Ever since Robert F Kennedy Jr. was nominated to be President Donald Trump’s Secretary of HHS (Department of Health & Human Services), Mr. Kennedy’s past views on a number of health-related issues have been met with justifiable skepticism.
On several of these issues, Mr. Kennedy may be wrong. But on one important health-related subject, RFK Jr. has been consistently right: the potential link between SSRI antidepressants and mass school shootings.
Two recent widely viewed public discussions on this fraught subject are worth noting.
The first example occurred on January 30, 2025, at RFK Jr.’s Senate confirmation hearing, during which Mr. Kennedy was subjected to a grilling on this subject by Senator Tina Smith (D Minnesota).
SENATOR SMITH: In an interview in 2023 and 2024, you blamed school shootings on antidepressants. You said—and this is a quote: “There is no time in American history—or human history—that kids are going to shoot schools… and shooting their classmates. It really started happening coterminous with the introduction of these drugs… With Prozac and with other drugs.”
So, do you believe that as you’ve said, that antidepressants cause shootings? This should be a simple question [to answer].
RFK JR: I don’t think anybody can answer that question, and I didn’t answer that question… I said that it should be studied… because there’s no science on that, Senator.
SENATOR SMITH: There is, Mr. Kennedy. Science shows that there is no link between school shootings and antidepressants. In fact, most school shooters were not even treated and with those that were, there was no evidence of association…
RFK JR: I don’t think you can say… that, Senator. Because of HIPAA rules, nobody knows.
A second public dialogue on RFK Jr.’s assertions about antidepressants occurred on November 14, 2024, during CNN’s OutFront show. Host Erin Burnett began the discussion by playing for her audience an audio clip of RFK Jr. saying the following:
KENNEDY: Prior to the introduction of Prozac, we had almost no—none of these events in our country, and we’ve never seen them in human history, where people walk into a school room of children or strangers and start shooting people.
“All right, there’s no evidence of that,” Ms. Burnett told her audience. “Study after study has not found a link between antidepressants and school shootings.”
Ms. Burnett then turned to CNN’s resident medical expert, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, to get his reaction to what RFK Jr. had said.
GUPTA: The problem is the second part of what you were talking about, there’s so many things that he contorts to his version of the truth. He takes these little—these little correlations and turns them into true causations—the antidepressants and the school shootings for example.
Prozac came out in 1987. School shootings have been happening since the ’60s, number one. Number two, I don’t know how many of these children that we’re talking about were on Prozac—[how many of] these school shooters or whoever they were, were actually on this [antidepressants].
I share Erin Burnett and Dr. Gupta’s skepticism about Robert F Kennedy Jr.’s veracity on a number of health-related subjects. However, on the specific subject of SSRI antidepressants like Prozac and Paxil, and their link to school (and other) shootings, RFK Jr. has a point. Indeed, there are numerous documented cases that show a link between SSRIs and school violence. Following are just three examples.
In the aftermath of the horrific 1999 Columbine High School mass shooting, medical records revealed that Eric Harris was taking the SSRI antidepressant Luvox at the time of the killings. Prior to that, he had been prescribed Zoloft. One of Dylan Klebold’s friends later recalled that he had witnessed Dylan taking Paxil and Zoloft. Dylan Klebold’s medical records remain sealed.
On March 21, 2005, 16-year-old Jeffrey Weise went on a killing spree at two different places on the Red Lake Indian Reservation in Red Lake, Minnesota. Weise first shot and killed his grandfather, an Ojibwe tribal police sergeant, and then his grandfather’s girlfriend at their home. After taking his grandfather’s police weapons and bulletproof vest, Weise then drove his grandfather’s police vehicle to Red Lake Senior High School, where he had been a student some months before.
Weise shot and killed seven people at the school and wounded at least nine others. The dead included an unarmed security guard at the entrance of the school, a teacher, and five students. After the police arrived, Weise exchanged gunfire with them. After being wounded, he shot and killed himself in a classroom. At the time, it was the deadliest school shooting in the United States since the Columbine High School massacre. It remains the deadliest mass shooting in Minnesota history.
According to one source, Weise’s doctor had recently increased his dosage of Prozac to 60 milligrams/day. His aunts said they were concerned about the increase in his dosage.
On November 7, 2007, eighteen-year-old Pekka-Eric Auvinen of Tuusula, Finland, armed with a .22 caliber pistol, walked into Jokela High School where he was a senior and proceeded to shoot dead the headmistress, the school nurse, and six fellow students. He then shot himself in the head.
Auvinen’s friends later told authorities that they perceived him to be “a normal student who was pretty happy.” But at age seventeen, Auvinen started taking antidepressants, and in the months leading up to the massacre, his friends noticed changes to his behavior.
Members of the U.K. parliament were shocked and outraged by what they had learned about the Jokela High School mass shooting, and on November 13, 2007, the following motion was put forth with eighteen MPs as signatories:
“That this House is horrified at the recent increase in school shootings; is puzzled that the English language media failed to mention that in the Finnish tragedies, Mr. Pekka-Eric Auvinen said that he ‘ate SSRI anti-depressants’ which, he said, made him feel ‘aggressive’; notes that the perpetrators of 28 other school shootings, including at Columbine and in Minnesota, were also on anti-depressants; notes that anti-depressants, especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), have been proved to both sweep away self-regulating internal inhibitions while triggering explosive acts of violence and murderous behaviour; and calls for a study of the links between SSRI use and almost all school shootings and a rethink on the wisdom of the mass prescribing of anti-depressants to young people.”
Finally, the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting by Adam Peter Lanza bolsters RFK Jr’s assertion that HIPAA is part of the problem. In the aftermath of Lanza’s merciless massacre of twenty defenseless children and six school employees, Able Child, a non-profit organization for parents, caregivers, and children’s rights, filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the release of Lanza’s medical records.
At a hearing, Patrick B. Kwanashie, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Connecticut, argued against the request, claiming that the release of such information could “cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications.”
So how could so many otherwise well-informed people be so misinformed on this important subject? I believe that I know the answer.
For decades, pharmaceutical behemoths like Eli Lilly and GlaxoSmithKline—the makers of Prozac and Paxil, respectively—have successfully suppressed mountains of clinical trial data that establish a link between SSRI antidepressants and suicidal and homicidal ideations and, in rare cases, murder and mayhem. And early on, the FDA was duplicitous in burying these negative clinical trial results.
It is high time that more politicians, journalists, health officials, physicians, psychiatrists, and patients were made aware of this potentially lifesaving information.
I don’t know if he’s right about everything, but every major issue I’ve heard associated with him has significant evidence behind it so that at least the possibility should be considered seriously with cost/harm benefits
Antidepressants have been associated with killings for decades. So sad nothing major has been done.
