Michael Moore and Fox agree

[FluffyMcDeath]

Perhaps the Mayan's were right - perhaps the world HAS ended - this is a sign.
How else could it be that Michael Moore and Fox seem to be agreeing on something.

 

[redrumloa]

I think it must be a disinformation campaign by the big drug companies. I mean, who believes Moore any more?

 

[Glaucus]

Are anti-depressants unique to the Unites States? For the most part, spree-shootings are.

I'm no fan of anti-depressants and feel they are over prescribed, but I also don't see this as the main reason why so many Americans are gunned down each year. And it's not just spree killings, it's gun killings in general. There's something unique about the US.

At any rate, I also welcome an investigation, but I fear it'll be tainted by politics and lobbies.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Are anti-depressants unique to the Unites States? For the most part, spree-shootings are.

Suicide is a bigger killer than shooting sprees but SSRIs have been implicated in very much higher risk of suicide among people taking them. They have also been linked to violence and violent psychotic episodes. Some people think it sounds crazy that a prescription drug could do such things because a) it's a prescription drug, b) it's been tested and approved, c) no doctor would prescribe stuff it it was that bad, and d) pharmaceutical companies would never sell a bad product.

A) While it IS prescription, there are other drugs that are also SSRIs, that is, they work by the same mechanism of inhibiting re-uptake of serotonin in the synapses. Cocaine is the biggest recreational SSRI and episodes of aggression and psychosis are known side-effects. Killer crazy is bad, but killer crazy with guns is worse.

B) Lot's of things have been tested and approved that are not safe. Drugs are tested by the drug companies themselves and drug development is notoriously expensive. If a drug isn't outright lethal there is a cost/benefit analysis (benefit to the company, not patients) and if it looks like the company can recoup the cost without too much risk they can usually find the right people to stamp the approval.

C) Doctors don't necessarily know what's good and bad. They tend to get most of their drug information from drug sales people. They tell the doctor what the drug is for, what kind of symptoms the people who would benefit will present with, and they will guide doctors away from blaming the medications when things go wrong. Individual doctors generally don't see enough patients to see the statistical patterns. Doctors are also really bad at reporting side-effects, partly because they are busy, partly because the patients report the "wrong" side-effects, i.e. stuff other than what the sales people told them to watch for.

D) This one I don't even need to answer, do I? Vioxx is just one of a long list of drugs known to have lethal side-effects that were filtered out of company testing. AIDs tainted blood products knowingly sold, deadly implants, anything else that can make a buck. If they're dead they can't sue. If they're dreadfully sick they can't afford to sue. If they were mentally ill before treatment then they're crazy now so pay them no heed.

 

[Glaucus]

Some people may think that way. I think most realize that all drugs have a cost benefit and all have risks. Even day to day drugs like Advil have a long list of side effects and many people report upset stomachs from taking it. Still, when you feel the need for one you consider that trade-off. Chemotherapy is basically injecting poison into one's self, but people take the risk because the alternative maybe death. People who want antidepressants may already be suicidal, so giving them a drug that tends to help most beat depression while also killing off a small portion may in the long run be better, and really, not all that different than poisoning a cancer patient with chemo.

In other words, pointing out that anti-depressants may lead some to suicide isn't enough. You need to demonstrate that more suicidal people die while taking anti-depressants than suicidal people who do not. I don't think that's easy.

As for combing this issue with guns, obviously, I wish they'd rather not have any access to firearms at all.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Some people may think that way. I think most realize that all drugs have a cost benefit and all have risks. Even day to day drugs like Advil have a long list of side effects and many people report upset stomachs from taking it. Still, when you feel the need for one you consider that trade-off.

Like when you feel like having a smoke break or nipping down the pub after work.

In other words, pointing out that anti-depressants may lead some to suicide isn't enough. You need to demonstrate that more suicidal people die while taking anti-depressants than suicidal people who do not. I don't think that's easy.

Michael Moore's point in the above movie was that people on SSRIs are 12 times more likely to commit suicide than people on other antidepressants. That's a considerable increase in risk.

 

[the_leander]

Without knowing how severe on the depression charts the people who are being prescribed to are, figures such as the one above are meaningless and frankly the whole piece smacks of the Kruger Dunning effect.

 

[Glaucus]

Michael Moore's point in the above movie was that people on SSRIs are 12 times more likely to commit suicide than people on other antidepressants. That's a considerable increase in risk.

That's a good point. I'd have to look more into that to really get an idea of how bad that really is. He says this was an internal document, but I'm curious if this was before proper dosage was established. With some drugs bad side-effects only appear at high dosage. Of course, I'm not sure that's the case.

Anyway, Moore also does suggest that this is the only reason here, and I just find that hard to believe. The fact is spree killings/suicides occurred before Prozac was invented. I believe someone here (possibly me?) already posted a case where some guy used dynamite to blow up a school full of kids around a century ago. I'd accept that Prozac may be part of the problem, but to say it's all there is to it just seems silly.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Without knowing how severe on the depression charts the people who are being prescribed to are, figures such as the one above are meaningless and frankly the whole piece smacks of the Kruger Dunning effect.

You mean, presuming that there is a difference in prescribing between less depressed and very depressed people? On the other hand, what is the relationship between depression and violence? What is the relationship between coccaine (a natural SSRI) and violence?

 

[the_leander]

As someone who is intimately aware of how the same drugs effects on a person differs according to dosage, and is aware of the testing done by medical practitioners to get a feel for how severe the depression is, as well as the regular monitoring required once a patient is put on them, I stand by what I said. There are well known links between depression and violence but your attempts to conflate cocaine abuse with measured, regulated and monitored Prozac or Sertraline use only underscores your lack of knowledge in this area.

Even the regulated stuff has very different effects and side effects on an individual.

Without that information the figure you threw out is useless as anything other than a scare tactic.

You also haven't taken into consideration the availability of support for GPs looking to prescribe them.