Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / April 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Virginia Tech shooter on anti-depressants?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Tunderbar - 18 Apr 2007 15:21 GMT
I'll bet dollars to donuts that he was on anti-depressants. Probably
was very recently given a new prescription. Probably an SSRI. Possibly
Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa or Lexapro.

Interesting to see what he was on.

TC
keystone@mark.com - 18 Apr 2007 16:40 GMT
"I'll bet dollars to donuts that he was on anti-depressants. Probably
was very recently given a new prescription. Probably an SSRI. Possibly
Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa or Lexapro.

Interesting to see what he was on."

A news account said federal authorities explored this notion and found
no evidence for it.  

Interesting what begins as a speculative idea in your mind becomes a
certainity only lacking by the end exactly what his prescription was.
Tunderbar - 18 Apr 2007 19:01 GMT
On Apr 18, 10:40 am, keyst...@mark.com wrote:
> "I'll bet dollars to donuts that he was on anti-depressants. Probably
> was very recently given a new prescription. Probably an SSRI. Possibly
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Interesting what begins as a speculative idea in your mind becomes a
> certainity only lacking by the end exactly what his prescription was.

Odd. I read that he has a history of mental problems. He was seen by
councillor(s) and was reported to have been on anti-depressants in the
past. I've seen nothing in the news about his being or not being on
anti-depressants RECENTLY. Enlighten us with your source that says
that there is no evidence of anti-depressant use in the past or more
recently. Or are you just being a good pharma apologist by trying to
suggest that he has had no anti-depressant use?

I still will wager that he was recently started on one of the anti-
depressants I mentioned. Just speculation, of course. No certainty
either way, unlike your certainty that he did not use any anti-
depressants (and of course without evidence to support your
assertion). Hypocrite.

TC
Jeff - 18 Apr 2007 23:33 GMT
> On Apr 18, 10:40 am, keyst...@mark.com wrote:
>> "I'll bet dollars to donuts that he was on anti-depressants. Probably
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> TC

He apparently had mental problems, possibly schizophrenia.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266808,00.html

If he were on medications, that doesn't mean the medications caused this.

Jeff
Tunderbar - 19 Apr 2007 14:41 GMT
> > On Apr 18, 10:40 am, keyst...@mark.com wrote:
> >> "I'll bet dollars to donuts that he was on anti-depressants. Probably
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Of course not, it only means that the medications *may* have caused
it. And at the very best it would mean that the meds that were
supposed to make things better most certainly failed to do that.
keystone@mark.com - 19 Apr 2007 15:36 GMT
"Of course not, it only means that the medications *may* have caused it.
And at the very best it would mean that the meds that were supposed to
make things better most certainly failed to do that."

Which drugs do you speculate now are in question?  Please keep talking,
speculative "*may*" speaks volumes about round peg in square hole
mentality..
Tunderbar - 18 Apr 2007 19:11 GMT
On Apr 18, 10:40 am, keyst...@mark.com wrote:
> "I'll bet dollars to donuts that he was on anti-depressants. Probably
> was very recently given a new prescription. Probably an SSRI. Possibly
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Interesting what begins as a speculative idea in your mind becomes a
> certainity only lacking by the end exactly what his prescription was.

Hey, Carnegie Mellon pharma apologist troll, read this:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3564.html

"Investigators reported Tuesday that Cho had been taking medication
for depression, which probably would have required him to see a doctor
for a prescription. It will take more time, however, to discover
whether there should have been -- or could have been -- a more
vigorous reaction by mental health practitioners, either on or off the
Blacksburg, Va., campus, in light of Cho's recent displays of aberrant
behavior, which included setting a fire in a dormitory room."

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_21275450.shtml

"Cho Seung-Hui has been identified as the Virginia Tech shooter.
Virginia Tech shooter/student Cho Seung-Hui was labeled a 'jealous
boyfriend' by reporters and was also allegedly under the influence of
anti-depressant medication."

No reports anywhere about the report on his anti-depressant use being
falsely reported.

How can you live with your lying sneaky pharma apologist sorry-a.s
role?
Tunderbar - 18 Apr 2007 20:40 GMT
On Apr 18, 10:40 am, keyst...@mark.com wrote:
> "I'll bet dollars to donuts that he was on anti-depressants. Probably
> was very recently given a new prescription. Probably an SSRI. Possibly
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Interesting what begins as a speculative idea in your mind becomes a
> certainity only lacking by the end exactly what his prescription was.

