Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / April 2007
Virginia Tech shooter on anti-depressants?
|
|
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!
|
|
|