is realizing that we can study this matter to share and debate, additionally in a method of persuasion in accordance to our values, but leave law and its force strictly to its constitutional delegations.

[Natural Citizen]

How are the ban-happy of ya going to enforce such laws? Bigger more intrusive government, probably?

How would you define "government" as it is right this second? Because the last time I checked these multi-national corporations like monsanto and big pharma seem to be writing the rules as they run amok. Unchallenged because too many people want to sit around and stall with silly memes that accomplish nothing. If more government means that the actual people get to do the talking for a change then I'm all for it.

Far too often folks think they are supporting the free market but they fail to actually look and see that they are the very demand for government controlled markets. That mindset is why we have a merge of corporation and state in the first place. What has happened as a result of this concept is that we have companies like monsanto and big pharma in all of it's glory getting away scott free with what they are doing. It's time for change. They need to be held accountable instead of catered to blindly. We know who speaks for them. The people need to take the initiative to start speaking for themselves and take back their government. They have lost it to these entities and those like them.

[jmdrake]

Add antimalaria drugs (which the army forces soldiers to take) to the list.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/04/military-new-concerns-antimalaria-doxycycline-mefloquine-041112w/
New concerns rising over antimalaria drug

By Patricia Kime - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Apr 11, 2012 6:22:47 EDT

Navy Sonar Technician (Surface) Seaman Douglas Corrigan placed a Skype call to his wife March 25, 2011, from Rota, Spain, shortly after taking his first dose of the antimalaria medication mefloquine.

Preparing for a mission to a malaria-endemic region, his unit watched a video on the illness, and corpsmen dispensed two drugs: daily-dose doxycycline, and mefloquine, taken weekly.

Corrigan doesn’t remember getting a choice. He received a blister pack of mefloquine and was told it could cause nightmares.

“He told me he didn’t feel good,” recalled Nicki Corrigan, his wife of three years. “He said, ‘I don’t feel like myself anymore.’ It was a really weird thing for him to say.”

Corrigan’s personality changed radically, she said. The straight-laced husband and father began chewing tobacco, drinking and carousing. He climbed outside a three-story building to see whether he would feel fear.

Months later, at home, he was found tiptoeing around his basement, pursuing imagined intruders. He ranted psychotically and complained of daily headaches.

Medical tests showed no traumatic brain injury, nor did doctors believe he had post-traumatic stress disorder. They began suggesting he had a personality disorder or was a malingerer, faking his problems to get out of the military.

Finally, an ear, nose and throat doctor at National Naval Medical Center Bethesda, Md., offered another diagnosis: “multifocal brain stem injury” — brain damage — likely caused by mefloquine.

“He has a lesion. On his brain,” said Nicki, a registered nurse.
Back in the spotlight

Mefloquine has drawn attention since the Army’s former top psychiatrist, retired Col. Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, wrote a column in Time magazine listing it among several drugs that may have induced psychoses in Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, charged in the shootings deaths of 17 Afghan civilians March 11.

But Defense Department concerns about mefloquine date back further — and some close to the issue say the most recent bout of scrutiny, which began with a meeting last Aug. 24-25 of DoD’s Joint Prevention Medicine Group to discuss mefloquine policy, stems from the Corrigan case.

“You have a sailor with permanent brain damage,” said an Army doctor familiar with the debate. “It’s very serious.”

The Navy would not confirm a link between Corrigan and the current DoD review, citing privacy laws. But on Jan. 17, two months before Bales’ alleged spree, the Pentagon’s top doctor, Jonathan Woodson, directed the Army, Navy and Air Force and the commander of Joint Task Force National Capital Region Medical to give him all data and policies related to mefloquine.

DoD “wants to ensure each service conducts proper screening, patient education and medical documentation,” said Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

Mefloquine was developed under the Army’s malaria drug discovery program, which ran from 1963 to 1976. The Food and Drug Administration approved it for preventive use in 1989 and it was marketed under the brand name Lariam.

But no safety and efficacy reviews were ever done on a normal civilian population. The Army performed tests on prisoners in Illinois and Maryland in 1975 and 1976.

Shortly after commercial use began, anecdotes surfaced about side effects including hallucinations, delirium and psychoses.

According to the FDA, the most common side effects are nausea and vomiting, seen in less than 3 percent of users. Side effects occurring in less than 1 percent include emotional disturbances, seizures, hair loss, headache, tinnitus, pain and fatigue.

A 2004 Veterans Affairs Department memo urged doctors to refrain from prescribing mefloquine, citing individual cases of hallucinations, paranoia, suicidal thoughts, psychoses and more.

That same year, then-Assistant Defense Secretary for Health Affairs Dr. William Winkenwerder ordered a study to assess the rate of adverse side effects associated with antimalaria medications.

He ordered the study after questions arose over its possible role in several murder-suicides at Fort Bragg, N.C., in 2002 and suicides in Iraq among deployed troops.

The Army in 2009 issued a policy listing mefloquine as a third choice behind doxycycline and another antimalarial, chloroquine. DoD followed with a memo later that year stating that doxycylcine and mefloquine may be used in areas where malaria is resistant to chloroquine, but doxycycline is the preferred choice.

The Air Force and the Navy have similar policies, officials said.

The DoD memo says troops given mefloquine must be counseled on its possible effects and must not be suspected of having any mental health concerns.

In 2011, U.S. Central Command and U.S. Africa Command issued memos barring mefloquine use except when doxycycline or another preventive drug called Malarone cannot be taken.

Roche, the manufacturer of Lariam, stopped marketing it in the U.S. in 2008, but it is still available in more than 50 countries. The mefloquine now taken by U.S. troops is a generic version.
Other drugs also have issues

Doxycycline is not without its drawbacks. It can make patients photo-sensitive, causing debilitating sunburn; has a poor compliance rate, since it must be taken daily; and has side effects, including nausea and vomiting.

And Malarone costs much more than the other drugs — about $30 a week, compared with $3 a week for mefloquine and less than 25 cents a week for doxycycline.

Navy Cmdr. Bill Manofsky — who was medically retired in 2004 for PTSD and neurological problems, including loss of balance, that he said were documented in his medical records as mefloquine-related — said if cost concerns are an issue, they shouldn’t be.

He said if DoD wants to protect the troops from malaria as well as mefloquine’s potential side effects, it should ban mefloquine and pay the higher cost of Malarone.

“How much does a .50-caliber round cost? They’re worried about $4 a pill and they’re willing to spend $5 for a round?” he said.

There’s no question malaria poses a risk. In 2011, 124 service members contracted the potentially fatal disease — 91 in Afghanistan, 24 in Africa and nine elsewhere. The year before, 113 troops contracted malaria; one died.

But mefloquine continues to be used in part because it is taken weekly while the alternatives must be taken daily, and some physicians believe that troops are more likely to take a weekly dose.