Ominous stuff.....

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=2958744&version=5&
locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.3.1


"News reports said that Cho, a 23-year-old senior majoring in English,
may have been taking medication for depression and that he was
becoming increasingly erratic."

Taking meds and becoming more erratic. Should it not read "taking meds
and becoming a healthy mentally stable young asset to the community"?
Aren't anti-depressant meds supposed to improve mental health?
Tunderbar - 18 Apr 2007 20:56 GMT
On Apr 18, 10:40 am, keyst...@mark.com wrote:
> "I'll bet dollars to donuts that he was on anti-depressants. Probably
> was very recently given a new prescription. Probably an SSRI. Possibly
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Interesting what begins as a speculative idea in your mind becomes a
> certainity only lacking by the end exactly what his prescription was.

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/com/313759876.html

Cho Seung-Hui May Be 9th School Shooter Under Influence of Psych drugs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: cchrdc@gmail.com
Date: 2007-04-17, 5:49PM EDT

Cho Seung-Hui May Be 9th School Shooter Under Influence of Psychiatric
Drugs -- Documented to Cause Homicidal Ideation, Suicide, Psychosis,
Mania and Hostility

In the wake of yesterday's shooting rampage at Virginia Tech by gunman
Cho Seung-Hui, state legislators, civic and human rights activists are
asking why Congress has failed to investigate the link between
psychiatric drugs and school violence, given the high rate of
psychiatric drug use by the shooters. According to breaking news from
investigators at Virginia Tech, Cho may have taken depression drugs-
documented by the Food and Drug Administration to cause suicidal
behavior, mania, psychosis, hallucinations, hostility and "homicidal
ideation." If Cho Seung-Hui's psychiatric drug use is confirmed, it
would bring the total to 61 killed and 77 wounded by psychiatric drug-
induced 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. To date there has been no response to
this request despite documentation that at least eight recent school
shooters were under the influence of psychiatric drugs at the time of
the shootings.

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), a mental health
watchdog that initially discovered the psychiatric drug connection in
the Columbine shootings, warns that the psycho-pharmaceutical industry
will once again try to obscure the violence-inducing nature of
psychiatric drugs in order to protect the billions in profit from drug
sales. CCHR says that Congress must demand a full investigation into
the link between senseless acts of violence and psychiatric drug use
in the wake of recent FDA warnings on the documented drug risks.

In eight recent school shootings, psychiatric drugs were the common
factor, in other instances, the shooter's medical records were never
made public and their psychiatric drug use remains in question.

· September 28, 2006: Bailey, Colorado: Duane Morrison, 53, entered
Platte Canyon High School and shot and killed one girl, and sexually
assaulted 6 others. Antidepressants were found in his vehicle.

· March 21, 2005: Red Lake Indian Reservation, Minnesota: 16-year-old
Native American Jeff Weise was under the influence of the
antidepressant Prozac when he shot and killed nine people and wounding
five before committing suicide.

· April 10, 2001: Wahluke, Washington: 16-year-old Cory Baadsgaard
took a rifle to his high school, and held 23 classmates and a teacher
hostage while on a high dose of the antidepressant Effexor.

· March 22, 2001: El Cajon, California: 18-year-old Jason Hoffman was
on two antidepressants, Effexor and Celexa, when he opened fire at his
California high school wounding five.

· March 7, 2000: Williamsport, Pennsylvania: 14-year-old Elizabeth
Bush was on the antidepressant Prozac when she blasted away at fellow
students in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, wounding one.

· May 20, 1999: Conyers, Georgia: 15-year-old T.J. Solomon was being
treated with a mix of antidepressants when he opened fire on and
wounded 6 of his classmates.

· April 20, 1999: Columbine, Colorado: 18-year-old Eric Harris was on
the antidepressant Luvox when he and his partner Dylan Klebold killed
12 classmates and a teacher and wounded 23 others before taking their
own lives in the bloodiest school massacre to date. The coroner
confirmed that the antidepressant was in his system through toxicology
reports while Dylan Klebold's autopsy was never made public.

· April 16, 1999: Notus, Idaho: 15-year-old Shawn Cooper fired two
shotgun rounds in his school narrowly missing students; he was taking
a mix of antidepressants.