A high quality recent study coming out of Florida showed with high certainly vaccines were associated with (yes) autism and neurological disorders which may greatly impact mental health later. Of course there are other studies pro vaccine, but my point is that nothing in science should be a taboo topic. Pharma pays media to attack views until taboos are effectively there. Real science is where you continually evaluate evidence and the evidence is never hidden.
I hope RFK jr gets confirmed and does an overhaul. I’m sure the pharmaceutical industry is freaking out
Report comment
Autism isn’t a pathology to be cured out of existence.
Report comment
No, ‘Autism’ cannot be “cured” because it does not exist.
Report comment
Yea, I’m going to need peer reviewed studies from reputable studies on this opinion.
Report comment
Thomas Shipp,
It’s essential to recognise that the assertion I’m making is rooted in fact, not merely “opinion”. Currently, there is a complete lack of identified biological causes for any psychiatric ‘disorder’, and no reliable tests exist that can provide objective, independent data to substantiate psychiatric diagnoses (Council for Evidence-Based Psychiatry, http://www.cepuk.org, Whitaker, R, Gotzsche, P, Jackson, G, Burstow, B, Breggin, P, & Szasz, T).
I encourage you to present credible evidence that counters this perspective.
Report comment
The burden of proof lies on whoever makes the claim. Autism is the claim so it’s the ones advocating for its existence that have to defend it against the null hypothesis.
“I’m going to need peer reviewed studies from reputable studies”
Most studies are federally funded which, in the case of mental health, requires the researchers and study participants to subscribe to the DSM-5 categories. In this sense, they have to accept the ontological existence of any disorder label if they want to get funded in the first place. That the DSM-5 committee does not actually rely on such evidence to formulate its own diagnostic manuals should be known by most people. So, in this sense, two people receiving the same diagnosis may very likely have absolutely nothing specific in common.
Report comment
Then find them!
Report comment
It’s so common to want objective, peer-reviewed, reputable studies before being persuaded. And that’s not wrong in many areas of inquiry. But it’s problematic when it comes to human behavior because the studies try to make scientific and objective something that is inherently subjective and personal.
Lived experience is very important, more important than studies treating individuals as data points.
Only so much understanding can be gleaned from studying, reading about, or hearing about the lived experience of others. This academic/professional approach doesn’t impart understanding like lived experience does. It just can’t.
For example, a person who has never had sex could read a book about having sex. That person could pore over every peer-reviewed study on Earth about sex. That person could hear all about what it’s like to have sex from numerous sources. That person could even get a PhD in sexual behavior and consider themselves an expert in sexual activity.
But an understanding of what it’s like to have sex isn’t really internalized and personally understood until that person has lived experience–personal sexual experience. Actually experiencing sex imparts an understanding that can’t be learned from books or studies or testimonials of others.
Report comment
@Dan Nelson:
That’s a good point you make. When I first came onto this website in my early 20s, I had the same mentality as Thomas Shipp. “Show me studies from peer reviewed reputable sources”. Very common phrase in skeptics/atheist movements. Still popular in the current transgender circles online.
“Peer review” was like a mantra word I heard paraded around the internet. I never bothered about who the peers are, what their names, backgrounds and agendas are.
I’m not saying this with regards to autism or anything particular. I’m not even saying it’s a bad thing to demand them in certain contexts. Of course, we need information from sources which have a consistent history of true results. However, context and circumstances matter.
On one of the Psychiatry sub-reddits, they demanded “if you want to say Psychiatry harmed your life, provide evidence from reputable peer-reviewed sources”. That is such a dumb demand that I can’t even shake my head at it. How the hell can a person who has faced some issue like a doctor not telling him all of what a drug will do or how harmful or stigmatising a label might be to his life provide a peer reviewed study on that?
Imagine someone saying “doctor, I feel suicidal!” and he says “you need to provide evidence from a reputable peer reviewed source to verify your claim”.
Report comment
I understand the vehemently anti-diagnostic population on this website, but this is one of the most absurd and ignorant claims I have ever heard. Pull up any random video of a child diagnosed with severe autism and tell me their suffering isn’t real. While you’re at it, explain to me how the recently discovered lowered synaptic density in the brains of autistic people is also somehow fabricated. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-024-02776-2).
Report comment
Nice name. Is it a case of push button and then mouth opens as brain pops out?
Report comment
I consistently see people pull up this and that journal paper of brain stuff when it comes to autism or bipolar disorder or ocd or whatever it is. What they don’t do is tell what the name of that specific person going through autism or obsessive-compulsive symptoms is, mention what his individual problems are and show that specific individual’s brain scan.
This is a brain MRI. Can you look at this and tell me what kind of suffering this brain has experienced?
“Autism” is just another tautological label assigned to a cluster of behaviours. Some people can be much less “autistic” than others. I’m sure in certain cases the suffering is very severe.
Report comment
This is not a psychiatric cash grab or an attempt to frame a personality type as a problem. Pharmaceutical companies don’t have a profit angle on autism, because nothing treats it. Autism is not being a quirky introvert. It is not acting like Sheldon Cooper. It is a permanent, incurable, neurodevelopmental disorder.
“in certain cases”
People diagnosed with autism have an unemployment rate of over 70% in the U.K., while in the US some estimates are as high as 85%. Their lifespans are drastically shorter than the average person, due to a combination of accidental deaths and suicides induced by a society that mocks, belittles, and refuses to acknowledge them. A society full of people like you.
Report comment
Give me a break. “People like you”. I don’t not acknowledge anyone’s suffering. I’m sure people diagnosed with quadriplegia have a very high unemployment rate. People with late stage rabies have a near 100% fatality rate. People living in Gaza currently have a higher risk of death than the average person. Old people have a much higher risk of dementia.
I can very easily acknowledge someone’s suffering without going into neurononsense that is so often peddled to make a point about anything behaviour related. You didn’t have to bring up crap about synaptic density to say that people categorised as “autistic” have problems. I just showed you a specific brain MRI and you had jack shit to say about it like most people who bring up some or the other journal paper about neuro-this-and-that to make a statement.
You say “people like you” and call it a “neurodevelopmental disorder”, and another person Claire (who is perhaps autistic herself) says autism is not a pathology to be cured out of existence. Decide what you want yourselves first.
Even I could say “disease-mongering and turning maltreatment or problems-in-living into brain diseases occurs because of a society full of people like you who bring up neurocrap and see everything through the prism of brain problems and as ‘neurodevelopmental disorders'”. But that would be a mischaracterisation as you’re trying to shed light on something else.
Report comment
“I’m sure the pharmaceutical industry is freaking out.”
