- This topic has 1 reply, 15 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m not saying that the CIA black ops. did not exist but the author’s attemt to tie this kid to that is somewhat of a stretch. He jumps from the shooting at tin cans gun theory to a yet to be substantiated statement that the kid was on anti-depressants and then on to the CIA mind control theory. I wish it were that simple…this kid’s problems were way beyond that theory.
Guns that are meant to kill peole are necesary to keep the goverment from putting us all on drugs.
US women use more beauty products (black hair die included) than any other culture – and they have no idea what beauty is.
Ticos use more viagrs because this culture belives that sex is normal. People actually talk and touch eachother here. Women actually like men and dress for them rather than to compete with other women.
In the US sex is the big strategy that women use to get what they want. The other is to upset the emotionall stability of the family home. All of this leads back to culture. We are cultural islationist and politica; expantionist. Expanding our sick community, drug and violence culture to whoever will swallow it in the name of consuming more. Just look at how fat americans are becoming and how fat Ticos are becoming. Do you think that fast food culture and sedimentary life style the results from moving away from agriculture based society has any thing to do with it.
Sane people want to escape the US. I am glad it is filled with insanity. If it wasn’t everybody would flee and come to CR.
I read this forum often, and have never replied, but this message topic has almost force me to. I married a Tica, and she has lived in the U.S. now for one year. We live in a nice neiborhood, middle class, and it was hard for her to get use to sleeping without bars on the windows. One of the things she loves about living here is the security and the feeling of being safe.
I guess my point is that no matter where you live, there are good and bad points. We live in West Jordan Utah, about 9 miles from Salt Lake City. In Febuary of 2007, just before Valintines day, a 17 year old boy, imagrant from Bosnia and on no medication, went to Trolley Square Mall, armed with a 12 gauge shot gun, used for hunting, and a 38 caliber hand gun, no longer a choice of military or law enforement. He proceeded to go on a rampage killing 2 people in the parking lot, and 3 others in the mall and wounding many others before and off duty police officer carrying his side arm, contained the boy in a gun battle. The boy was killed in the insuing shoot out by S.L.C. SWAT. He had enough amunition to kill dozens of people. A 22 caliber bullet can kill just as easy as a 9mm, it just depends on how it is used.
There are places here in Salt Lake that I would not dare venture at night, and the Morman church calles this place Zion.
Oh ya, I took alfreds sugested test, I am right in the middle centrist.
This may be of interest to you …
Weekend Edition
April 21 / 22, 2007A Killer Cocktail
Prozac Madness
By FRED GARDNERThe lard-assed cops at Virginia Tech spent two hours interrogating the wrong suspect and failed to prevent the massacre. Now they’re “investigating.” What is there to investigate – which brand or brands of anti-depressant Seung Hui Cho was taking?
A lonely, picked-on boy was given Prozac (or one of its chemical analogs) like Kip Kinkel in Oregon, like Eric Harris in Colorado This is not a scoop, America: Prozac causes horrible, bizarre flip-outs. It is a fact that has been known for 20 years and that Eli Lilly and the other manufacturers of “selective” serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have relentlessly denied and are still trying to suppress.
On the very day after the shootings at Virginia Tech, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study challenging the “black box” warning that the Food and Drug Administration had finally attached to Prozac in October, 2004. “Antidepressants Get a Boost For Use in Teens” read the Wall St. Journal headline. “Despite Warnings on Labels, Study says Benefits Outweigh Risk of Suicidal Tendencies.”
The New York Times ran its account of the new pro-Prozac study on the page facing the obituaries of students and faculty members killed at Virginia Tech! “Scales Said to Tip in Favor of Antidepressant Use in Children -A risk of suicidal thoughts is found to be more than offset.” You’d think that 33 deaths would more than offset it back.
Evidence that Prozac induces suicidal ideation and actions emerged when the drug was in clinical trials in Germany in the mid-1980s. The German findings were misrepresented to the FDA by a Lilly employee named Joachim Wernicke. U.S. marketing approval was granted in December, 1988, with no warning required. After a drug is marketed here in Guinea Pig Nation, only a very small fraction of the adverse events brought on by the drug get reported. Patients have to tell their doctors who then have to file paperwork with the manufacturers who then have to voluntarily tell the FDA that their products are dangerous.
Among the adverse events brought on by Prozac soon after it hit the market were numerous suicides and homicides, some of which resulted in legal action by the victims or survivors. Lilly’s strategy was to conceal the trend by settling every case out of court. One of the first to capture national attention involved Joseph Wesbecker, a Louisville, Kentucky printing press operator who, on Sept. 14, 1989, killed eight co-workers with an AK-47 and injured a dozen others before committing suicide. Wesbecker had been prescribed Prozac five weeks before and his psychiatrist, noting that Wesbecker had become “very, very agitated,” told him to stop taking it on Sept. 11. Victims who survived the shooting, relatives of those who died, and members of Wesbecker’s family subsequently sued Eli Lilly, charging that the company “knew or should have known that users of Prozac can experience intense agitation and preoccupation with suicide, and can harm themselves or others.”
