Murder Suicide and How Toxicology Reports Are Hidden

[no more drugs]

Suspected adverse events are not filed because something is plausible. How do you square the above toxicology based findings with what you are saying now, and what you were asking for in your OP? There is a very real discordance here.

Huh? Im not understanding your question??

And suspected events are absolutley necessary... here is why...

The banning of Tholidomide in the 60's was because of plausible suspicion.... babies were being born deformed who's mothers were taking this drug...

There was no scientific blood test for mom or baby to have made that determination...it was the all too common trend...

In the case of antidepressanst and antipsychotics we already know from the manufacturer that suicidal and homicidal ideation along with loss of reality can and has happened..

Are you suggesting that without some type of blood test confirming such, that trends cant ever be established? How can trends be established if we arent able to find out the information surrounding the murder suicide? Hearing that tox reports arent even done (id the cause of death is already able to be established) was shocking to me.... Hopefully, society will start seeing a common trend and start speaking out...

Huh? Im not understanding your question??

And suspected events are absolutley necessary... here is why...

The banning of Tholidomide in the 60's was because of plausible suspicion.... babies were being born deformed who's mothers were taking this drug...

There was no scientific blood test for mom or baby to have made that determination...it was the all too common trend...

In the case of antidepressanst and antipsychotics we already know from the manufacturer that suicidal and homicidal ideation along with loss of reality can and has happened..

Are you suggesting that without some type of blood test confirming such, that trends cant ever be established? How can trends be established if we arent able to find out the information surrounding the murder suicide? Hearing that tox reports arent even done (id the cause of death is already able to be established) was shocking to me.... Hopefully, society will start seeing a common trend and start speaking out...

Hey just think .... back in the 50's and 60's if the pharma companies had have said that thir studies showed tholidomide has the very rare adverse reaction/side effect that babies coud be deformed... it would have never been banned....every mom who delivered a baby with a birth defect would have been told it wasnt the drug becasue it was so rare... sheesh

 

[Tonington]

Huh? Im not understanding your question??

You asked about toxicology reports. I linked to an investigation using toxicology reports. They found no evidence that the drugs lead to more violent crime, and in fact I explained that their results actually point to a reduction. You ignore that and move onto it being plausible that drugs are the impetus for some crime, when there is no evidence.

I`m saying that your statements are not in accord with each other from the beginning of the thread to these last ones.

And suspected events are absolutley necessary... here is why...

I know very well why suspected adverse events are necessary. I work for an animal health company, part of a much larger corporation, that makes vaccines for fish. If I even hear a friend talking about adverse reactions in their dog after using one of our flea treatments, or adverse reactions from a human medication we market, I'm obligated to get information and pass it onto our Pharmacovigilance staff. In fact it's my duty to make a report in no more than 24 hours from the moment I become aware.

That said, they are all suspected events until the investigation is complete.

And like I said, you don't fill out a suspected adverse event for something plausible. We only deal with real events, not supposition of loose thoughts and vague possibilities.

 

[Niflmir]

We all know that simple stats work either for us or against s.. it is however they are portrayed to support the cause at hand..

Sadly, science doesnt work the way you are expecting it to.

So you're happy with science when it backs up your position, but it is wishy-washy nonsense when it doesn't?

First off, you are committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Your argument is basically, "If someone is on certain medications, then they become more violent/suicidal. A person is violent or suicidal, therefore they were on certain medications." You try to dodge the fallacy by sticking probabilities in there, but causality with probabilities work in the exact same way as causality with probabilities: your reasoning is fallacious.

Now, fallacious reasoning alone doesn't kill a proposition, it just makes it seem like gibberish to rationally minded people. As Tonington showed, the science solidly kills your argument and (oh, the irony!) I'm afraid that science doesn't work in the way you want it to. Statistics have very precise meanings, they cannot mean whatever you want them to. People with poor statistical knowledge instead abuse statistics for their rhetorical constructions and other unskilled statisticians and lay people believe them because they affirm what they already believe.