· May 21, 1998: Springfield, Oregon: 15-year-old Kip Kinkel murdered
his own parents and then proceeded to school where he opened fire on
students in the cafeteria, killing two and wounding 22. Kinkel had
been on Prozac.
keystone@mark.com - 18 Apr 2007 22:07 GMT
>> "I'll bet dollars to donuts that he was on anti-depressants. Probably
>> was very recently given a new prescription. Probably an SSRI. Possibly
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> Interesting what begins as a speculative idea in your mind becomes a
>> certainity only lacking by the end exactly what his prescription was.

We can boil the response to the above to this:

"Cho Seung-Hui May Be 9th School Shooter Under Influence of Psych drugs"

"According to breaking news from investigators at Virginia Tech, Cho may
have taken depression drugs"

"May" is the operative word in the above, the remainder of the story is
a review of other events known for certain to involve drugs.

Here is the news spot I heard on the radio:

" Some news accounts have suggested that Cho had a history of
antidepressant use, but senior federal officials tell ABC News that they
can find no record of such medication in the government's files. This
does not completely rule out prescription drug use, including samples
from a physician, drugs obtained through illegal Internet sources, or a
gap in the federal database, but the sources say theirs is a reasonably
complete search."

As so often the truth will not be known in full until the story is
complete.

However my original reaction was about forcing a favorite whipping boy
thesis upon this sad event with scant information and wondering only
what exact antidepressant meds were used.

Adding more "may" scant information helps not at all.
Tunderbar - 18 Apr 2007 22:30 GMT
On Apr 18, 4:07 pm, keyst...@mark.com wrote:
> >> "I'll bet dollars to donuts that he was on anti-depressants. Probably
> >> was very recently given a new prescription. Probably an SSRI. Possibly
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> Adding more "may" scant information helps not at all.

I did not force any thesis upon anything. I openly and obviously and
simply pointed out an important point that we need to keep an eye on.
And I simply stated my opinion in a free society that values freedom
of speech. If you don't like it, then I suggest that you stop reading
these or any other ngs where people are apt to freely express
opinions. At least my opinion is a personal opinion and not some rote
repetition of an industry troll.
keystone@mark.com - 18 Apr 2007 22:52 GMT
>          <1176926211.009084.213880@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
>          <46268877$0$5018$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cmu.edu>
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>opinions. At least my opinion is a personal opinion and not some rote
>repetition of an industry troll.

Smile, absolutely beautiful, so much back stepping and tap dancing,
"simply" my opinion of course.

Freedom to speak, indeed and the more the better.  The better to spot
the nutters and irrelevant among all the chatter.
Tunderbar - 19 Apr 2007 14:46 GMT
On Apr 18, 4:52 pm, keyst...@mark.com wrote:
> >          <1176926211.009084.213...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
> >          <46268877$0$5018$1c468...@selenium.club.cc.cmu.edu>
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Man, you Carnegie Melon pharma apologists are annoying little word-
twisting little pricks aren't ya. Keep twisting my words all you want,
buddy.

The simple fact of the matter is that anti-depressants have been
clearly and legally implicated in dozens upon dozens of violent
assaults and murders and suicides. I still suspect that we will find
that Cho was on antidepressants and I will express that opinion
freely.

If you have information that proves otherwise, show it. Otherwise stfu.
keystone@mark.com - 19 Apr 2007 15:31 GMT
"Man, you Carnegie Melon pharma apologists are annoying little word-
twisting little pricks aren't ya. Keep twisting my words all you want,
buddy."

I would not dream of it.  As mentioned, all should be encouraged to
speak as freely and often as they wish, that is the way we spot the
nutters and irrelevant among the chatter.  I don't need to twist
anything you say, it speaks for itself.

"The simple fact of the matter is that anti-depressants have been
clearly and legally implicated in dozens upon dozens of violent assaults
and murders and suicides. I still suspect that we will find that Cho was
on antidepressants and I will express that opinion freely.
If you have information that proves otherwise, show it. Otherwise stfu."

The equally simple and more relevant fact is the above rant does not
apply to the case of the vt shooter based on demonstrated evidence,
which is the subject about which you were corrected and the source of
the hissy fit now underway.
Tunderbar - 19 Apr 2007 17:01 GMT
On Apr 19, 9:31 am, keyst...@mark.com wrote:
> "Man, you Carnegie Melon pharma apologists are annoying little word-
> twisting little pricks aren't ya. Keep twisting my words all you want,
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> which is the subject about which you were corrected and the source of
> the hissy fit now underway.