In February, 1990 psychiatrists Martin Teicher and Jonathan Cole and nurse Carol Glod published “Emergence of intense suicidal preoccupations during fluoxetine treatment” American Journal of Psychiatry, It described six patients who developed “intense, violent suicidal preoccupations” within two to seven weeks of starting treatment with Prozac. The authors estimated that between 1.9 and 7.7 percent of Prozac users would develop suicidal obsessions. Teicher and his co-workers subsequently reported that Prozac patients were “at least three-fold more likely to develop new suicidal ideation” than patients treated with the older antidepressants, and that patients were also more likely to develop suicidal thoughts for the first time ever while taking Prozac.
Lilly responded, “Our experience does not show a cause and effect relationship between our products and suicidal or violent thoughts or acts. Unfortunately, these thoughts and acts are part of the disease of depression.” But the company made its first small concession, noting on the Prozac label in May, 1990, that “suicidal ideation” and “violent behavior” had been reported (as had pancreatitis) as side-effects. This reference appeared in the “Postintroduction Reports” section towards the bottom of the label. No mention of suicidal ideation was added to the “Precautions” section.
The FDA held a hearing in September 1990 at which its Psychotropic Drugs Advisory Committee (most of whose members got funding from antidepressant manufacturers) considered whether SSRIs can induce violent and suicidal thoughts. They voted 9-0 not to recommend a more prominent warning and 6-3 not to recommend a warning in small type that would have read, “In a small number of patients, depressive symptoms have worsened during therapy, including the emergence of suicidal thoughts and attempts. Surveillance throughout treatment is recommended.”
Lilly and the other antidepressant manufacturers made more finite, begrudging concessions in the years ahead as evidence linking SSRIs to suicide kept mounting. A turning point came in April 2004, when the British Medical Journal reported that GlaxoSmithKline had concealed data showing that Paxil more than quadrupled suicidal ideation among teenagers. A few months later the FDA acknowledged a study showing that SSRI use induced suicidal thoughts in two out of 100 adolescents and ordered a black box warning. Prozac sales dipped as a result and Lilly et al commissioned the study that JAMA published April 18, showing that SSRI use induces suicidal ideation in only one in 100. Suicidal ideation,” “Suicide gesture,” “Suicide attempt,” and other such terms do not accurately characterize the extremely bizarre flip-outs induced by SSRIs. Carefully planning to annihilate the student body fits the profile. Biting your mother 57 times. Driving your car around in circles until you smash into a tree… Years ago, at a meeting of the Prozac Survivors Support group, I heard Bonnie Leitsch, a flamboyant redhead from Louisville who sounded like Minnie Pearl, try to explain what Prozac did to her thinking:
“It’s hard for people to understand. They say ‘you must know what you’re doing,’ but you do not. You cannot distinguish reality. I could never tell if I was awake or asleep. That was the hardest thing for me to determine. I would lay down in bed and I would think ‘Now am I dreaming this or am I awake and doing this?” My mind constantly ran, it never would stop. I could be having this conversation with you and the whole time if I was drinking coffee, I could be thinking about running it on my hand and wondering what it would feel like. Thinking irrational thoughts. And yet still able to communicate at what would appear to be a rational level. That’s why I think psychiatrists and psychologists and doctors who are dealing with people on Prozac are totally oblivious to what’s going on. These people are the best liars in the whole world in terms of being able to come to you and say ‘I’m fine.’ But the whole time they might be thinking ‘I wonder what it would feel like to stick this knife in my hand?’ And, ‘I can take on a motorcycyle gang and kill ’em all.’ Most of these people on Prozac like myself lose all natural ability to love. It becomes a spiritual dullness. You cease to know right from wrong. Because there’s no wrong and you’re right 100 percent and the hell with the rest of you.”
The media just can’t fathom Seung Hui Cho’s lethal outburst, but Bonnie Leitsch -may she still be going strong- can fathom it all too well.
Fred Gardner edits O’Shaughnessy’s, the Journal of Cannabis in Clinical Practice (soon to have a presence on the web). He can be reached at fred@plebesite.com
Scary facts to be sure. We, in our antidrug group, don’t call one of the pharmas E-lie Lilly for nothing. I’ve seen some of the internal documents that the pharams wanted to hide from the FDA and the public. They are monsters on par with the jerks who did the mind control experiments in Nazi Germany. Yep, we are a guinea pig nation, and I do remember distinctly the Bosnian kid in Salt Lake being on psych meds. The media are a wonderful thing. When they state that the perp was not on drugs, they are referring to crack, PCP, meth, heroin, coke or pot. The perp can however be on medications that are far more dangerous, but hey, medication is legal. We fought for years to get those suicide and homicide warnings on the SSRIs, which really upset Big Pharma as we did the equivalent of hacking off a few udders from their monster-sized cash cow.