The services have 90 days to respond to Woodson’s order for details of their mefloquine policies.

Nicki Corrigan and others have contacted lawmakers, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Jim Webb, D-Va., to press for congressional hearings.

Douglas Corrigan is currently undergoing a Medical Evaluation Board to determine if he is still fit for military service.

[Dr.3D]

I can't believe I'm seeing a thread with this title on these forums of all places. I thought we are about less government control, not more.
Yes, I know it's something somebody wrote. But wow.... anybody here who believes this is a good idea should change over to being a democrat.

[heavenlyboy34]

Banning people on psych meds from doing stuff will just force them to go off their meds and that could potentially create more problems. I guess this guy doesnt want people on psych meds to work becuase you cant work without a car. Anyways, sounds like a great Obama program.

If you want to ban anything, ban these companies from making drugs loaded with side effects. Put the blame where it belongs.
Only if you're a pro driver. Everyone else can take private or public mass transit/cabs/etc. Just FWIW. Lots of people out there purposely don't drive for numerous reasons.

[heavenlyboy34]

I can't believe I'm seeing a thread with this title on these forums of all places. I thought we are about less government control, not more.
Yes, I know it's something somebody wrote. But wow.... anybody here who believes this is a good idea should change over to being a democrat.
Meh. You find obscene command and control types in both major parties.

[Natural Citizen]

I can't believe I'm seeing a thread with this title on these forums of all places. I thought we are about less government control, not more.
Yes, I know it's something somebody wrote. But wow.... anybody here who believes this is a good idea should change over to being a democrat.

Presence did that on purpose. The article was almost entirely satire. I still challenge folks who make that claim about wanting more government to actually define government as it is righ this minute. The last I checked, the corporations took it over. In my opinion more government equates to re-establishing governing to the actual people instead of continuing to let these multi-national corporations whom our representatives currently speak for keep running amok with it. I cannot believe that some are so complicit with what these pharmaceurical corps and equally complicit psychiatrists have gotten away with lately. Well, assuming that the msm continues successfully with the brainwashing of the the sheep with the old were coming fer yer guns gag. These are the entities that are government right now.

[Dr.3D]

Presence did that on purpose. The article was almost entirely satire. I still challenge folks who make that claim about wanting more government to actually define government as it is righ this minute. Because in my opinion more government equates to re-establishing governing to the actual people instead of these dangerous corporations whom our representatives currently speak for.
Yes, it's true, we need to get true representation. What we have now for the most part has been paid off by corporate lobbyists.

[donnay]

How would you define "government" as it is right this second? Because the last time I checked these multi-national corporations like monsanto and big pharma seem to be writing the rules as they run amok. Unchallenged because too many people want to sit around and stall with silly memes that accomplish nothing. If more government means that the actual people get to do the talking for a change then I'm all for it.

Far too often folks think they are supporting the free market but they fail to actually look and see that they are the very demand for government controlled markets. That mindset is why we have a merge of corporation and state in the first place. What has happened as a result of this concept is that we have companies like monsanto and big pharma in all of it's glory getting away scott free with what they are doing. It's time for change. They need to be held accountable instead of catered to blindly. We know who speaks for them. The people need to take the initiative to start speaking for themselves and take back their government. They have lost it to these entities and those like them.

"You must spread some Reputation around before you can give it to Natural Citizen again."

Education of these horrendous drugs is key. The less people use them the less money Big Pharma gets!!

[Dr.3D]

"You must spread some Reputation around before you can give it to Natural Citizen again."

Education of these horrendous drugs is key. The less people use them the less money Big Pharma gets!!
Makes me wonder who our physicians are really working for.

[donnay]

Makes me wonder who our physicians are really working for.

Oh I know who they were trained by. Check out the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations and their so-called philanthropy organizations. This has everything to do with eugenics then people know.


Flexner Report

That's what the foundations are all about, ladies and gentlemen. Make no mistake about it. The foundation takeover of the "American Medical Schools" followed almost immediately after Gates went to work for Rockefeller. It was fast and it was simple. It took place in three steps.
The first was when Rockefeller and Carnegie together financed the famous Flexner Report of 1910 written by Abraham Flexner, hired by Rockefeller and Carnegie. Flexner traveled all over the country and made a very scholarly analysis of how bad the level of medical education was in America and he was right. He didn't distort it. To my knowledge he didn't distort (any of it). He didn't have to. There were diploma mills. There were a few good schools. But, there were a lot of mediocre schools and there were a lot of bad schools. And people could get a medical degree just by paying enough money and so Flexner brought all of this together in the Flexner Report. It was published by the foundation as a public service and everybody was very much concerned. Something had to be done. You see now, the problem was crystallized with foundation money.
The next step was to solve the problems. Rockefeller and Carnegie then provided the money to solve the problem. They offered tax-free grants. Tremendous infusions of millions and millions of dollars to those selected medical schools that were cooperative and that were willing to go along with the recommendations made by Rockefeller and Carnegie. The ones who weren't willing to submit themselves to the influence of the money didn't get any, and they fell by the wayside. The ones who did go along got this money and were able to build big buildings to attract qualified teachers. They were able to get the necessary equipment, and they became the large medical schools in America today, through Rockefeller and Carnegie money.
Now, there is an old saying that "he who pays the piper calls the tune." And that is exactly what happened. Gates and Flexner, and those whom they appointed, became Board members and consultants for all of these schools. And you can be sure, ladies and gentlemen, that if you are on the Board of Trustees of the school and you are struggling for money and somebody comes to you and says here is 10 million dollars and then they say, however, or by the way, we would suggest that the next time you look for a president we suggest that you look at Mr. Smith, he's a fine, reputable man. You will listen very carefully when they make that suggestion and Mr. Smith becomes the next president.
Mr. Smith listens very carefully when Mr. Gates, Mr. Rockefeller, or Mr. Carnegie say, "now, Mr. Smith, you need people on your teaching staff with these qualifications, and we suggest that you look at Dr. Jones, Dr. Radcliff” and so forth. They all listen. Money has a distinct sound. It is the ruffling of thousand dollar bills. Now there is no corruption there. It is not necessary to set down and say we are going to control the school. We want you to do what we tell you, it is all just very gentlemanly and done gently. But it's done, nevertheless. And so you can be sure that those schools that were willing to cooperate were the ones who got the money. The record indeed shows that this is true. LECTURE BY MR. G. EDWARD GRIFFIN (http://www.whale.to/cancer/griffin14.html)

Flexner was John D. Rockefeller's "stool pigeon" in setting up the takeover of the entire medical school industry by Carnegie Foundation, which was a Rockefeller Foundation subsidiary at that time.......When you say "Carnegie Foundation", you're talking about something that has no substance. It's entirely under the domination of the Rockefellers. .................He (Abraham Flexner) did "The Flexner Report", and this changed the medical schools of the United States from homeopathic, naturopathic medicine, to allopathic medicine -- which was a German school of medicine which depended on the heavy use of drugs, radical surgery, and long hospital stays. That's what we've got today, allopathic medicine."---Eustace Mullins. [Interview 2003] by Tom Valentine (http://www.whale.to/b/mullins3.html)

http://www.whale.to/b/flexner_report.html

[Natural Citizen]

"You must spread some Reputation around before you can give it to Natural Citizen again."