And you haven't shown that he wasn't on anti-depressants. That remains
to be confirmed one way or another.

I'll wager you 100 american dollars that he was on anti-depressants at
the time of the shootings.
keystone@mark.com - 19 Apr 2007 18:44 GMT
> The equally simple and more relevant fact is the above rant does not
> apply to the case of the vt shooter based on demonstrated evidence,
> which is the subject about which you were corrected and the source of
> the hissy fit now underway.

"And you haven't shown that he wasn't on anti-depressants. That
remains
to be confirmed one way or another."

I'm flattered, that was my original message to you, the last part of
confirmation that is.  That message was to bring you up short from the
speculation of antidepressant use flowing quickly to determining which
were in use to cause his behavior.

As to the first part above, you would have me prove a negative?  Given
the quality of the evidence you have presented, does a negative of a
negative make positive proof?

I suggest again the best information we have at hand currently is the
report from federal authorities who having done a search of the drug
sale records, that there is no indication of him using antidepressants.

The obvious and logical proof to the contrary would be to produce
records of use absent foot stamping and hissy fits.  Or better still,
given what is becoming clearer all the time that he was mentally ill and
tacking toward that explanation away from the subject line is warrented.
Tunderbar - 19 Apr 2007 18:53 GMT
On Apr 19, 12:44 pm, keyst...@mark.com wrote:
> > The equally simple and more relevant fact is the above rant does not
> > apply to the case of the vt shooter based on demonstrated evidence,
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> given what is becoming clearer all the time that he was mentally ill and
> tacking toward that explanation away from the subject line is warrented.

Are you going to take me up on my wager? A hundred bucks says that he
was on prescription anti-depressants at the time of the shootings.
Will Brink - 24 Apr 2007 23:18 GMT
> I'll bet dollars to donuts that he was on anti-depressants. Probably
> was very recently given a new prescription. Probably an SSRI. Possibly
> Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa or Lexapro.
>
> Interesting to see what he was on.

Ban SSRIs! No wait, ban guns! No wait, ban Asians! No no, ban men!

Looking at Shooters and Killers and Finding Men: Ann Woolner

By Ann Woolner

April 24 (Bloomberg) -- Of the 41 people who have taken guns to U.S.
schools and opened fire since 1996, 40 of them share one trait.

They were born with the Y chromosome.

Maleness is the only characteristic that is common to this group, with
race -- Caucasian -- coming in second. They are of different educational
levels and regions. They are low achievers and high achievers. Their
motives and mental states run the gamut. The youngest was 6. Another was
53.

Together, those 40 men and boys killed 94 people on campuses, plus four
more in the hours preceding their school shooting episodes. They have
wounded scores more and traumatized thousands of others.

I'm not saying boys are born killers. Only a miniscule fraction of them
grow up to open fire at school or anywhere else. And chemistry isn't
necessarily destiny.

And yet, whether sparked by jealousy, retribution, psychosis, insecurity
or hatred toward women, U.S. school shootings happen with regularity -- 36
in 11 years -- and all but one were committed by men or by boys.

Maleness matters in all kinds of killings. Eighty-eight percent of U.S.
homicides from 1976 to 2004 were committed by men, according to the most
recent Justice Department statistics. For serial killers, the percentage
rises to 93 percent.

Whatever you have heard about the so-called feminization of the American
male or about increasingly aggressive women, the lopsided nature of which
sex kills the most remains.

Widening Gap

``When it comes to the most serious form of aggression, murder, the gender
gap is actually wider now than it was a few years ago,'' says James Fox, a
Northeastern University criminal justice professor in Boston who has
written about killers.

I know. Most men channel aggression into perfectly acceptable activities.
They build companies, enforce laws, repair roads, play sports, advocate
causes.

But women manage to do those things, too. Yet when violence erupts,
chances are overwhelming the aggressor is a man.

``It's true about murder,'' Fox says. ``It's true about crime in general.''

So what is it about men, anyway?

A leading testosterone researcher, the late Georgia State University
Professor James M. Dabbs, found that the higher the testosterone level,
the more violent the person is likely to be.

Probable Troublemakers

Testing more than 4,000 veterans, for example, he found that the 10
percent with the most testosterone were the most probable troublemakers.
These were the guys likely to have misbehaved as schoolchildren, break the
law as adults, use drugs and alcohol, go AWOL from the Army and have 10 or
more sex partners in a year, Dabbs found.