Drugs or no drugs…YOU still MUST take responsibility for your actions…EVIL IS EVIL…He was a mass murderer period.
It’s not quite that simple though is it?
I think that one of the points made here “Miguel Veronos” is that these drugs are changing the brain’s chemistry so that some of the people affected after taking them no longer know what’s right and wrong.
Up until they took these drugs, they may have been completely moral humans being with a clear understanding of what’s “right” and what’s “wrong” but after taking them – that ability to distinguish between right and wrong was extinguished.
Then they became “evil” and if they feel that they did nothing wrong, they would not feel as if they should “take responsibility.”
Am I right Maravilla? You’re the expert in this…
Scott Oliver – Founder
WeLoveCostaRica.comThe drugs cause disinhibition and disrupt the normal functioning of executive reasoning in the frontal lobes. I’m always amazed that people refuse to consider what taking mind-altering drugs actually do to the brain and how they affect behavior. “Mind-altering” means that your normal state is disrupted, serotonin, the excess of which causes violence, influences how and what you perceive to be correct actions. There is a flurry of articles out there now discussing the exact mechanism of these drugs on your reasoning abilities. In almost all of the cases of school shootings where the perp didn’t kill himself, the shooter said “I had to do it, I had no choice.” This is the result of a chemical disruption in the brain that influences how you behave. If Cho had been on any illegal drug that ramps up serotonin (and that’s most illegal drugs) nobody would be the least bit surprise at this type of massacre. But let a legal substance influence a person’s actions and everyone screams “he was evil.” What made him evil? His acts were evil to be sure, but having your brain chemistry altered by drugs that produce an unpredictable result, is the reason these things happen. Read this interview with Pulitzer winner Robert Whitaker. It’s a pretty good overview of the role these so-called wonder drugs have played in our society. It’s nothing less than chemical warfare.
Psychiatric Drugs: Chemical Warfare on Humans – interview with
Robert WhitakerThere is evil in the world. I think he knew what right and wrong were. An article I’m sure you will explain.
http://onlinBlack Box Backfire
By GILBERT ROSS
April 21, 2007; Page A8On her popular blog, Arianna Huffington stopped just short of blaming antidepressant medications for Cho Seung-Hui’s lethal rampage at Virginia Tech this week. Anti-pharmaceutical demagogues love to blame drugs for all society’s ills. Yet if antidepressants had anything to do with the massacre, it’s likelier that it was the premature cessation of medication that led to Cho’s violently disturbed state of mind.
That’s one conclusion that can be drawn from a new analysis on the benefits and risks of antidepressants for children and adolescents published by the Journal of the American Medical Association. The analysis found that the risks of these medicines are much lower — by a factor of two or more — than the FDA previously thought. It had concluded from a previous study that young people had a 2% risk of having aberrant thoughts if they took antidepressants. The rate is only 0.7%. Further, the study found that these drugs are effective in treating depression and other mental illnesses found in children and teens. The new study, by the way, was undertaken by the National Institutes of Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation — not Big Pharma.
This isn’t the what the FDA led us to believe in 2004, when it released an analysis indicating that young people on antidepressants had about a 2% risk, not of suicide, but of “suicidal thoughts.” Anti-pharmaceutical activists and some politicians immediately called for major restrictions on antidepressants, simply ignoring that since the introduction of modern SSRI-type medications in the late 1980s, teen suicide rates had steadily fallen. No, the drumbeat from the “no risk allowed” crowd got the attention of the always risk-averse FDA.
The result was a “Black Box” warning — the strongest possible warning short of an outright ban — slapped onto the antidepressants. Remember, this was provoked by an alleged increase in thoughts, not deeds. There were no actual suicides — zero — in the FDA studies, and none in the latest, more extensive analysis.
Guess what happened next? Parents, naturally as frightened by this new warning as they would be by a skull-and-crossbones, decided to forego giving these medicines to their children. Many family doctors, spooked by the prospect of lawsuits, suddenly found other, less effective treatment options more appealing. Primary-care physicians are the ones who prescribe most treatments for depression, not psychiatrists. Since this warning label was introduced, usage of SSRI medications declined by more than 14% from 2004 to 2006 among patients under 19 years old. And, no surprise, actual suicides, not hypothetical ones, increased 18% among youngsters during the first year of the Black Box warnings — the first such increase in many years.
When the FDA was quizzed by renowned psychiatrists — many of whom had disparaged the original warning — spokespersons for the FDA said, in effect, that the new study wasn’t surprising and that they weren’t forbidding the drugs, merely asking doctors to warn patients and monitor them.