Education of these horrendous drugs is key. The less people use them the less money Big Pharma gets!!

Timing is crucial right now too. Especially while everyone is spinning themselves six ways from Tuesday with the gun gag. Not only do we need to address the industries motives but we really need to expose the complicit middlemen. Like the psychiatry and msm who continue to run interference for them. It's amazing that msm actually has folks asking for psychological evaluation now. I swear, you get folks riled up about their guns and you can make them do anything you want them to. Wow. Their just like..."uh...umkay". Gosh. thafug is wrong with people? Jiminy crickets...

[KingNothing]

Banning people on psych meds from doing stuff will just force them to go off their meds and that could potentially create more problems. I guess this guy doesnt want people on psych meds to work becuase you cant work without a car. Anyways, sounds like a great Obama program.

If you want to ban anything, ban these companies from making drugs loaded with side effects. Put the blame where it belongs.

Let's not ban anything. We have enough laws.

[pcosmar]

Let's not ban anything. We have enough laws.

Agreed.
I noticed a bit of sarcasm in the OP. But it makes a very good point.
Guns are not the problem. And if you want to address the problem,, look at Big Pharma and the War on Drugs.

They both promote the problems.

[pcosmar]

:p
double post glitch

[donnay]

Let's ban politicians whose intent is to not follow the constitution!

[tttppp]

Let's not ban anything. We have enough laws.

I wasnt suggesting we do. I was saying thats better than banning the actual users from doing anytning. What I would do is place higher taxes on the crap that screws people over to encourage them to not create problems in the first place.

[tttppp]

Only if you're a pro driver. Everyone else can take private or public mass transit/cabs/etc. Just FWIW. Lots of people out there purposely don't drive for numerous reasons.

Not if you live where I live. There is not mass transit everywhere. And even in places that have it, its extremely inconvienient.

[PaulConventionWV]

The argument could be, and has been, made that folks on these medications are far more stable than before they started taking the meds.....:eek:

They didn't kill anyone until after they started the meds, usually, so that theory is questionable at best.

[tod evans]

They didn't kill anyone until after they started the meds, usually, so that theory is questionable at best.

I'm certainly not lobbying for psych medication, but crazy folks have done crazy stuff long since before I was born....I've gotta wonder if there'd be more or less instances of crazy behavior without this type of drugs...

Back in my Navy days I tried both Thorazine and Haldol just to experience the effects and good God! How anybody can even function while on those type of meds is beyond me....Folks really do have to be built differently than I am if they can take that stuff.

Which of course leads back to how crazy were they before the meds?

[cbrons]

I say we should ban people people who write for natural news from sitting at the adult table.

Not all psychiatric medications are associated with increased risk of suicidality or homicidality. (LOL). I have yet to hear one thing reported from Natural News that wasn't utter hogwash/fear mongering/sheer idiocy, but admittedly I have not read much from them.

[donnay]

Not all psychiatric medications are associated with increased risk of suicidality or homicidality. (LOL). I have yet to hear one thing reported from Natural News that wasn't utter hogwash/fear mongering/sheer idiocy, but admittedly I have not read much from them.


Really? Care to elaborate?

SSRI Stories
http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

[jmdrake]

While the OP is being a bit sarcastic....it's not totally crazy. Think about it. We have all sorts of "gun laws" to keep guns out of the hands of "dangerous people". Well is someone who pleads guilty to a felony charge for writing bad checks or possessing illicit drugs or cheating on his income taxes really more dangerous than someone who's taking prescription drugs that have the following warning label?

ZOLOFT®
(sertraline hydrochloride)
Tablets and Oral Concentrate

Suicidality and Antidepressant Drugs Antidepressants increased the risk compared to placebo of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults in short-term studies of major depressive disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Anyone considering the use of Zoloft or any other antidepressant in a child, adolescent, or young adult must balance this risk with the clinical need. Short-term studies did not show an increase in the risk of suicidality with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults beyond age 24; there was a reduction in risk with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults aged 65 and older.

Why is it even legal to sell a drug that increases the risk of suicide?

[Dr.3D]

Snip~
Why is it even legal to sell a drug that increases the risk of suicide?
Especially if that drug is supposed to do just the opposite. Someone who is depressed is more apt to consider suicide. The drug is supposed to help people be not so depressed.

[tod evans]

Especially if that drug is supposed to do just the opposite. Someone who is depressed is more apt to consider suicide. The drug is supposed to help people be not so depressed.

Weed and a close friend who's ovulating are the best cure for depression...

But whadda I know?

[heavenlyboy34]

Really? Care to elaborate?

SSRI Stories
http://www.ssristories.com/index.php
This is rather anecdotal, but my mum takes sinequan to control symptoms from a nervous breakdown some 30 odd years ago. One of the warnings, FWIW, given regarding use of it is:
http://www.rxlist.com/sinequan-drug.htm

Suicidality and Antidepressant Drugs Antidepressants increased the risk compared to placebo of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults in short-term studies of major depressive disorder (http://www.rxlist.com/sinequan-drug.htm#) (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Anyone considering the use of Sinequan (doxepin) or any other antidepressant in a child, adolescent, or young adult must balance this risk with the clinical need. Short-term studies did not show an increase in the risk of suicidality with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults beyond age 24; there was a reduction in risk with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults aged 65 and older. Depression and certain other psychiatric disorders are themselves associated with increases in the risk of suicide. Patients of all ages who are started on antidepressant therapy should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior. Families and caregivers should be advised of the need for close observation and communication with the prescriber. Sinequan (doxepin) is not approved for use in pediatric patients. (See WARNINGS (http://www.rxlist.com/sinequan-drug/warnings-precautions.htm#W): Clinical Worsening and Suicide Risk, PRECAUTIONS: Information for Patients (http://www.rxlist.com/sinequan-drug/medication-guide.htm#PI), and PRECAUTIONS (http://www.rxlist.com/sinequan-drug/warnings-precautions.htm#P): Pediatric Use)

[donnay]

This is rather anecdotal, but my mum takes sinequan to control symptoms from a nervous breakdown some 30 odd years ago. One of the warnings, FWIW, given regarding use of it is:
http://www.rxlist.com/sinequan-drug.htm