He tested male and female inmates in separate research projects and found
that in both populations the most violent had the highest T-levels.

Child psychiatrist David Shaffer of Columbia University says it's not
clear from testosterone research whether the hormone itself sparks
aggression. It could be that, because those with more of it are larger and
more muscular, they find more success at physical aggression and therefore
engage in it more.

He says there are other biological reasons for the gender gap. Men are
more likely than women to lack metabolized serotonin, which is the
neurotransmitter that acts as a calming influence, says Shaffer, chief of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center in
New York.

Teen Suicides

Incarcerated marines showed a dearth of the stuff in one study, he says.
That was also what Shaffer found in his groundbreaking research into teen
suicides, which are five to seven times more likely to be committed by
males.

Boys have another natural factor that makes them more likely to turn to
aggression, he says. They are slower to learn verbal skills and tend to
grab what they want.

Beyond body chemistry, can't we assign some blame to American culture and
peer pressure?

Boys learn from other boys that being a man means being in control, says
Dick Bathrick, who founded Men Stopping Violence in 1982 in Atlanta.

``You've got to be in control at work. You've got to be in control at
home. You've got to be in control of your feelings,'' he says, according
to this popular but ``very distorted concept of masculinity.''

When losing a job, or being rebuffed romantically, or having a spouse
refuse to do what one says, men are more likely than women to become
violent to regain control, Bathrick says.

Drive to Dominate

The drive to overpower women showed up in several school shootings. Last
September in Bailey, Colorado, 53-year-old Duane Roger Morrison entered a
high school, took six girls hostage and sexually assaulted them. When
police showed up, he shot a 16- year-old girl dead before killing himself.

The following month, Carl Charles Roberts IV, 32, lined up girls at the
West Nickel Mines Amish School and shot 10 of them, ages 6 to 13, before
killing himself. Five of the girls died.

Seung Hui Cho's anger, like the shots he fired last week at Virginia Tech,
seems to have been indiscriminate. His rantings target women but also
accuse the rich and the world in general. It may mean much or nothing that
he previously stalked two female students, became suicidal when rebuffed
and launched his deadly spree last week by first shooting a young woman in
her dorm. Cho killed 32 students and teachers in all before killing
himself.

Groups such as Bathrick's have sprung up around the country to try to stop
men from hurting the women in their lives. The organization also works to
encourage non-violent men to challenge the misogyny and violence in
others, Bathrick says.

In Washington, Men of Strength clubs in high schools steer teenagers
toward healthy ideas of what manhood means, says Patrick Lemmon, executive
director of Men Can Stop Rape, which sponsors the clubs. Not to mention
the work of scout troops and boys' clubs.

No one claims an intervention of that sort could have stopped Cho, who may
well have been psychotic.

But given the gross overrepresentation of men among those who kill, rape,
molest and beat, you have to hope that more men become more outraged by
the damage others of their gender inflict.

(Ann Woolner is a Bloomberg news columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Ann Woolner in Atlanta at
awoolner@bloomberg.net .

Last Updated: April 24, 2007 00:15 EDT

Signature

Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

David  Cohen - 25 Apr 2007 00:03 GMT
> Tunderbar <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Ban SSRIs! No wait, ban guns! No wait, ban Asians! No no, ban men!

We should ban all bans.

And all paradoxes (paradoci?), too.

David
Tachyglossus - 25 Apr 2007 05:21 GMT
Legal sale, ownership and use of guns to be entirely restricted to *people
who aren't male*. Problem solved.

Next?

T.
John Hanson - 26 Apr 2007 12:44 GMT
>Legal sale, ownership and use of guns to be entirely restricted to *people
>who aren't male*. Problem solved.
>
>Next?

So just women and criminal men would possess guns.  Yeah, right.
Will Brink - 26 Apr 2007 14:36 GMT
> >Legal sale, ownership and use of guns to be entirely restricted to *people
> >who aren't male*. Problem solved.
> >
> >Next?
> >
> So just women and criminal men would possess guns.  Yeah, right.

How dare you. Criminals would hand in their guns as they always do when a
new anti gun law is passed.

Signature

Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

ed - 29 Apr 2007 16:24 GMT
> In article <934133ladd1iq8kd82k1nlqdikoumk8...@4ax.com>, John Hanson
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> How dare you. Criminals would hand in their guns as they always do when a
> new anti gun law is passed.

...as did Cho the very day his gun use became illegal!
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.