It’s about time.
Report comment
Association studies are practically worthless if you deal with circumscribed or vague descriptions. They’re subject to statistical fluctuations. In addition, a small but highly “penetrative” subsample of the group will skew the data (methods based on statistics can’t filter them. An existing sample would have to be subsampled which likewise requires knowledge about your groups that few research groups can realistically get) either way. In other words, pretty much every statistical analysis assumes that any person will, on average, react the same to something which is a false statement.
Everyone knows that vaccines have side effects and that they can also be neurological. This was an accepted and commonly pointed out fact prior to the Bush years.
It was simply taken for granted that vaccine campaigns would cause some few kids to die or become disabled (via auto-immune disorders, encephalitis etc.) in exchange for avoiding polio or smallpox epidemics that would render many more dead. In fairness, many of the affected kids would have naturally succumbed to the infectious diseases.
Report comment
Here’s my breakdown on the confirmation of RFK Jr. as HHS Secretary and the impact on FDA as well as the pharma industry: https://lnkd.in/e2gJVM2G
Report comment
All of this faux-science & conspiracy theories around conventionally-accepted medicine fits right into RFK’s pathology perfectly:
– COVID targets specific races? FALSE
– Vaccines cause autism? FALSE
– Fauci/Gates pimped COVID for vaccines? FALSE
– FDA suppresses health advancements? FALSE
– Wifi causes cancer & other illnesses? FALSE
– Fluoride causes diseases? FALSE
– AIDS not caused by HIV? FALSE
– This articles premise? FALSE
Folks – he’s a first-rate sicko. When Caroline K calls him out for tossing small animals into a blender to feed his raptors… or the different animals he’s killed… or any of his wacked-out pronouncements based on pop-tart science… do not listen.
For anyone who dropped – or drops – dead ‘cuz of this apex-level clown I say this: you’ll bring this s*** on yourself.
Report comment
RFK Jr. is a lawyer, not a medical expert. Whatever he does, he does it from the perspective of a lawyer which means he is trained to identify potential weaknesses in some opponent’s arguments and then attack them in order to convince others of his position. Historically, lawyers have been the primary professional caste from which politicians were sourced.
In this sense, his attacks against vaccines can be explained by the difficulty in proving that vaccines cannot possibly have caused something or anything for that matter. It’s always much more difficult to prove the negative of some statement than it is to prove its positive. (After all, how can you be a 100 % sure that there aren’t unicorns on the earth after all?) So, the pressing question is why he does what he does. His trackline of making a claim only for him to back down makes it clear that he himself doesn’t really believe in most of what he says. (Weirdly enough, I’ve discovered over and over again that antivax websites are botted to the extreme so there’s some genuine and not accidental effort in pushing the antivax narrative.)
RFK Jr. and Trump, for example, have known each other for a long time, at least since the ’80s. I assume they’ve partnered up with each other because RFK Jr. knew how to sell tremendous cuts in the healthcare system to the average US-American without making this sound bad. “Make America healthy again”. This would be in line with what Trump generally intends to do, concentrating wealth.
“Folks – he’s a first-rate sicko.”
Knowing that he’s been addicted to hard drugs for decades, there’s a good chance that he suffers from some kind of drug-induced dementia syndrome. This involves memory loss, problems in forming memories, a decline in cognitive skills and deterioration in your ability to emphasize with others.
Report comment
I lost my husband to suicide. Unlike the blind, as a Registered Nurse, I asked for a toxicology report that showed 3 mental health drugs in his system along with a lithium toxicity that was never monitored. All these meds are a money making scam! They are there to keep you on them for life. People need to wake up. A simple blood test showing lacking vital nutrients, enzymes, ect is at your fingertips. It is with lack of education why we can’t get a hold of this crisis. Money over people.
Report comment
Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Mass shooters are on ssris because they’re depressed. Maybe it’s the fucking depression and isolation, not the meds. You can pry my ssris from my cold dead hands.
Report comment
Just because you love them doesn’t mean others aren’t adversely affected. The percentage who become violent is apparently small but does exist. Prozac was initially banned in Germany because of data suggesting a small but significant number of people who became quite deranged taking them.
Besides which, depression has NEVER been highly associated with aggression and violence. Depressed people tend to be withdrawn and more passive than the average human. You can’t blame “depression” for this result, even if it makes you really uncomfortable.
And BTW, no one is coming to take your SSRIs. So let’s relax and look at the data instead of our emotions!
Report comment
You literally sound like the therapists you decry as invalidating us. “You’re just hysterical and delusional!”. You are no different than them. He wants to send me to a camp!
https://futurism.com/neoscope/rfk-jr-adderall-labor-camps
Report comment
I said nothing of the sort. I said that you can’t extrapolate from your own experience to that of others (which clearly you can not), and I said that no one is coming to take your ADs away from you (which clearly no one is). These are statements of fact. I certainly have no thought that sending you to a “camp” of some sort being advisable, in fact, if you are satisfied with what is happening with your current treatment, why would they want to send you anywhere? They are sounding like the ones with the issues. I fully support you in doing whatever works for you. I just can’t agree to blame violence likely caused or exacerbated in rare cases by antidepressants on those unknowingly taking pills with such adverse effects.
Look into the Germanwings plane crash if you want a really solid example. The pilot TOLD his psychiatrist he didn’t feel right taking these drugs, but the psychiatrist ignored him, didn’t change his regime and continued to allow him to fly. The results were devastating.
That’s what happens when we pretend an adverse effect doesn’t happen when the evidence says it does. It has nothing to do with individual experiences or banning of drugs. It’s just about being honest about the data.
Report comment
I sent you an article of RFK talking abt sending people on Adderall and ssris to “wellness camps”, involuntarily. That’s no different from involuntary commitment. Why is it ok now? Involuntary commitment is never okay
Report comment
I agree 100%. “Wellness camps” sound bad enough if you went voluntarily!
I am opposed to involuntary “treatment” in any circumstance, as I don’t regard it as “treatment” if the client is not a willing participant. I realize that sometimes people have to be prevented from harming others or endangering society (wandering into traffic, etc.) but that does not justify forcing drugs or “wellness camps” on people who are unwilling or uninterested in such “treatment.”
Report comment
Who is gaining/losing from the treatment that seemingly fails to convey how to monetize the costs incurred? For money, is not just a digit held in place. And what or how does bullying impact long and short term, in the development of the work required to be a human? Can bullying be spread around a whole department, private and public? What are the protections if one works within the civil service and the new roll out implications? Is bullying considered “work” or “play”? The terms being invoked now in relationship to the legal framework?