Suicidality and Antidepressant Drugs Antidepressants increased the risk compared to placebo of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults in short-term studies of major depressive disorder (http://www.rxlist.com/sinequan-drug.htm#) (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Anyone considering the use of Sinequan (doxepin) or any other antidepressant in a child, adolescent, or young adult must balance this risk with the clinical need. Short-term studies did not show an increase in the risk of suicidality with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults beyond age 24; there was a reduction in risk with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults aged 65 and older. Depression and certain other psychiatric disorders are themselves associated with increases in the risk of suicide. Patients of all ages who are started on antidepressant therapy should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior. Families and caregivers should be advised of the need for close observation and communication with the prescriber. Sinequan (doxepin) is not approved for use in pediatric patients. (See WARNINGS (http://www.rxlist.com/sinequan-drug/warnings-precautions.htm#W): Clinical Worsening and Suicide Risk, PRECAUTIONS: Information for Patients (http://www.rxlist.com/sinequan-drug/medication-guide.htm#PI), and PRECAUTIONS (http://www.rxlist.com/sinequan-drug/warnings-precautions.htm#P): Pediatric Use)


The problem is what is the alternative for someone who is diagnosed with mental breakdown? Is pharmaceuticals the ONLY answer? NO! Most people have this blind-faith in their doctors so they take these pharmaceuticals. The conventional medicines are given out in a manner as one-size-fits-all. Not all drugs work the same for everyone and when we are seeing more and more suicides, homicides and murders from people on these mind altering drugs we have to stop and think, is it really worth in the end?

There are definitely alternatives out there people have just got to be willing to find it. The other thing that is problematic is that most Americans want instant gratification. Take a pill and all your troubles are gone--just like that! The problem is, that when they come back to reality, the reality is the problem is still there.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Who cares about NuttyNews?

[Nirvikalpa]

Makes me wonder who our physicians are really working for.

You could always ask Ron and Rand :)

[Agorism]

Think how many people are forced to take those meds.

Might be fair if people were voluntarily taking them.

[cbrons]

Really? Care to elaborate?

SSRI Stories
http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

a.) Are you aware that SSRIs are but one class of "psychiatric" medication?
b.) Relying on anecdotal reports is unscientific and leads to erroneous conclusions, especially when it comes to medications that tens of millions of people have been taking for decades.

[TheGrinch]

Good thing I recently purchased a ban hammer (before Obama goes and bans them of course), so just give me a reason...

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/9/2008/10/ban_hammer.jpg

[thoughtomator]

if you hold psych docs responsible for their role in what people they medicate do, that will fix the problem - no need to ban shit

[tangent4ronpaul]

I think the compromise we see coming is a psych evaluation to be able to buy a gun. The perimeters and variables of what is a problem and what isn't, to be determined by some nameless, unelected, uncountable committee appointed by Obama. This will lead to evaluations of anyone owning a firearm. Which will lead to incremental, ever slowly banning of all guns - except theirs.

But hay, it's FOR THE CHILDREN! :rolleyes:

-t

[thoughtomator]

Not all psychiatric medications are associated with increased risk of suicidality or homicidality. (LOL). I have yet to hear one thing reported from Natural News that wasn't utter hogwash/fear mongering/sheer idiocy, but admittedly I have not read much from them.

You should read the side effects list of some of the more popular medications - these things aren't close to safe, and millions of prescriptions are carelessly written. It's a drug pushing scheme that has little to nothing to do with caring for people who have illnesses.

[tangent4ronpaul]

if you hold psych docs responsible for their role in what people they medicate do, that will fix the problem - no need to ban shit

+rep

-t

[Ivash]

Banning them from voting will never happen- nor should it, as it could easily create a precedence. Driving is unlikely as well. Gun ownership... that might happen though.

[donnay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDCW-qNY50A&feature=plcp


ETA:

You can watch the whole thing here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdBSSUviys

[Nirvikalpa]

Good thing I recently purchased a ban hammer (before Obama goes and bans them of course), so just give me a reason...

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/9/2008/10/ban_hammer.jpg

Mundanes can't have those.

[cbrons]

You should read the side effects list of some of the more popular medications - these things aren't close to safe, and millions of prescriptions are carelessly written. It's a drug pushing scheme that has little to nothing to do with caring for people who have illnesses.

Interesting response void of any evidence whatsoever. There is not a single shred of evidence that I'm aware of that outside of the SSRI or older anti-depressant class or the anti-psychotics (popularly now termed "mood stabilizers") that common drugs for psychiatric disorders increase suicidality or homicidality over and above the extant risk of whatever psychological issue the person has to begin with. But since you seem to know a lot about the issue, perhaps you could provide some support for this claim.

[cbrons]

I think the compromise we see coming is a psych evaluation to be able to buy a gun.
-t

I can see an outright ban on gun ownership (at a federal level) of anyone who has ever received so much as a counseling session. Ostensibly the reason given will be to protect people from "potentially unstable" people but the real reason is de facto confiscation.

[Natural Citizen]

From a Vietnam Vet and retired Police Officer: I had a doctors appointment at the local VA clinic yesterday and found out something very interesting that I would like to pass along. While going through triage before seeing the doctor, I was asked at the end of the exam, three questions: 1. Did IFeel stressed? 2. Did I feel threatened? 3. Did I feel like doing harm to someone?

The nurse then informed me that if I had answered yes to any of the questions I would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would have gone into my medical records and the VA would have reported it to Homeland Security.

http://www.stevequayle.com/index.php?s=33&d=205

[Peace Piper]

Interesting response void of any evidence whatsoever. There is not a single shred of evidence that I'm aware of that outside of the SSRI or older anti-depressant class or the anti-psychotics (popularly now termed "mood stabilizers") that common drugs for psychiatric disorders increase suicidality or homicidality over and above the extant risk of whatever psychological issue the person has to begin with. But since you seem to know a lot about the issue, perhaps you could provide some support for this claim.

"older...class"? What do you mean by that?

NIH.GOV: Antidepressants and Violence-Problems at the Interface of Medicine & Law
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564177/

"Recent regulatory warnings about adverse behavioural effects of antidepressants in susceptible individuals have raised the profile of these issues with clinicians, patients, and the public. We review available clinical trial data on paroxetine and sertraline and pharmacovigilance studies of paroxetine and fluoxetine, and outline a series of medico-legal cases involving antidepressants and violence.

Both clinical trial and pharmacovigilance data point to possible links between these drugs and violent behaviours. The legal cases outlined returned a variety of verdicts that may in part have stemmed from different judicial processes. Many jurisdictions appear not to have considered the possibility that a prescription drug may induce violence.

...Legal systems are likely to continue to be faced with cases of violence associated with the use of psychotropic drugs, and it may fall to the courts to demand access to currently unavailable data. The problem is international and calls for an international response.