On the more human level, these medications help a lot of people achieve the balance in life that they otherwise could not. I was once upon a time put on some serious anti-psychotics. They made me better, and everybody I cared about could tolerate being around me again. Thankfully I was able to use the experience to learn how to behave around people and managed to leave them behind a long time ago. There were unpleasant side effects but nothing is more unpleasant than your family and friends not being comfortable around you.

 

[JamesBondo]

the left want the guns banned, so they don't want to mention the drugs.

And the right want the criminal to go to jail, therefore an 'it's the drugs' excuse is not good for a long conviction.

 

[no more drugs]

Because I care about people in general and see that many people are unaware of the dangers of antidepressants and antipsychotics, I wish to inform them (incase they didnt already know) that;

1) many pharmacists do not tell of known adverse reactions of these drugs that have confirmed loss of reality delusion, suicide and homicidal ideation have and can occur...there is currently no mandate in any province for pharmacists to disclose adverse reactions (even if you specifically ask what they are)

2) I have personally noticed a huge trend of murder suicides where anitdepressants and or antipsychotics allegedly came into the mix and then the murder suicide took place..

3) If you or anyone reports an adverse reaction to a drug though your doctor or pharmacist, there is no mandate that says they need to submit your reaction to Health Canada...

4) A persons report of an adverse affect should be submitted to Health Canada regardless of the opinion of the pharmacists ... your concerns deserve to be sent to Health Canada..

5) Tox reports are not done (in many cases) in murder suicides where the coroner / medical examiner already knows the manner and cause of death.

6) It was through a common trend of deformed babies where mothers were taking tholidomide where too many coincidences initiated the ban in the 60's even though there was no scientific evidence, and appeared plausible that the drug was causing this)

7) There appears to be a growing common trend of murder suicides across our country where these drugs appear to be connected....

8) In any writing on this subject I have done, there has only been good intentions to help people make the best possible decision for themself .....

9) Stats are usually misleading when studies are few and far between and the datat in which is collected is not collected by every possible mean.

10) Most studies that have been on antidepressants and antipsychotics, were done by the (bias) manufacturer.
Independant studies have shown that these pills dont work.

Here's an article by Dr Peter Breggin psychiatist (who has been working among these pharmaceuticals since they came out...)


"AntidepressantsCause Suicide and Violence in Soldiers

Here are the starting facts: Death by suicide is at record levels in thearmed services. Simultaneously the use of antidepressant drugs is also atrecord levels, including brand names like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa andLexapro.

According to the army, in 2007 17% of combat troops in Afghanistan were takingprescription antidepressants or sleeping pills. Inside sources have given me aneven bleaker picture: During Vietnam, a mere 1% our troops were takingprescribed psychiatric drugs. By contrast, in the past year one-third ofmarines in combat zones were taking psychiatric drugs.

Are the pills helping? The army confirms that since 2002 the number ofsuicide attempts has increased six-fold. And more than 128 soldiers killedthemselves last year. "

read the rest..
Dr. Peter Breggin: Antidepressants Cause Suicide and Violence in Soldiers

 

[Tonington]

I wonder if an active war has anything to do with it? You think that's possible? The tox reports that you are complaining about don't support your claims. Full stop. Learning new information should shape your views. That you chose to stick your head in the sand confirms that you are an activist who has already decided, in the absence of empiricism, that these drugs are causing murders and suicides.

Look, it's very simple. If the drugs were causing murder and suicide, then the tox reports would show individuals taking these medications are over-represented in the study population. They are not. They are under-represented. Think about that.

 

[no more drugs]

[
On the more human level, these medications help a lot of people achieve the balance in life that they otherwise could not. I was once upon a time put on some serious anti-psychotics. They made me better, and everybody I cared about could tolerate being around me again. Thankfully I was able to use the experience to learn how to behave around people and managed to leave them behind a long time ago. There were unpleasant side effects but nothing is more unpleasant than your family and friends not being comfortable around you.[/QUOTE]

Im glad life is good for you... Im glad you found something that helped....