Report comment
Ok. I have been reading this thread and understand RFK’s plan as stupid as it is. However, can he force prescribers to take away meds. I have been on anti anxiety med thru a psychiatrist for many years. Can he take those away?
Report comment
Doctors can prescribe any FDA approved drug for any indication they can find. The only way to “take away” a drug is to have the FDA withdraw their approval for that particular drug. Since drug companies contribute to both sides of the aisle heavily, it is very unlikely that any such drugs will be withdrawn from the market. Think how hard it was to even get a well-researched warning put on antidepressants. Banning them? Nothing to worry about, IMHO.
Report comment
Your claims about depression are not true. Depression in adolescents can be displayed as irritability and anger. It’s not always sad and withdrawn. I know because my depression from being bipolar was misdiagnosed when I was 19 as intermittent explosive disorder. It wasn’t until my mid-20s that a therapist informed me that I was misdiagnosed. And the reasoning was because depression can look different in children compared to adults.
So yes, their depression was likely the cause of their actions, not the medication.
Report comment
Pure speculation. This is not helpful to those who are truly suffering. Blaming the victim is never a good plan in my view.
Report comment
This!!!! How is this hard to understand.
Report comment
Documentary evidence easily accessed
MAKING A KILLING
http://www.CCHR.org
Report comment
If SSRIs help you, you should obviously be free to have them. Same applies to TMS and ECT or anything else. What you put in your body, as long as it isn’t creating an unnecessary nuisance to others around you, is your choice.
Also, it’s true that just because someone was on SSRIs, that does not mean the drugs were responsible in every case (or even in most cases) for homicides. However, there will be a small number of cases where the drugs caused mania, psychosis and delusions (which are all side effects that occur in a proportion of individuals who take them) which did result in homicide or some other nastiness. Even those side effects usually don’t result in homicides but rather rash and reckless behaviour like taking grandiose risks, spending sprees etc. For homicides to occur, a bunch of factors might have to be at play, and drugs could be just one contributing factor depending on the case at hand.
Report comment
Very well said!
Report comment
I agree, too. “Whatever gets you through the night, it’s all right, it’s all right . . .”—Uncle John
Report comment
I also think after a certain age (something between 25-30) + spending more than 8 years or so in the system, a prescription should not be required to purchase these drugs and that right should be rescinded only in the case of a person causing harm to someone else due to such drug use.
Withholding drugs in the context of psychiatry amounts to basically holding a revolver to a person’s head and saying “you do this, then I’ll give them to you”. Once a person has been on them for years, it basically becomes chemical dependency and as essential as oxygen. You should not have to depend on someone’s mercy and charity and follow their rules of labelling and coercion for something that’s necessary for your survival. It’s no different than withholding oxygen at that point.
Report comment
I’ve always thought that anti-depressants like Proxac don’t “cause” suicide so much as enable it. In the depths of depression it’s hard to think clearly enough or have the energy to actually kill oneself. If suddenly the energy is there without a concurrent shift in emotion, suicide/homicide could seem like a logical next step, and there’s energy to make and follow through with a plan.
Report comment
I sort of agree, but I think the process is more one of removing inhibitions based on talking to lots of ‘users.’ I remember one in particular who took Zoloft for migraine headaches, not depressed at all, saying that she’d run into situations and be going over possible solutions and would think, “I could kill myself!” She was shocked at herself for even thinking such a thing, and totally attributed it to the Zoloft.
So if a person is feeling inhibited, as in I can’t stand up to my mom or I feel I have to act a certain way to keep others happy, taking SSRIs might seem like a relief – who cares what mom thinks, those others can shove it! But what if the person is inhibiting wanting to kill themselves, but is staying together by saying, “I can’t do that to my kids” or “I don’t want to leave a mess for others to sort out, it would be selfish?” Removing those inhibitions could result in, “Ah my kids are better off without me” or “It won’t be my problem, I’ll be dead” or similar justifications. And Lord help us in the rare cases where the person is inhibiting the thought of hurting or killing others by thinking it would be too horrible a result. That kind of inhibition, we WANT people to keep!
That’s how I see it working for some people but being a total disaster for others. It depends if removing inhibitions works in your favor or against you. And I have personally seen both happen.
Report comment
Claire might be onto something here.
Could the same adverse childhood experiences and conditions under which mass shooters grow up, eventually leading to distress and SSRI prescriptions, be what drives their behavior (and thus the correlation)?
Many mass shooters share common childhood experiences that suggest early adversity plays a significant role in their later violence. Some of the most frequently observed childhood conditions include:
Family Instability – Many mass shooters come from homes affected by divorce, separation, domestic violence, or neglect. Frequent upheavals and inconsistent parenting can contribute to emotional dysregulation.
Social Rejection & Bullying – Many perpetrators report being bullied, ostracized, or socially isolated during childhood and adolescence. Some were physically bullied, while others experienced chronic rejection or humiliation, leading to deep-seated resentment.
Frequent Moves & Disruptions – Some shooters had unstable living situations, including frequent relocations due to parental divorce, economic struggles, or military family dynamics. This can disrupt a child’s ability to form stable friendships and deepen social isolation.
Exposure to Abuse or Neglect – A history of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse is common among some perpetrators, leading to long-term psychological scars, distrust, and anger.
Lack of Meaningful Social Bonds – Many mass shooters lacked close friendships, mentorship, or strong community support, leading to a growing sense of alienation and grievance.
Mental Health Struggles & Psychiatric Medication – Many shooters had diagnosed mental health conditions (e.g., depression, anxiety, schizophrenia) and were often prescribed SSRIs or other psychiatric medications. However, rather than the medications themselves causing violence, it could be that the underlying conditions requiring medication—such as trauma, neglect, or social alienation—are potent drivers of distress.
In short, while SSRIs may be present in these cases, the deeper issue could be the adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) that led to mental distress in the first place.
These early hardships can distort brain development, foster resentment, and set the stage for later depression, anxiety, and violence—especially when combined with social isolation, humiliation, and access to weapons.
Report comment
Or, people with ACEs may be more likely to react adversely to SSRI antidepressants and other drugs. I will repeat that the experience of “depression” in particular is RARELY associated with violence of any sort. It is usually associated with withdrawal and passivity. There is absolutely no reason to expect a rash of mass murders from depressed people. SSRIs appear to be a strong variable. They clearly don’t affect the majority this way, but as I noted earlier, Prozac was initially banned in Germany due to causing violent episodes. This is not being made up, and let’s not let SSRIs off the hook for their role in creating a more violent world! Blaming it on the victim once again is not an acceptable explanation.
Report comment
Point taken. However, I didn’t mention depression. So okay, mass shooters are likely not depressed. It could be some other issues, or a combination of them, and not depression that drives their behavior.