...In 1989, Joseph Wesbecker shot dead eight people and injured 12 others before killing himself at his place of work in Kentucky. Wesbecker had been taking the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant fluoxetine for four weeks before these homicides, and this led to a legal action against the makers of fluoxetine, Eli Lilly . The case was tried and settled in 1994, and as part of the settlement a number of pharmaceutical company documents about drug-induced activation were released into the public domain. Subsequent legal cases, some of which are outlined below, have further raised the possibility of a link between antidepressant use and violence.

...Some regulators, such as the Canadian regulators, have also referred to risks of treatment-induced activation leading to both self-harm and harm to others . The United States labels for all antidepressants as of August 2004 note that “anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric” . Despite these developments, few data are available on the links between antidepressant usage and violence. We here offer new data, review the implications of these data, and summarise a series of medico-legal cases.

...In these trials, hostile events are found to excess in both adults and children on paroxetine compared with placebo, and are found across indications, and both on therapy and during withdrawal. The rates were highest in children with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), where the odds ratio of a hostile event was 17 times greater (95% confidence interval

Emotional blunting

Another mechanism that may contribute to hostile events is treatment-induced emotional blunting. Several reports published since 1990 have linked SSRI intake with the production of emotional blunting, detachment, or an amotivational syndrome, described in one report as the equivalent to a

“chemical lobotomy”


. It is quite common in clinical practice to find people who say they simply are not bothered any more. Things that would previously have worried them no longer do so...


Mania and psychosis

Another mechanism that may link SSRIs to violence are the manic or psychotic states reported to be induced by drug treatment. These drug-induced states often resolve once the medication is removed. However, the full dimensions of treatment-induced psychotic or manic reactions have yet to be mapped; some may continue for a long period after treatment has stopped . It has recently been estimated that these drug-induced manic or psychotic states may account for up to eight percent of admissions to psychiatric facilities .

...The development of a psychotic episode or of command hallucinations has traditionally been linked to both violence and suicide. The labels for most SSRIs now concede a causal relationship to psychosis and to hallucinations...(more)

Conclusion

The new issues highlighted by these cases need urgent examination jointly by jurists and psychiatrists in all countries where antidepressants are widely used. The problem is international, and it would make sense to organise an international effort now.

Annex: The Illustrative Medico-Legal Cases

Case 1

DS was a 60-year-old man with a history of five prior anxiety/depressive episodes. These did not involve suicidality, aggressive behaviour, or other serious disturbance. All prior episodes had resolved within several weeks...

...In 1998, a new family doctor, unaware of this adverse reaction to fluoxetine, prescribed paroxetine 20 mg to DS, for what was diagnosed as an anxiety disorder. Two days later having had, it is believed, two doses of medication, DS using a gun put three bullets each through the heads of his wife, his daughter who was visiting, and his nine-month-old granddaughter before killing himself.

Case 3

DH was a 74-year-old man from New South Wales with a history of mixed anxiety/depressive episodes, many of which resolved without drug treatment. He had no history of violence or suicidality, and had remained gainfully employed throughout...

That night, apparently feeling worse after a first dose of sertraline, DH took four more doses of sertraline. The next morning, after his wife got up he met her in the kitchen and strangled her...(more)

(More cases detailed at link)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564177/

***************************

warning label from a Paxil bottle:
Suicidality and Antidepressant Drugs

Antidepressants increased the risk compared to placebo of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults in short-term studies of major depressive disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Anyone considering the use of PAXIL or any other antidepressant in a child, adolescent, or young adult must balance this risk with the clinical need. Short-term studies did not show an increase in the risk of suicidality with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults beyond age 24; there was a reduction in risk with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults aged 65 and older. Depression and certain other psychiatric disorders are themselves associated with increases in the risk of suicide. Patients of all ages who are started on antidepressant therapy should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior. Families and caregivers should be advised of the need for close observation and communication with the prescriber. PAXIL is not approved for use in pediatric patients. (See WARNINGS: Clinical Worsening and Suicide Risk, PRECAUTIONS: Information for Patients, and PRECAUTIONS: Pediatric Use.)

***********

http://ssristories.com/index.php

****************

[Jingles]

This stuff pisses me off. It's no better than saying because someone got caught with heroin that they are now a felon and can't vote. I think SSRI's are more negative than positive, but prohibition of anything is worse. Also, removing liberties from someone because they put a specific substances in their body (that you don't like) is about as anti-liberty as you can get. It's the same with the GMO issue. I don't care what your view is on them, it is about not using the force of the state. Enforce property rights to deal with Monsanto and don't buy their products if you thinks its so evil. The last thing we need is more laws. SSRI's help some people and not others. Blaming drugs for something is about as legitimate as liberals blaming guns for murder (i.e. stupid argument) Stop this reactionary demonizing of specific drugs (GMO's, the completely fake chemtrails if you understand planes, etc...) and listening to what Alex Jones says about them and learn some goddamn chemistry.

/rant

[thoughtomator]

Interesting response void of any evidence whatsoever. There is not a single shred of evidence that I'm aware of that outside of the SSRI or older anti-depressant class or the anti-psychotics (popularly now termed "mood stabilizers") that common drugs for psychiatric disorders increase suicidality or homicidality over and above the extant risk of whatever psychological issue the person has to begin with. But since you seem to know a lot about the issue, perhaps you could provide some support for this claim.

Of course you could take a few seconds to look up the most popular meds and see for yourself, instead of blindly claiming there's no evidence.

Let me help you since Google is obviously too difficult for you to deal with:

Most popular psych drugs:
http://psychcentral.com/lib/2012/top-25-psychiatric-medication-prescriptions-for-2011/

Top 10 psych drugs linked to violent behavior:
http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/07/top-ten-legal-drugs-linked-to-violence/

Note how broadly the two lists overlap.

Modern psych drugs are the equivalent of yesteryear's lobotomy - a barbaric medical practice rooted in ignorance and arrogance. These drugs are not at all subtle in their workings - all of them are designed to interfere with a brain's natural chemical system, and nobody knows what the full effects of disrupting the brain in these crude ways really are. One thing is for certain - they strip humanity, in whole or part, from their victims. Why anyone would be surprised that disrupting brain chemistry causes inhuman behavior, I can't fathom.

[dillo]

Ya lets let all loonies go off their meds and then get guns and drive

[cbrons]

"older...class"? What do you mean by that?



Before selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, there were tricylic antidepressants - some of which are still used to today. Before those, there were monoamine oxidase inhibitors. And to call them "anti-depressants" is really a misnomer, they are used for a lot of things, even some non-psychiatric conditions (primarily anyway).

The problem with these drugs is that they don't even really work better than placebo according to what I've read over the years. And yes, they are known to increase suicidality among children in particular.

[donnay]

Before selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, there were tricylic antidepressants - some of which are still used to today. Before those, there were monoamine oxidase inhibitors. And to call them "anti-depressants" is really a misnomer, they are used for a lot of things, even some non-psychiatric conditions (primarily anyway).