As I have stated several times, it is apparent that adverse reactions (namely suicide and or homicidal thinking) doesnt happen to everyone..

Tholidomide use in every pregnant woman, did not cause birth defects in every case...

I wonder if an active war has anything to do with it? You think that's possible? The tox reports that you are complaining about don't support your claims. Full stop. Learning new information should shape your views. That you chose to stick your head in the sand confirms that you are an activist who has already decided, in the absence of empiricism, that these drugs are causing murders and suicides.

Look, it's very simple. If the drugs were causing murder and suicide, then the tox reports would show individuals taking these medications are over-represented in the study population. They are not. They are under-represented. Think about that.

What appears "simple" to me is that you arent reading my posts in which you are so strongly disagreeing with...

My posts have shown that tox screening is not being done ......

I wonder if an active war has anything to do with it? You think that's possible? The tox reports that you are complaining about don't support your claims. Full stop. Learning new information should shape your views. That you chose to stick your head in the sand confirms that you are an activist who has already decided, in the absence of empiricism, that these drugs are causing murders and suicides.

Look, it's very simple. If the drugs were causing murder and suicide, then the tox reports would show individuals taking these medications are over-represented in the study population. They are not. They are under-represented. Think about that.

If anyone has their head in the sand ... sorry to say but it is you....

The reality and known fact from drug manufacturers of antidepressanst and antipsychotics say that these drugs can cause suicide and homicide ideation along with loss of reality..

This is a known fact ..

How you seem to be able to rule out that possibility in the murder suicides that have been occuring hand overfist, is baffling to say the least. (Head in sand?)

If you are suggesting that the drug manufacturers who stands to gain HUGE profits would be conducting unbiased studies and be honest/forthcoming/transparent, then how do you explain this below article ....?)

"Glaxo Agrees to Pay $3 Billion in Fraud Settlement July 2, 2012

"In the largest settlement involving a pharmaceutical company, the British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and pay $3 billion in fines for promoting its best-selling antidepressants for unapproved uses and failing to report safety data"

read the rest (and tell me who's head is in the sand...mine, or yours????)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/b...-in-fraud-settlement.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


------------------------------------------

 

[Tonington]

What appears "simple" to me is that you arent reading my posts in which you are so strongly disagreeing with...

My posts have shown that tox screening is not being done ......

No they haven't. Your posts have complained that the information isn't made public. That's much different than claiming they aren't being done. If you can't get access to them, then you can't very well say that they don't exist...

The reality and known fact from drug manufacturers of antidepressanst and antipsychotics say that these drugs can cause suicide and homicide ideation along with loss of reality..

Yes, they can. However, they should be given in consultation with a Doctor who can monitor the treatment and response. You're jumping from micro to macro.

The toxicology results from New York City are precisely what you were asking for. The coincidence of murders/suicides and psychotropic drug use was only 2.4%. Do you understand what a population is and how that is relevant to cross-sectional study?

How you seem to be able to rule out that possibility in the murder suicides that have been occuring hand overfist, is baffling to say the least. (Head in sand?)

I never ruled out the possibility, and I still don't. One study does not rule that out. I simply provided a link to the very type of data you were complaining about a lack of access to. Then I wondered how you could persist with your assertions given that the very data you were looking for gave you an answer you did not like.

If you are suggesting that the drug manufacturers who stands to gain HUGE profits would be conducting unbiased studies and be honest/forthcoming/transparent, then how do you explain this below article ....?)

I explain that you have just posted a strawman. I never said any of that.

"Glaxo Agrees to Pay $3 Billion in Fraud Settlement July 2, 2012

"In the largest settlement involving a pharmaceutical company, the British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and pay $3 billion in fines for promoting its best-selling antidepressants for unapproved uses and failing to report safety data"

read the rest (and tell me who's head is in the sand...mine, or yours????)