That some mass shooters are on psych meds shouldn’t be surprising. That some on psych drugs engage in mass shootings, then the root cause must be the drugs? Or a poor reaction to the drugs?
If some hadn’t endured frequent or severe ACEs, they wouldn’t have been on psych drugs in the first place. And they wouldn’t have been prone to violence.
So it could be that some people with high ACEs don’t react well to certain psych meds. It could be that these drugs aren’t effective in providing relief.
How does the correlation responsibly imply causation?
Report comment
It does not. But saying “Correlation is not causation” does not mean the correlated events are NOT causally related, merely that you have not proved it. In my world, it’s the job of the drug manufacturer and the prescribing doctor to ENSURE the drug is safe. If it is not, or is even SUSPECTED not to be, it becomes a matter for informed consent immediately. Something as simple as, “A very small number of people don’t seem to react well to this drug. If you find yourself suddenly thinking about hurting yourself or someone else, please call IMMEDIATELY and we will address it.”
Then, of course, when you DO get that call (like the Germanwings pilot), you have to not pretend “it’s part of the disease” and DO something about it. “Wow, it sounds like you are finding this drug is not working for you! Let’s come up with another plan!”
It’s really not that hard. But it starts with being honest.
Report comment
Although I agree that if using a drug (or withdrawing from it) is demonstrated to cause violent episodes, it’s problematic and should be addressed. But I don’t think we are getting to any root causes in doing so.
Report comment
I agree, however, we should not be killing people while looking for root causes!
Report comment
Agreed. That might be like telling people to get off the drugs/substances that work for them until psychiatry can confirm the root cause of their distress and provide effective solutions eliminating those root causes.
Report comment
Sorry, antidepressants have saved my life. They save a lot of people’s lives. They made me functional when PTSD, severe depression, ocd, anxiety, and binge eating disorder were making me dysfunctional. Yes, in SOME people, there are adverse reactions and those need to be monitored. And, yes, there can be side effects, but they are not usually severe and the alternative of living without them tends to be MUCH more severe. Every antidepressant isn’t the best fit for every person, so you often have to try quite a few to find the right match. I had a nervous breakdown about 20 years because I was told I didn’t need to wean off Prozac, despite my misgivings. This was NOT due to the Prozac, but the psychiatrist being incompetent and the fact that I’d been on it for years. I had a suicide attempt BEFORE I was on antidepressants because I couldn’t find any relief. I lost a brother to suicide because he WENT OFF his antidepressants, NOT because he’s been on them. I know A LOT of people fear they’ll be a ” zombie ” if they go on antidepressants. If that’s the case, the likelihood is it’s the wrong antidepressant for you. Unfortunately, many people are treatment resistenr and that sounds like an unimaginable hell. PLEASE educate yourself. You named 3 people who were on antidepressants and ended up being school shooters. BUT, there is NO correlation between the use of antidepressants and increased violence UNLESS that is the natural behavior of someone. And you ONLY mentioned 3 people. Most school shooters are not on antidepressants. One thing school shooters DO have is access to guns, which should’ve NEVER been accessible. My brother, who killed himself, should also have not had access to a gun. What we need is A LOT stricter gun laws. If people are SO damn obsessed with their guns, they need to go through the training. Yes, some of the school shooters may have mental illness, but, if that is the case, the mental illness is most likely to have pushed them over the edge, NOT the antidepressants they may or may not have been on.
Report comment
Depression in young men absolutely contributes (not causes) violence in some. YOUNG WOMEN ON ANTIDEPRESSANTS ARE NOT COMMITTING SCHOOL SHOOTINGS. Because of how men are socialized negative feelings like depression are more prone to be externalized in men. Women in distress are more likely to be violent towards themselves (negative self talk and self esteem, suicide, self injury) while men are more prone to anger and aggression towards others.
Report comment
Your premise sounds more like “being male contributes to violence,” not “depression. If young women are equally depressed but NOT committing school shootings, than “depression” per se is not a variable. Being young and male most definitely is.
Report comment
Interesting point. School shootings are very rare where I live because guns aren’t really widely available. However, I do see them on US news. When I come to think of it, I’ve almost never seen female school shooters on the news. I just went and checked out if there have been any, and there have. But rare. This is something I’ve never thought about.
Report comment
I have dealt with most of those traumas and am not violent. It may result in violence for some, but most people with mental illness are NOT violent in the least and are MUCH more often the victims of violent acts.
Report comment
I agree. Thank you!
Report comment
The “cause” of shootings is never clear. Any of the factors you mentioned can be linked to shootings by correlation only, just like SSRIs. And there are just as many, no doubt many, many more who’ve experienced family separations, moves, social isolation, etc., who do not pull out a gun and shoot somebody. It’s an individual thing with a unique set of contributing factors in each case, including any or all the aforementioned and probably some that haven’t yet been thought of.
Report comment
Yes! All humans are emotional. We can be angry or sad. However, most of us who take alcohol know from experience we can be less inhibited after consuming it and sometimes can get angry enough to be act violently. Drugs can cause brain damage. In all the countries where schoolshootings are recorded, the sales of SSRIs have plummeted . Some people have described how they changed when they took SSRIs and others can have different adverse effects. At the beginning,even some who find them beneficial find it a nightmare to detox when they don’t want them. Very few powerful people speak about the dangers of prescription drugs because Big Pharma is so wealthy and powerful. They can be very cowardly. But Ted Kennedy is not one of them. I hope that he might at least make it less difficult for the pharmaceutical companies to rule the roost.
Report comment
I would be dead without antidepressants. Yes, I had a nervous breakdown after a psychiatrist told me that I didn’t need to wean off my Prozac ( note: ALWAYS wean off your antidepressant). But that was the PSYCHIATRIST’S fault, NOT the antidepressant’s. I was nonfunctional before I was put on antidepressants and had a suicide attempt, also BEFORE I’d ever had an antidepressant. I prefer being healthy mentally to the hell I was in as a teen.
Report comment
Well, maybe you’re in the small minority that actually gets some benefit from them. Even you say yourself that “unfortunately, many people are treatment resistant” – in other words, the drugs aren’t very effective. This site is full of evidence that directly contradicts most of your claims. What you say about your life is, while meaningful, simply anecdotal. A person can think and say anything saved their life and is absolutely necessary for them. It could be drinking coffee, or collecting stamps, or literally anything. I’ve even heard people seriously claim they have to be wearing perfume to get out of the door due to mental distress. And maybe it is like that for them if they feel and experience so, but it doesn’t make it an actual treatment that is generally effective. That is something that needs to be proven. Some people have a deep need to believe in the drugs, which I find very understandable. Because of all that, we have to look at the evidence, and it’s not very compelling to say the least. Harms greatly exceed benefits.