The problem with these drugs is that they don't even really work better than placebo according to what I've read over the years. And yes, they are known to increase suicidality among children in particular.


LOL! Are you a psychiatrist?

Take the time to watch the video I posted it will help you to understand how wrong you are.

[Natural Citizen]

This is an old Fox News report which investigated the phenomenon of youth who have been subjected to the pharmaceutical industry and their minions. It's not as if the msm are not aware of the phenomenon. After all. They have presented the notion themselves as this report clearly indicates. Apparently it's not convenient now to remember their reporting of years passed. Again...all one has to do is watch the commercials in between the "news" these days. In doing so would leave the viewer with a clear notion of who they now speak for. At least it should if they are awake in any form.

In 2002, Fox National News reported Douglas Kennedy exposed the link between psychiatric drugs and school shootings. In September 2005, following confirmation that Red Lake Indian Reservation school shooter, Jeff Weise, was under the influence of the antidepressant Prozac, the National Foundation of Women Legislators, together with American Indian tribal leaders, called for a Congressional investigation into the correlation between psychiatric drug use and school massacres. Congress has yet to investigate the role of psychiatric drugs relating to school shootings despite international drug regulators warning these drugs can cause mania, psychosis, hallucinations, suicide and homicidal ideation. At least eight of the recent school shooters were under the influence of such drugs, and according to media reports, investigators working on the Virginia Tech school shootings, Cho Seung-Hui may also have been taking drugs for "depression."

Spread far and wide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S-7aNPf33A&feature=player_embedded#!

[cbrons]

Of course you could take a few seconds to look up the most popular meds and see for yourself, instead of blindly claiming there's no evidence.

What I actually said was that I'm not aware of any evidence, not that there was none. Nonetheless your quotations do not pan out, appealing to anecdotal reports from individuals and making highfalutin claims comparing all psychiatric medication to "chemical lobotomy" is beyond the pale. If you think a person with narcolepsy who takes Ritalin is effectively being lobotomized and having his "humanity stripped away" by his physician, you are not even worth dialoguing with on this issue.



Top 10 psych drugs linked to violent behavior:
http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/07/top-ten-legal-drugs-linked-to-violence/

You couldn't be bothered to read what you posted (or you didn't understand) the very short article and citation:


A new study from the Institute for Safe Medication Practices published in the journal PloS One and based on data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System has identified 31 drugs that are disproportionately linked with reports of violent behavior towards others. (More on Time.com: New Hope For An Anti-Cocaine Vaccine)

Please note that this does not necessarily mean that these drugs cause violent behavior. For example, in the case of opioid pain medications like Oxycontin, people with a prior history of violent behavior may seek drugs in order to sustain an addiction, which they support via predatory crime. In the case of antipsychotics, the drugs may be given in an attempt to reduce violence by people suffering from schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders — so the drugs here might not be causing violence, but could be linked with it because they’re used to try to stop it.

So, a correlation exists between the use of the most popular psychiatric medications and violence. Fascinating. Do you think there could be other variables at work here? (I.e. a person on these drugs is more violence-prone to begin with)?

The FDA reporting system is where patients call in their "side effects." It's called an anecdote. Useless for generalizations by themselves for any number of reasons that would be covered in a basic research methods and design course. For now, let's just say that what you provided for your broad sweeping claim that all psychiatric medications cause people to become more violent is sorely lacking.

SSRIs are known to increase suicide risk in children and probably adults as well. And they don't work very well. They're really garbage drugs, and hopefully something better and more effective will be available someday.

As to the other medications, highly unlikely. They would be in the literature by now, especially the ones that have been around for many decades (amphetamines for example).

[cbrons]

LOL! Are you a psychiatrist?

Take the time to watch the video I posted it will help you to understand how wrong you are.

What is this video supposed to help me understand? That anti-depressants are largely useless medications? That they do more harm than good for most people? That they increase suicide risk in children and likely adults as well? Have you read me admit as much?

[donnay]

What is this video supposed to help me understand? That anti-depressants are largely useless medications? That they do more harm than good for most people? That they increase suicide risk in children and likely adults as well? Have you read me admit as much?

It will stop your mere dismissal of it all. These drugs are crimes against humanity, plain and simple.

[Jingles]

cbrons, you are articulating every argument I would make better than I could. Thank you, I'd rep you 4243562371432142358925993958032 times if I could.

Seriously though, it's like talking to a wall sometimes with you guys when it comes to pharmacology, chemistry, or science in general.

[donnay]

cbrons, you are articulating every argument I would make better than I could. Thank you, I'd rep you 4243562371432142358925993958032 times if I could.

Seriously though, it's like talking to a wall sometimes with you guys when it comes to pharmacology, chemistry, or science in general.


There is absolutely NO SCIENCE in Psychiatry!!

[Tpoints]

only partially satire huh?

[cbrons]

It will stop your mere dismissal of it all. These drugs are crimes against humanity, plain and simple.

They're all a crime against humanity? So in your mind, a drug like Abilify given to a person with severe schizophrenia is a crime? Or how about a narcoleptic taking adderall? Heck how about an adult taking adderall or whatever to focus? Or how about someone with OCD taking Namenda?

You clearly don't understand just how horrible mental illness can be, and there are drugs out there that make a real difference for these people and at the same time do not make them a danger to society or to themselves, and in fact in many cases they make them just the opposite.

Now as to the so-called "anti-depressants" I would say they are dangerous for a small percentage of people and probably useless for a large percentage of people.

Stating that every drug used for psychiatric conditions is a crime against humanity is ridiculous, paranoid, and detestable.

[Jingles]

It will stop your mere dismissal of it all. These drugs are crimes against humanity, plain and simple.

I think your illogical hatred for SSRI's is more of a crime because this type of mentality always leads to state intervention. BLAME THE DRUGS = Drug war. BLAME THE GUNS = Gun bans. BLAME THE VIDEO GAMES, BOOKS, TV = Censorship, etc...

[Jingles]

They're all a crime against humanity? So in your mind, a drug like Abilify given to a person with severe schizophrenia is a crime? Or how about a narcoleptic taking adderall? Heck how about an adult taking adderall or whatever to focus? Or how about someone with OCD taking Namenda?

You clearly don't understand just how horrible mental illness can be, and there are drugs out there that make a real difference for these people and at the same time do not make them a danger to society or to themselves, and in fact in many cases they make them just the opposite.

Now as to the so-called "anti-depressants" I would say they are dangerous for a small percentage of people and probably useless for a large percentage of people.

Stating that every drug used for psychiatric conditions is a crime against humanity is ridiculous, paranoid, and detestable.

*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to cbrons again.