Still yours. Now you're moving goal posts and creating strawmen arguments, amongst other logical fallacies like non sequitur.. Suffice it to say, that the behaviour of GSK does not provide the evidence for your OP either.

 

[no more drugs]

You still havent read my posts... (yet you keep arguing)

I said in my posts that coroners and medical examiners in Canada are NOT running tox reports in murder suicides where they know how the people died..They are NOT requesting tox reports..end of story..

they should be ..we are portentially missing out on great help that may help show a link to the drug and an adverse reaction

You also said that..I will quote you. you said re antidepressants and ntipsychotics..." However, they should be given in consultation with a Doctor who can monitor the treatment and response"

You didnt read my post that says pharmacists and doctors ARE NOT MANDATED to disclose adverse reactions and they arent telling people ... (they are also not mandated to complete adverse reaction forms when they are told of one.. There is nothing that madates them to send in the received complaint ....

These are the concerns I write of which of course help in the problem with these drugs causing awful things, and people not being aware of enough...

Im glad you believe it is possible that the murder suicides that seem to be happening weekly, could be the result of an adverse reaction to psychopharmaceuticals.... That was the point of my writing.. where peopkle start considering the possibililty and to help make people aware..

Pharmaceutical companies have their way paved... heres how they are assisted

criminal investigations are never public (when the perp is dead no charges are laid and nothing is ever made public)

coroners dont run tox reports

pharmacists and doctors dont tell people about possible adverse reactions

pharmacists dont have to report a reported adverse reaction and neither do doctors

stats canada doesnt take polls on how many prescriptions of these drugs are given and the breakdpown per drug

there are no public stats of how many suicides there are

and we the people continue believeing that these drugs must be safe or they wouldnt be given out when in fact we and they know very little about what they are doing to people and I doubt they care...

 

[karrie]

and we the people continue believeing that these drugs must be safe or they wouldnt be given out when in fact we and they know very little about what they are doing to people and I doubt they care...

Not everything you say is wrong, but you've reached the wrong conclusion with all of it.

These medications are crucial for many people. Life saving.

Your endorsement of 'no more drugs' is hazardous, reckless, irresponsible.

 

[no more drugs]

Not everything you say is wrong, but you've reached the wrong conclusion with all of it.

These medications are crucial for many people. Life saving.

Your endorsement of 'no more drugs' is hazardous, reckless, irresponsible.

Hi Karrie,

Im not sure my conclusion is wrong...What conclusion do you think I have made or have stated?

I have agreed that these adverse reactions dont happen to everyone.. I know this.

My conclusion is that to many horrific tragedies (murder suicides) are happening all over and the media is inadvertantly assisting the manufacturers by not digging... (In speaking to many reporters, many didnt know that there was adverse reactions of suicide homicide ideation, and some who did, believed that it cant happen or the drugs wouldnt be approved and some didnt want to upset the vistims families by suggesting an "excuse"....)

The pharmacists (and medical proffession in general) are helping the pharma companies keep this potential death sentence a secret by not revealing adverse reactions where receipients and families are completely unaware.. (by having the belief that it is the docs reseponsibility where doctors have no mandate to do this and fear scaring people so many doctors dont tell the patient either..

FOIP and HIPPA also help the pharmaceuticals by making it impossible for health records to be reviewed by independant experts who could try and determine if suicide or homicidal thoughts had been reported and if they started after the meds (Like JAmes Holmes the Colorado movie shooter) Becasue he is still alive and charges were laid, his investigation has some details that have been made public like his alleged homicidal ideation after the meds and prior to the shootings)

Criminal investigations are not public and no one can see what the police found (pills, notes, and evidence that may suggest when homicidal ideation began)

The labels dont include adverse reactions and there is no mandate by health Canada for this either... The hand out that is provided is deceiving in itself.. it only has the "common side effects." Many people would read this and have the assumption that everything that can happen is on the paper....


My endorsement is to bring awareness that these horrific adverse reactions do in fact happen (just like the manufacturer says) and I question how rare it is because of the trend that we have been seeing over the past decade... (the drugs have changed considerably in the past decade by increasing the seratonin reuptake strength ...)