Report comment
I am confused.
Here you said, “I would be dead without antidepressants. Yes, I had a nervous breakdown after a psychiatrist told me that I didn’t need to wean off my Prozac ( note: ALWAYS wean off your antidepressant). ”
In another post from you here, you also said, “Have you ever experienced severe mental illness? Because I have and it doesn’t generally go away. I’ll have to be on antidepressants the rest of my life and I’m okay with that. I’d rather that than be completely dysfunctional, sobbing all day and night. ”
If you always want to wean off your antidepressants, then how will you be on them for the rest of your life, and vice versa?
Report comment
I was saying that if you NEED to go off of your anti-depressants, then you MUST wean off of them rather than going cold turkey.
Report comment
Kennedy was quoted as saying, “Prior to the introduction of Prozac, we had almost no—none of these events in our country, and we’ve never seen them in human history, where people walk into a school room of children or strangers and start shooting people.”
So this is more than about school shootings. This is about mass murder of strangers in general.
Kennedy is correct. There was a time when it was unthinkable to kill a bunch of people in a school. Or a church. Or a movie theatre. Or a shopping mall. Or a parade. Or a birthday party. Or a graduation. Or a hospital. Or a college campus. Or a bowling alley. Or a music festival.
When someone does the unthinkable, the unthinkable suddenly becomes thinkable.
The argument that depressed people are withdrawn and passive may be true. But what about the person who is not only depressed, but depressed and angry at the world.
Easy access to weapons of war whose only purpose is to kill as many people as quickly as possible should be part of why mass shootings happen, but that’s a whole other article.
Report comment
I’m relieved Bobby has been confirmed. Denial of side effects has been so pervasive in my experience, that it no longer surprises me. I initially thought this was happening because the liability lawyers had coached the prescribers “deny – play the odds … the ones you help, far outnumber the ones you harm”.
I have been harmed, with possibly the greatest harm being a loss of trust. In my cold dead hands … certainly will not be any pharmaceutical. For spiritual reasons alone – it is not possible for me to believe that 25% of humanity is anti depressant deficient.
In this comment thread, and pervasive in community – there are a diverse number of narratives. I honor everyone’s experience.
But keep those poisons away from me!
Go Bobby!
Report comment
I’m so sorry for your experience! However, I was nonfunctional before I got on antidepressants and your calling them ” poison ” just perpetrates the stigma. Severe mental illness DOES exist. I have many. And, while spirituality CAN be beneficial, it cannot take the place of medical intervention. WHY would spirituality convince you that there isn’t as much depression as there is? That’s RIDICULOUS!!! There are physical illnesses, so why not mental or do you only believe what you can see?
Report comment
Dear “Renate Smith” For something not to be a poison, it would have to be proven that it treats a chemical imbalance rather than causing one, but as yet, all that really has been proven is that it [antidepressants] CAUSES one, INCLUDING the real data regarding recovery (in the long term there’s more of the revolving door syndrome than without any “treatment”, or read the recent article how antidepressants in reality double the chance of suicide, or any of the other articles that are based on science not on consumerism, and what sells)….
ALL the people who have had their lives ruined, or their loved ones have every right to call such agents poisons.
YOU may call that stigma, but a person addicted to any substance, alcohol, nicotine etc. that has been PROVEN to be a poison, might say the same thing. In fact many of the street drugs that say back 3/4rs or more of a century ago that were prescribed, and had the same amount of people heralding them, those are now street drugs, like cocaine, meth, etc. More poisons.
And then you come here and attack someone who says spirituality has shown her there’s not as much depression as we are told. And you call it ridiculous. Would anyone truly look at the statistics, rather than bantering around catch phrases like you do, and have done dotting this site with what everyone who has looked into true statistics, science, and something beyond mainstream push, they would know what ridiculous is. Would anyone look at all of that, it’s clear what HOPE says, and there are any number of ways to express that, be it spirit, truth, intelligence, perspective etc.
You make this statement, which is like the golden idol of the drug companies:
“There are physical illnesses, so why not mental or do you only believe what you can see?”
Oh, this is believing in something you can’t see, when it is heralded as treating a chemical imbalance, in reality causes one, in the long term correlates with more relapsing, but heh, you don’t believe in it, you only believe in what you can see. The emperor’s clothes included, then….. anyone that points such out only believe in what he can see…
If it works for you, all the rest can be ignored?
No, antidepressants have been proven to cause chemical imbalance, they disable normal function of the brain, and long term they cause more relapsing, and as you can read here double the chance of suicide. To say all of that addresses a mental illness because there are physical illnesses is the one thing that’s ridiculous, NOT Hope’s statement regarding spirituality. You might as well say you fix a loose shelf with a hammer and a nail, so who says there aren’t mental illnesses, or a car runs on gasoline, so who says there aren’t mental illnesses. And in CONTRAST to denying poisons are poisons, and heralding something that causes a chemical imbalance as something treating one because otherwise someone only believes what they see: There ARE however physical things that heal “mental illnesses” and one of the things statistically is non treatment with “medications” psychiatry doles out. YOU being of the minority that it works for DOES NOT change such statistics. Nor does the marketing, nor the addictions, nor the consumerism, nor that in reality since the implementation of the biological method there’s more mental illness, this DOES NOT correlate with needing more of what correlates with the spike. THAT is why there’s this book called Anatomy of an Epidemic. Exercise, healthy food, not being around people causing alarmist responses, what went on in the first asylums by the Quakers where it was only a peaceful healthy place (not a drugging zone), Soteria house, Healing Homes of Finland etc. etc. The “Mental Health” Industry taking the asylum setting the Quakers started and introducing what correlates with the spike (THEIR medications) and then convincing everyone that means more treatment needs to be forced on people, this is believing in something one can’t see, because there are “physical” illnesses!?
And you make statements no one can make [unless uninformed, brainwashed, or indoctrinated], for example: “And, yes, there can be side effects, but they are not usually severe and the alternative of living without them tends to be MUCH more severe.” Statistics again prove otherwise, that more recovery happens without any such controlled substance. DESPITE the games the drug companies play, such as taking people off a anti-psychotics or neuroleptics, taking them off cold turkey, then taking others used to such and putting them on another drug that works enough the same that THEY don’t have withdrawal symptoms, but those compared to turkeys for a lack of description DO have withdrawal symptoms, thus supposedly the drugs work: yes, then you can go on about something tending to be more severe. THAT is called unacknowledged withdrawal symptoms. And THOSE come from a chemical imbalance the DRUGS caused NOT “the disease.” Same with other addictive substances.