[donnay]

I think your illogical hatred for SSRI's is more of a crime because this type of mentality always leads to state intervention. BLAME THE DRUGS = Drug war. BLAME THE GUNS = Gun bans. BLAME THE VIDEO GAMES, BOOKS, TV = Censorship, etc...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! That is definitely quite amusing. I do not want state intervention whatsoever. I want people to wake the fuck up and understand that the state sponsors this shit. The state approves of this shit. The state turns it back on the crimes these psychiatrists do to unwitting people. If people knew about these heinous drugs and do not take them, then the pharmaceutical industry doesn't get the money. It's called being fully informed and not blindly trusting some white coat twit to help make all your problems go away.

[Indy Vidual]

Where is the bright side?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVQ3-Xe_suY

[Natural Citizen]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! That is definitely quite amusing. I do not want state intervention whatsoever. I want people to wake the fuck up and understand that the state sponsors this shit. The state approves of this shit. The state turns it back on the crimes these psychiatrists do to unwitting people. If people knew about these heinous drugs and do not take them, then the pharmaceutical industry doesn't get the money. It's called being fully informed and not blindly trusting some white coat twit to help make all your problems go away.

It's not worth the time or keystrokes. Why bother? They don't know. They don't want to know. Forget about them. Move on.

[donnay]

They're all a crime against humanity? So in your mind, a drug like Abilify given to a person with severe schizophrenia is a crime? Or how about a narcoleptic taking adderall? Heck how about an adult taking adderall or whatever to focus? Or how about someone with OCD taking Namenda?

You clearly don't understand just how horrible mental illness can be, and there are drugs out there that make a real difference for these people and at the same time do not make them a danger to society or to themselves, and in fact in many cases they make them just the opposite.

Now as to the so-called "anti-depressants" I would say they are dangerous for a small percentage of people and probably useless for a large percentage of people.

Stating that every drug used for psychiatric conditions is a crime against humanity is ridiculous, paranoid, and detestable.


You clearly do not understand that most of these mental illnesses have soared because of the pills these people are taking. Bipolar--invented illness. ADD/ADHD--invented.

How about the drug for restless leg syndrome--makes you want sex and gamble a lot. :rolleyes:

I have known people who went to their MD because they had insomnia and were prescribe Ambien and had horrific nightmares to the point they didn't want to go to sleep.

I have known people who have taken Statin drugs that would have horrendous nightmares. Two different WWII veterans, who did not know each other but knew me and told me about the horrible nightmares, night after night about things that occurred in war. Strange, eh?

I know another person who was on Wellbutrin who tried to commit suicide three times, then was put on effexor, this went on from the age of 17 to 24 years of age. She wound up having almost all of her colon removed because of IBS then severe ulcerated colitis. Her doctor said the drugs she was taking for her bipolar/manic depression caused the damage to her lower intestine and colon.

I can go on and on about real life stories of people whom have been traumatized and hurt by these drugs all because they believed their doctor knew what was best for them.

I also know that the federal government gives public schools incentives to have more children on these type drugs.

Say what you will, but I have seen the ramifications of these drugs, up close and personal, and I will not sit back and say nothing.

[tangent4ronpaul]

This looks like trouble:

I think it's going to make school shootings look "cool" and promote more of them.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aY3rwF75oQ&feature=player_embedded#!

Does anyone know anything about this clip? It looks too "smooth". A couple of the actors look too familiar in a "Hollyweird" sort of way...

The comments suggest it was a movie. How recent? Title?

Anyone?

-t

[Natural Citizen]

Everyone who is under the illusion that because there needs to be an effort to make these industries accountable that it is calling for government intervention, all I can say is that you are wrong in your notion of what that concept truly means. More government intervention in realistic terms means one thing. It means that you, the people...the one's whom our founders meant when they scribbled up the term We The People, step up and expose them and kick them out from calling the shots and take back your representation. That's what government intervention means. Or at least what it should mean. Nothing else.

[CaptainAmerica]

this idea is a double edged sword that swings both ways.

[tangent4ronpaul]

You clearly do not understand that most of these mental illnesses have soared because of the pills these people are taking. Bipolar--invented illness. ADD/ADHD--invented.

I agree that most of the ppl taking these pills don't have these conditions. I do, however, take care of a girl that is both bi-polar and ADHD. These conditions are real, and you can see some extreme behavior. She seems to be getting better. With medication.

The more relevant question would be what effect did genetically modified foods have on this and looking at the timelines. I think there might be some correlation...

-t

[mrsat_98]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_82P5gJOOKA

http://www.fukitall.com/

[tod evans]

The very existence of psych drugs is a strong argument for decriminalization of all drugs...

If the general population had real options for treating themselves it's pretty unlikely "Average Joe/Jane" would choose to self medicate with this type of drug. However in todays climate s/he is steered to this type of drug and given no real choice..

To me it all boils down to; This is where society trusting government has gotten us..........

Government is NOT qualified to determine or regulate what chemicals I choose to put into my body.

[awake]

The story basically implies that psychotropic medications and guns are a bad mix? Nooooo...why is there no debate in banning psychiatrists from issuing these things in the first place.

[tod evans]

The story basically implies that psychotropic medications and guns are a bad mix? Nooooo...why is there no debate in banning psychiatrists from issuing these things in the first place.

I say let the head-shrinkers make recommendations instead of writing prescriptions....

People instinctively choose medication that works for them, the system we have now doesn't give the patient that option.

[thoughtomator]

You couldn't be bothered to read what you posted (or you didn't understand) the very short article and citation:

So, a correlation exists between the use of the most popular psychiatric medications and violence. Fascinating. Do you think there could be other variables at work here?

You are dangerously close to trolling, if not already over the line. Debate honestly or I will respond only with neg reps from here on in - your call.

[Natural Citizen]

The story basically implies that psychotropic medications and guns are a bad mix? Nooooo...why is there no debate in banning psychiatrists from issuing these things in the first place.

There is much debate. Just have to go visit a psychiatrist or two to hear it. There are many ethical professionals in the field. They speak rather loudly about what is happening. Folks just need to lend an ear is all...join the efforts...that kind of thing. I posted a rather thorough discussion from one of the best in the field discussing this very issue just a few days ago. He was actually one of the experts in the Columbine case for what it's worth. And there are many others involved with harnessing some bit of control in their perspective fields. Relevant information has been shared in other forms as well for anyone interested. Moving forward...

Unfortunately, this board isn't really set up in a manner that conforms to scientific research and other relevant issues and news though. These discussions and those like them get scattered and lost all over the place here. That said, people just aren't able to research happenings relevant to this and similar subjects in a dedicated place. I'm beginning to think it's by design too. It's a shame that it remains that way.

[donnay]

I agree that most of the ppl taking these pills don't have these conditions. I do, however, take care of a girl that is both bi-polar and ADHD. These conditions are real, and you can see some extreme behavior. She seems to be getting better. With medication.