In doing so I am hoping to help people have a more realistic sense that we arent told everything. The trends that I am pointing out have been obverlooked by many and I feel it necessary to help point out the relaitstic trend so to help the public become educated to make the best decision where prompting them to do their own research....

 

[karrie]

What conclusion do you think I have made or have stated?

Your recurring topic of choice combined with your screen name tell me that you are anti-pharma and would like to see an end to antidepressant and antipsychotic use.

 

[Tonington]

I don't think people that end up murdering others and then killing themselves tell that to their doctor or pharmacist. So how exactly is a doctor or pharmacist supposed to report something they have no knowledge of? Besides, medical professionals have access to the reports like that I linked to you already. There is little reason to believe that others would find something different. Of course they could, and if they think something is missing from that evaluation then they should do their own analysis with a different set of data to see if they can confirm or refute.

no more drugs, your thoughts require some more thinking. It's not cohesive at all what you're trying to string together here.

 

[no more drugs]

Your recurring topic of choice combined with your screen name tell me that you are anti-pharma and would like to see an end to antidepressant and antipsychotic use.

Actually I am not anti pharma. Your conclusion is incorrect. My belief is that there are some life saving drugs along with death driving drugs. I write on the pharmaceuticals I feel are death driving and have made a concerted effort to help lead people to do their own research. I write in hopes that peoples interest will lead them to their own research...

I have pointed out a trend in one area (murder suicides) which are known adverse reactions of mind altering drugs, and havent even touched on the possible trend that may be applicable in other areas like suicides, and murder where there is no suicide.

The Seth Ottenbreit sad case of Winnipeg comes to mind where the courts recently agreed that antidepressants caused the perps homicidal actions.

Another one is Felicia Boots where the courts also agreed that the mind altering drug caused her actions, along with Guy Turcotte the cardiologist in Quebec.

I don't think people that end up murdering others and then killing themselves tell that to their doctor or pharmacist.

No more drugs said..

Are you aware that the court papers recently filed through the courts state that James Holmes (the Colorado Movie shooter) told his psychiatrist in her office (Dr Lynn Fenton) 6 weeks before his killing rampage that he fantasized about killing people...lots of them was the alleged quote...It is alleged that not only was it not reported, but nothing was done in terms of the secrurity of other innocnet people (i.e committing him)

by Huffington Post Dec 5, 2012

"A psychiatrist who treated accused Colorado theater gunman James Holmes rejected a law enforcement offer to involuntarily confine him for 72 hours after he told her six weeks before the shooting that he fantasized about killing "a lot of people," the Denver Post reported on Wednesday."
James Holmes Told Therapist Lynne Fenton That He Fantasized About Killing 'A Lot Of People' Six Weeks Before Shooting


If James Holmes would have also killed himself, no charges would have been laid, therefore this information would have been secret. No one would have ever been privy to the medical reports.

So if we look at the many exampales I have brought here to this forum where the killer did die, no charges were laid, and nothing is public, we should we assume that none of the killrs I mentioned told a doctor? If they did ... do you think we will ever know?

Respectfully, I think you need to do more thinking and maybe some of your own research. It wasnt hard for me to find out what the pharmacists requirements are through the colleges and the coroners and medical examiners acts are in queens printer (and you could call them and ask yourself.) You could also find out that criminal investigations by law enforcement are sealed and remain that way unless chargges were laid where there will be some public records...(either the proscecutor or the defense will mostly ask the courts to seal any medical records from the record...depending on which side it could benefit)

All I am doing is trying to bring public awareness to a very important subject where clearly we cant rely on the powers that be...Im not sure why you dont think its "cohesive" to help better our society.....?

Not everything you say is wrong, but you've reached the wrong conclusion with all of it.

These medications are crucial for many people. Life saving.

Your endorsement of 'no more drugs' is hazardous, reckless, irresponsible.