Really? That’s not what parents and treating physicians took away from the Black Box warning. As for monitoring, when I was in medical school, many, many years ago, we learned that the most dangerous time for depressed patients was when therapy was initiated. A previously immobile, depressed person, when treatment got started, might mobilize just enough to become self-destructive. Because of that, doctors already know that careful monitoring of seriously depressed patients is mandatory. Neither parents nor doctors need the FDA to tell them that. They took the new warning to be something more dire.
So why is the FDA stonewalling on modifying or eliminating the Black Box warning in the face of the new data about its effects? Simple: They have painted themselves into a “safety” corner. Calls for more and more safety — seeing only risks and not benefits from drugs — make the regulators twist in any direction that allows them to avoid having to backtrack. If they remove the warning and some teen actually does self-destruct, imagine the outcry. But the director of the New York University Child Study Center, Dr. Harold S. Koplewicz, said it best: “What is the risk of your child not taking the medicine?”
When risks and benefits of medications are discussed, this topic never seems to be broached. Drugs have significant benefits, or they wouldn’t be developed, approved and marketed. What happens when a beneficial drug is avoided out of needless fears raised by some demagogue or plaintiff’s attorney? People die. We shouldn’t forget that.
Dr. Ross is the executive and medical director of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).
e.wsj.com/article/SB117712206710677682-search.html?KEYWORDS=black+box+backfire&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month
Edited on Apr 24, 2007 13:35
maravilla, i have a degree in behavioral science and considerable self-education and working experience in psychology, as well as extensive experience in criminal behavior, and you’re essentially right. drugs are perceived as an easy and “rational” way to deal with an issue that is so abstract as to be “impractical” to handle otherwise.many people want an easy solution to problems,and a pill is as easy as it gets. life ain’t like that. it requires work, deep understanding, seeming ambiguity,life and family history. cho was, for real or perceived reasons, s*** on regularly and persistently; and,by his lights, rationaly, responded to that.does that excuse him? NO. but…..brain chemistry can be a cause ,maybe, or….can be a result of your life experiences. and no studies that i’m aware of address that issue. is your serotonin screwed because of psychological issues or are you psychologicaly screwed because of your serotinon. cause and effect is the real issue here, not evil (that’s stupid).
p.s. the drug INDUSTRY needs to be looked at. rationally, of course they’re going to say they have the answer. MONEY. put yourself in the place of the drug co. employ who thought of this and communicated this to their employer. well….need i say more. how about the therapist?well……a pill beats the hell out of an endless and ambiguous analysis that requires changing other people or the culture to solve the problem. many of the problems that we face happen only in the u.s. to this degree. could there be something wrong with our “best in the world,not” culture.Eli Lilly just got approval from the FDA for Prozac for dogs. This is for separation anxiety, or oher undesirable behavior. Since they lost their patent protection on the human drug, they figured they would start getting vets to push it on dog owners to make up some of the business they lost. Next thing you know we will have a bunch of drugged wacked out dogs running around trying to kill other pets or people!
You can see the story at
It syast that: “Lilly research shows that 10.7 million, or up to 17 per cent, of US dogs suffer from separation anxiety,” said Steve Connell, Lilly’s manager of consumer services for companion animal health.
“Separation anxiety” means the dog is left alone, right? So now your dog will be alone and stoned which is much better, right???? Why bother getting a dog?
Scott Oliver – Founder
WeLoveCostaRica.comDogs on psycho drugs! Yeah, that’s the ticket. These thugs will stop at nothing to make a buck! guess all those suicide and homicide warnings cuts into their 6+billion a year business so now they are targeting the pet population. You’re right, Peg, there will be a lot of dog crimes being committed in the near future. I saw a documentary program about two years ago on the topic of dog separation anxiety and both the owner AND the dog were on Prozac. Sheesh. What a whacky world it is, eh?
Hey, Crazyrj, I just learned this morning that the toxicology reports on Cho will be sealed and not released to the public, no doubt because of vast pharma influence. No doubt the media will be busting down doors to get at this info. The whole serotonin theory is whacked to begin with as there is no evidence whatsoever that low serotonin is responsible for mood disorders, although it is well known that too much serotonin will tip the normal user over the edge into violence or suicide, or both. Serotonin is but one of 400 neurotransmitters in the brain, and 95% of it is in your gut in the first place. If there were a reliable test to measure brain chemistry then some of pharma’s theories would hold water, but as it is your brain chemistry (not blood chemistry or other metabolites) can only be measured post mortem. Besides, what are normal levels if they can’t be measured at all while the person is alive. It won’t be long before there is another one of these shootings; seems like they happen on a regular basis now and within a week they are forgotten and life returns to normal. What a society we live in.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