The more relevant question would be what effect did genetically modified foods have on this and looking at the timelines. I think there might be some correlation...

-t

GMO's yes. How about vaccines--and the pushing of pregnant women to get flu vaccines? I also believe it is overuse of antibiotics too, that are causing these major mental imbalances. Maybe it could be radiation? Or a combination of all of the above?

Sources:
http://www.vaccinetruth.org/virus_and_mental_illness_.htm
http://www.livescience.com/14266-gut-bacteria-behavior-irritable-bowel-syndrome-depression-anxiety-antibiotics-probiotics.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=infected-with-insanity
http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/xray3.htm

However, over the years how many times have scientist and doctors been caught fabricating their data?

Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672510903888207.html
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Syngenta_Charged_for_Covering_Up_Livestock_Deaths_ from_GM_Corn.php
http://www.naturalnews.com/CDC.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/dioxcov.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/
http://www.whale.to/a/blaylock.html
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/48-2009/11593-monsantos-history-of-lies-and-toxicity

Will the truth ever come out? Only if we expose the lies and deception!

[Athan]

The driving and voting thing is stupid.

[Pericles]

While the OP is being a bit sarcastic....it's not totally crazy. Think about it. We have all sorts of "gun laws" to keep guns out of the hands of "dangerous people". Well is someone who pleads guilty to a felony charge for writing bad checks or possessing illicit drugs or cheating on his income taxes really more dangerous than someone who's taking prescription drugs that have the following warning label?

ZOLOFT®
(sertraline hydrochloride)
Tablets and Oral Concentrate

Suicidality and Antidepressant Drugs Antidepressants increased the risk compared to placebo of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults in short-term studies of major depressive disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Anyone considering the use of Zoloft or any other antidepressant in a child, adolescent, or young adult must balance this risk with the clinical need. Short-term studies did not show an increase in the risk of suicidality with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults beyond age 24; there was a reduction in risk with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults aged 65 and older.

Why is it even legal to sell a drug that increases the risk of suicide?

This is the real issue. Can we ID people who are dangerous to society, without violating their rights. Once someone has been properly IDed as dangerous, what restrictions are permissible?

[tod evans]

This is the real issue. Can we ID people who are dangerous to society, without violating their rights. Once someone has been properly IDed as dangerous, what restrictions are permissible?

Herein lies the problem, the "we" who does the identifying....

I believe society as a whole would be much better off focusing on actual actions than perceived beliefs..

If the modern day stigmas were removed from "mental illness" and more importantly drugs, I honestly believe we, as a nation, would see far less acting out by people...

Folks who have genuine issues complain about both the drugs and the stigma attached to seeking help.........And rightly so..

If the "crazy" people knew they could self medicate with their drug of choice they'd be far more likely to actually take their meds, and if they knew they'd be held accountable for their actions it's highly probable they'd give more thought to them too...

[cbrons]

You are dangerously close to trolling, if not already over the line. Debate honestly or I will respond only with neg reps from here on in - your call.

Threats: The last refuge of a man without a valid argument.

I wasted my time responding to you. You're just a pseudointellectual hack who has no business poisoning other people with your scientology-style demonization of an entire class of physicians and scientists. That fact that you are so zealous about doing so speaks volumes about the worthiness of even dialoguing with you on the subject.

Rep me whatever you want.

[tod evans]

Why is it even legal to sell a drug that increases the risk of suicide?

I would like to see all drugs including this one, freely available over the counter without a prescription.

I'd also like to see the honest exchange of information regarding the drugs effects shared by actual users of the drug instead of the propaganda arm of the manufacturer..

[Natural Citizen]

Threats: The last refuge of a man without a valid argument.

I wasted my time responding to you. You're just a pseudointellectual hack who has no business poisoning other people with your scientology-style demonization of an entire class of physicians and scientists. That fact that you are so zealous about doing so speaks volumes about the worthiness of even dialoguing with you on the subject.

Rep me whatever you want.

Yeah, that's a valid point regarding the notion of placing all psychiatrists into that category. Certainly it's not the case. But as I had mentioned. Many in the field are our best alley in addressing the issue whether people realize it or not.

Aside from that, my opinion on the use of "scientology-style demonization" language is just plain silly. What's that mean, really?

There is an entire industry which is science based who actually are in the business of altering man both mentally and physically and with specific goals that they are not really trying to hide. There is. There is no refuting that. They don't have to try and hide it because they know people won't hear it from main stream sources and as such will never even consider it. You just have to take the time to research it. And unless people wake up to that reality, research it and understand it's application both in the general public and defense sectors then they're just going to be viewed by those who actually do know what is happening as uninformed people pushing keystrokes. That may sound harsh but it's true.

There is a wealth of information in the transhumanism thread. The video discussion is excellent information and sources. Actually there is a wealth of information scattered throughout the boards. There really is no dedicated platform for science here so much of the discussion is lost or buried, unfortunately. There really should be because we'll see in the coming months and years that the traditional line between actual applied sciences and politics will be diminishing. Actually already is. Just have to look around in the mean time or seek other platforms for such discussion.

[paulbot24]

Do you ever get the feeling we are doing exactly what was intended? We are not discussing how best to preserve our rights. We are separating into groups and deciding which groups deserve the second amendment "privilege" and which do not. Divide and conquer mean anything to anybody?

[Natural Citizen]

Order out of chaos does. :)

But, yes. You make a good point.

[cbrons]

Yeah, that's a valid point regarding the notion of placing all psychiatrists into that category. Certainly it's not the case. But as I had mentioned. Many in the field are our best alley in addressing the issue whether people realize it or not.

Aside from that, my opinion on the use of "scientology-style demonization" language is just plain silly. What's that mean, really?

There is an entire industry which is science based who actually are in the business of altering man both mentally and physically and with specific goals that they are not really trying to hide. There is. There is no refuting that. They don't have to try and hide it because they know people won't hear it from main stream sources and as such will never even consider it. You just have to take the time to research it. And unless people wake up to that reality, research it and understand it's application both in the general public and defense sectors then they're just going to be viewed by those who actually do know what is happening as uninformed people pushing keystrokes. That may sound harsh but it's true.

There is a wealth of information in the transhumanism thread. The video discussion is excellent information and sources. Actually there is a wealth of information scattered throughout the boards. There really is no dedicated platform for science here so much of the discussion is lost or buried, unfortunately. There really should be because we'll see in the coming months and years that the traditional line between actual applied sciences and politics will be diminishing. Actually already is. Just have to look around in the mean time or seek other platforms for such discussion.

Sorry I don't really know what to make of this, I was responding to someone else. People are free to have whatever opinion they want on the issue, as am I, which is why I will attack anyone who makes outrageous claims about an entire group of physicians in some conspiracy to strip away the humanity from their patients. That type of rhetoric is actually disgusting to me, and borders (ironically) on the insane in and of itself.