Karrie,

You seem to be only seeing one side..

Do you think it is reckless and irresponsible for the medical profession to hide and conceal important information (like adverse reactions) that could change a person from ever starting such a drug?

Do you know that the stats say these type of drugs are way overprescribed?

Do you think it is reckless to keep (the adverse reactions a secret) by the powers that be to continue pushing these drugs whereby potentially endangering the lives of the general public

(elementary students, university students, mall shoppers spouses and children, movie goers)

 

[karrie]

Do you think it is reckless to keep (the adverse reactions a secret) by the powers that be to continue pushing these drugs whereby potentially endangering the lives of the general public

(elementary students, university students, mall shoppers spouses and children, movie goers)

I think it would be reckless to prevent someone from taking these drugs when they may be all that stands between that person, and hurting someone.


I know more cases were these drugs have prevented suicide, than of cases where they have caused it, or caused near misses. And yes, my own suicidal ideation while on anti-depressants to attempt to treat pain, was reported.

I also see on a regular basis two cases where these drugs help restore normality to schizophrenics, and keep them from harming others. The fact that you ignore those widespread, successful uses, and focus on the marginal cases you suspect, without concrete proof, drives me nuts.

You seem to want to completely ignore that many of these cases may not have been caused by the drugs, but may have failed to be prevented by the drugs. Mass murders, murder suicides, they have existed far longer than anti-depressant drugs have.

Actually I am not anti pharma. Your conclusion is incorrect.

'no more drugs', are you aware of the phrase 'the proof is in the pudding'?

 

[no more drugs]

Karrie,

Im not disagreeing that some antidepressants and antipsychotics dont help some people...

Tholidimide helped many expectant mothers who went on to deliver healthy happy babies..

If we only focused on people who were helped, there would still be Tholidomide babies being born today....

If we said it could only be through scientific "proof in the pudding" then the drug would still be given to expectant mothers.

It was through a common trend that the discovery was made that Tholidomide carried the risk of causing some babies to have deformities..

The discovery was never scientific and pharmaceutical findings will never start being "scientific" there will never be a conclusive test, just like there wasnt in Tholidomide yet you keep looking for scientific proof that you will never get...

Thank god scientific proof is not the way to determine if a drug is harmful.

We already know that antidepressanst cause adverse reactions of suicidal and homicidal deation as well as los of reality and delusion to name a few.

The same way we should be looking for common threads in so many murder suicides where people were described as normal everyday loving non violent people until they start a legal mind altering drug and then commit such violent heinous acts.

The system is set up so that we cant look for common threads because of the players being protected by foip, pipa, and hipa even though we have proof that they havent been honest about these drugs in the past... (lawsuits where it was admitted by the pharma company that they were deceitful in safety of drugs)

Isnt the proof in the pudding when a drug says it can cause murder and suicide, and the person taking it, commits murder and suicide..after taking the drug, not before).... Isnt it enough "pudding" to start looking at safety?)

Suicide is bad enough but the homicidal part where innocent people become victims (possibly of the pharmaceuticals) are the ones I am concerned for most.

I think the innocent people who became victims (students shoppers spouses and children neighbors alike) need to be considered too.

For the people who only want to see the good that these drugs do and ignore the adverse side reactions like they dont exist is irresponsible, and reckless...

There will never be "proof in the pudding". Just like there wasnt in the banning of Tholidimide....

 

[karrie]

Karrie,

Im not disagreeing that some antidepressants and antipsychotics dont help some people...

Tholidimide helped many expectant mothers who went on to deliver healthy happy babies..

If we only focused on people who were helped, there would still be Tholidomide babies being born today....



There will never be "proof in the pudding". Just like there wasnt in the banning of Tholidimide....

my comment about the proof being in the pudding, was in reference to you wanting to see anti-depressants banned, and you've just provided a boat load more of it.

But, since you're comparing tholidamide and anti-depressants, let me explain some crucial differences to you.