The plethora of devices used to approve of antidepressants, are the same kind of games.
1) In trials used for approval often enough a sizeable amount of people had to leave the controlled group, because of the side effects of the medications, this wasn’t counted. In fact sometimes more had to leave than stayed.
Prozak side effecs http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/prozaceffex.html
And Paxel http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/paxileffex.html
2)People in the non control group who got better the first couple of weeks were taken out, as if they then weren’t depressed, although had been tested before hand. This ALSO rigs the odds despite the pseudo scientific label of “washout period.” And why would it have to be done, were the drugs so helpful?
3)Because they weren’t getting the results they wanted to, people in the trials were taken who already were on psychiatric drugs, so they were either used to having their neurotransmitters messed around with, they had been coerced into acknowledging the drugs helped them or labeled non compliant, which could mean commitment, or they indeed found the drugs helpful. In any case, this isn’t about an antidepressant anymore.
4)The same goes for people in the control group being given a sedative because of the amount of akithesia, this AGAIN is not about an antidepressant, but a drug cocktail already.
5)The period in the trials where those in the control group had to get off of a drug that wasn’t approved yet wasn’t reported at first, but when looked into it showed how people were having severe withdrawal symptoms. Couldn’t sleep, couldn’t stay awake, fevers, seizures…
6)There were many trials that took place, but only those with favorable results were used, and then there was still only a marginal efficacy shown, AFTER all of the game playing above….
That all of that worked for you, that doesn’t change any of the science or statistics. In fact, most people who STILL will be presented with antidepressants as a viable solution will NOT be told anything truly akin to informed consent……
And YOU certainly aren’t giving that…..
Report comment
Okay, but WHY did I have a suicide attempt BEFORE I was on antidepressants and have been even keeled since I got on Zoloft 20 years ago? MANY of my friends have similar stories. People you know seemto be the anomaly, NOT the rule. If I had tried to heal my depression on my own, withNO medical intervention, I would not be here. There is NOTHING WRONG with taking modern medication, but you DO have to well informed, as with ANYTHING.
Report comment
Okay, but NOTHING made me steadily happy until I got on antidepressants. I would be momentarily happy, but, even now, if I don’t take my meds, I can be okay, but not genuinely happy. OF COURSE medication needs extensive research, but SO DO alternative therapies. Antidepressants are A LOT more researched than alternative therapies. I did ALL the things you ” should ” to stave off mental illnesses ( exercise, healthy food, etc. ), but I was depressed from at least the age of five and exercise and healthy eating CAN help, but NOT eradicate severe mental illness. MILD depression might be able to be ameliorated by exercise and healthy eating, but it is generally not going to reverse severe depression. You’re wanting to put a bandaid on an amputation. If you’ve never struggled with mental illness, you likely don’t realize most of us have tried everything else and it almost killed us because we were deathly ill with a legitimate illness ( just as debilitating and real as any physical illness. ). Most of us are not violent in the least, except to ourselves. BUT guns are readily available and RFK jr. and A LOT of republicans are SO in love with their guns that they’re trying to distract us with this pseudoscience because they don’t want to take responsibility for their unwillingness to make strict gun laws. Let me guess: mass gun fatalities became MUCH more prevalent with lax gun laws, NOT with the millions of people on antidepressants that they desperately needed ( NO ONE desperately needs a gun. )
Report comment
Hi, Renate.
I have read your posts with great interest, thank you.
While I do try to believe in calm and to remain calm, I also try to believe that That which pushes us out of our calm is also encouraging us to strengthen our calming muscles…just as our homeostatic mechanisms presumably come from the same design shop which ensured we have been so often pushed out of our comfort zones. I try to see us as works-in-progress being perpetually polished, as it were.
And I try not to believe in any randomness, at all, and that, for instance, we call get names we most need (said Thomas doubtfully).
You surely know that, like Renee and Rena, your name has to do with rebirth?
From what you’ve written Renate, I’ve been wondering if you assume that we all just get one go at one, single, solitary, finite, human lifetime and, if so, if you think we then die and enter eternity – or what.
I believe or assume that one’s beliefs or assumptions in regard to such questions must influence what one considers most reasonable or desirable with regard to choosing whether to try or to shun or to stop taking psychotropics of any kind – booze or baccy, benzos, barbiturates or anything else – although, granted, ultimately, anything we put in our mouth may be said to be “psychotropic”.
If one is to be well informed before making important decisions, perhaps investigating what the (human) psyche is might be a prerequisite to any such decisions?
Carl Gustav Jung on the Psyche, 1946
( from
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/matter+of+heart/KtbxLxGLgtgRszXJqgckwMtxHcdSKwQgrL?projector=1 ):
“The psyche is the greatest of all cosmic wonders and the ‘sine qua non’ of the world as an object. It is in the highest degree odd that Western man, with but very few – and ever fewer – exceptions apparently pays so little regard to this fact.
Swamped by the knowledge of external objects, the subject of all knowledge has been temporarily eclipsed to the point of non-existence.”
Thanks a million for all your thought-provoking thoughts.
Comfort and joy – on your even keel!
Tom, wondering 1. if caffeine helps me back onto or off an even keel, or both, or neither but, given Mom’s reporting “I knew each time I must be pregnant again when I went off the coffee – again” (Mom’s gallbladder may have been involved, caffeine being a cholagogue?) and the possibility that my 49-years-long post-natal depression was a partial expression of fetal decaffeination syndrome…and wondering, 2., of course, just how desirable or overrated an even keel, always, might be, anyway…
PS: What I have noticed about mass shooters is that they generally have at least one gun, at least one bullet and at least one Y chromosome (or are approximately a quarter sex chromosome short of the full complement), that they are aware of precedents and that they are often suicidal as well as homicidal. I therefore suspect that many of them do assume that we just get one go at one single, solitary, finite human lifetime and that, in this context, they see themselves, at least, as seriously flawed, and, for all I know, often as suffering from some “anxiety disorder” or “depressive disorder” – from a label which identifies them as inherently, hopelessly, irredeemably and irremediably flawed: They have run out of Hope.
PPS: Were it not for the mass shootings and murders of WWII, and that precise ramming as it occurred of PT-109 JUST then, and what followed, all sea crocodiles and sharks notwithstanding, it seems to me most unlikely that RFK Jr. would be in the position he now holds:
Please see under “Survival, swim to Plum Pudding Island, 2 August” in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrol_torpedo_boat_PT-109
…and, funnily enough, the second paragraph of this,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Vincent_Peale
Report comment
Go Bobby? So you believe his quality science that Covid was targeted to spare—Jews?