1. The side effects of tholidamide did not effect the person taking it, they effected their children, so continued use is unethical

2. The side effects of anti-d's are known, and should be managed under proper care. Cases where they may have caused suicide or murder are due to a clear cut lack of care. Under proper care, those side effects impact only the person taking the drug, thus its use is perfectly ethical.

3. There is a drastic difference between advocating proper education and care due to perceived risk, and advocating an all out ban due to your perceptions.

 

[no more drugs]

Karrie,

Let me clarify for you.... Im not sure I have said that anti d's and antipsychotics should be banned.. I cant find where I have written that...

Im glad you explained to me the difference between antid's and Tholidomide in your opinion....

you said...

" The side effects of tholidamide did not effect the person taking it, they effected their children"....
--------------------

Your opinion just proves to me that many normal intelligent everyday good people like yourself arent looking at the whole picture..

What about the children of Andrea Yates, Felicia Boots and Guy Turcotte children?
Werent those children affected?
They are dead now..

We can all choose to believe that anti-d's and antipsychotics RARELY cause murder and suicidal ideation ......or we can start demanding information (from law enforcement, coroners, and the medical profession) for information involved in these so many murder suicides so to help prove that these adverse reactions may not be so rare...

Which of course would lead people to start demanding better care, transparency, more available alternatives (dieticians, and cousellors to talk ) .... because at this point for the most part, people in general arent aware that there is a problem...

Many people probably dont know that any public health care couselling is only available if the perosn agrees to start meds....

Do you know how many people believe that if a drug could potentially cause a person to kill themself or someone else, that it wouldnt be approved for use in Canada?

My intentions are good and to help people be advocates for themselves... Many of us have false beliefs about drugs in general.

If people arent aware that a potential problem exists how will change ever happen?

 

[no more drugs]

The first logical question is, what relationship, if any, exists between psychotropic drugs and these types of crimes? I'll post a link to some research below which seems to be what you are looking for, which actually reviewed the tox reports from the Chief Medical Officer of New York city:
PsychiatryOnline | American Journal of Psychiatry | Role of Antidepressants in Murder and Suicide

Eight years of data from one of the largest cities in North America, and no relationship between prescription drug use and violent crimes such as those which prompted this very thread. Let me re-phrase that, no indication that drug use increases the rate of these crimes.

In fact, the prevalence of psychotropic prescription drug use is much higher than 2.4%, the percentage of violent murder-suicides where the murderer was taking these types of drugs. That itself is not only not evidence of a causal relationship between drug use and this sort of crime, it is in fact evidence that these drugs are depressing the rate of these crimes. CDC figures put the use of anti-depressants alone at 11% in the US, in people aged 11 and older. If there was no relationship at all, we should expect to see a similar figure in the crime data. The fact that it's much lower?

Well, consider yourself educated.

Hi Tonington,

The link you have provided is a actually a letter to the editor in which a few doctors refer to some research they had done (some 25 years ago)
the doctors are - below....

Dr Ken Tardiff
Dr Peter Marzuk (vice chair of AFSP)
Dr Andrew Leon (scientific council for AFSP)

Here are some HUGE problems with their data...

First and foremost - these doctors are part of American Foundation for Suicide Prevention which is a non for profit org ..

If you download AFSP's annual return (from their website) you will see where their money comes from..their huge sponsers are (who pays them) which are pharmaceutical companies...


In other words the pay was coming from the pharma companies.. of course the outcome was going to be a plus for the pharmas...

 

[gerryh]

Karrie,


you said...

" The side effects of tholidamide did not effect the person taking it, they effected their children"....
--------------------

Your opinion just proves to me that many normal intelligent everyday good people like yourself arent looking at the whole picture..

What about the children of Andrea Yates, Felicia Boots and Guy Turcotte children?
Werent those children affected?
They are dead now..

Yes they are, and they support what Karrie said about Thalidomide. Thalidomide effected others, NOT those that took the drug. Now when Thalidomide is prescribed, the person taking it must not be, nor should they get pregnant.