Report comment
When I see that weathered old baseball mitt talking, all I can think is how much damage his grandstanding does to legitimate criticism of psychiatric medications, and how much more he’s going to do with some real power. He’s lazy, misinformed, and unfazed by legitimate criticisms of his own science-illiteracy.
Report comment
How prevalent were high powered weapons before the introduction of SSRIs? Compared to how they are today.
This article is specious at best.
Report comment
CORRELATION AND CAUSATION ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
#1. Assuming SSRIs cause people to kill strangers would also require us to assume that all serial killers were also taking antidepressants. What about 9/11 bombers? How about unprovoked the mass murders that happen international where SSRIs are not as accessible or afforable?
#2. A quick little search tells me “The first known instance of a school shooting in the United States, considered a mass shooting, occurred on July 26, 1764, in Greencastle, Pennsylvania, during the Enoch Brown school massacre” ……. antidepressants did not become available to the United States general public until the 1950s.
#3. Social determinants of health.
#4. Blaming antidepressants for school shootings only serves to appease people who oppose tighter gun regulations.
#5. Threatening to remove antidepressants/SSRIs without increasing funding and access to mental health services is both ignorant and irresponsible.
#6. A politician has no business interfering with anyone’s medical treatment plan. If they truly believe meds are being overprescribed then stop the incentivization. I.e. don’t allow prescribers to get monetary kick backs from pharmaceutical companies.
Report comment
For the record, #1 is a completely false premise. But I tend to agree with you overall. I’d say that SSRIs play a role in a very small number of cases, and many other factors are involved even if SSRIs do contribute in some way. It’s certainly no argument for banning ADs, but it may be one for adding some informed consent. See the Germanwings plane crash for a fairly clear case of probable SSRI contribution to a disaster.
Report comment
The coincidence between mass school shootings and perpetrators on antidepressants is very, very weak evidence — many shooters never were on antidepressants (Hall, et al., 2019).
It’s very possible that those who were taking antidepressants had shown troublesome behavior before the violent acts, which is why they were getting psychiatric treatment. This is called confounding by indication (indication being the pre-existing odd behavior). The confound is that the person may have had an inclination to violent acts prior to taking the antidepressant, with the antidepressant a neutral influence on this inclination.
(This is not to say that antidepressants do not sometimes cause violent or suicidal thoughts, but we cannot presume that the shooters experienced this adverse effect, it is not universal.)
There are many things that have increased in the US since the introduction of Prozac in 1986, one of them being growth of a pervasive sensationalist media environment. I would not blame school shootings on online gaming, but the industry grew hugely since 1986. The growth curve would look similar to the accelerating incidence of school shootings. For that matter, Twitter’s growth curve prior to its 2022 acquisition also matches.
Would those be meaningful coincidences?
Humans have a tendency to see coincidence as far more meaningful than it is. This is magical thinking — for example, your team won when you wore your red socks, so now you always wear your red socks to games for luck.
Science demands more than coincidence or circumstantial evidence to generate a fact. Given what we know so far, there is no way one could convert coincidence into causation regarding antidepressants and school shootings, no matter how attractively lurid that narrative may be.
The only thing we can say with any confidence is that taking antidepressants does not seem to inhibit a school shooter.
Report comment
Depression can be associated with irritability in violence especially in the child and adolescent population. So can anxiety. Many of the school shooters were depressed and angry. The way that you treat that is antidepressants and therapeutic interventions. This does not mean they will always work but they are not the cause for the shooting. There is much underlying difficulty with perception when depressed which can cause you to question your own life. What makes you think it wouldn’t make you question others’ lives. When someone is treated with a medication there is a reason. That underlying reason is the cause of the shooting. Lots of misinformation here and with RFK jr unfortunately. We may be going back in times from a medical sense :(.
Report comment
“When someone is treated with a medication there is a reason.” False premise!
Report comment
I’m really disappointed about some of the negativity about Robert Kennedy. No person is perfect but he’s going to be the best HHS secretary we’ve probably ever had in this country. I got involved with the psych rights movement and consumer survivor stuff (not sure what it’s called these days) back in 2005. I saw the founder of MIA R.W. Speak in person that year along with Dr. Daniel Fisher. That changed my life forever and encouraged me to seek life outside of medication‘s that weren’t helping me. It was because of this activism of freedom in medical choices, though dormant in my life for many years, that gave me the strength to resist the Covid vaccine. I remember talking to one of the current editors of this site back in 2021 and asking why they didn’t allow alternative commentary about the Covid vaccine and how the authoritarian vaccine policies are affecting our mental health. And this person told me that a decision was made not to get involved in any vaccine talk. I believe that was a huge mistake and a grave injustice to people who supported the work of MIA all these years. Change is not going to be instant but I support what RFK tries to do for all of us.
Report comment
Hopefully somebody more knowledgeable than me will pipe up, but here’s what I know:
1] the difference between vaccines and antidepressants is SCIENCE. While vaccines have been scientifically proven to work, there is no proof that antidepressants work, while many studies show they are no more effective than a placebo.
2] Far fewer people are harmed by vaccines – a minute fraction of those who receive them – compared to the diseases they are designed to protect against. Conversely, antidepressants have been shown to cause far higher incidences of harm to people.
As for your claim about “authoritarian vaccine policies”: nobody was forced to take them. After all, you aren’t writing from prison are you?
The only mandates that existed were ones that restricted where the people who CHOSE to remain unvaccinated could go, in order to slow down transmission to protect other citizens from their choices. That’s it. NOBODY WAS FORCED TO BE VACCINATED.
RFK is an anti-science kook whose only concern is for portraying himself as a heroic crusader who gets a lot of attention for yapping his ignorant mouth about sh*t he knows nothing about. Far from being “the best HHS secretary we’ve probably ever had”, he will be a deadly disaster for the health of all Americans and many of us abroad as well.
Report comment
Disagree. Here we have another bunch of men blaming someone/something else for their bad behavior. School shootings are a male problem. Not an SSRI problem, not a mental health problem. Sure, the boys and young men who commit these murders are more likely to be unhappy, and if they were “happy” they might be less likely to kill people. But young women with depression and on SSRI’s are not murdering people, boys and men are the ones murdering people. The problem is how men and boys are socialized to perceive and handle distress. The blaming of treatment for MI is also blaming of MI and is harmful and wrong. It increases the stigma of MI and seeking help. There is ample evidence that SSRI’s don’t cause aggression. Remember when video games were being blamed for school shootings? People are grasping at anything they can blame other than men and the toxic way they’re socialized. If you truly believe SSRI’s cause aggression then are SSRI’s to blame for rape too? For sexual abuse of children? For domestic violence? That’ll be the next argument. Also, no one is mentioning how big supplements is just as bad as big pharma. RFK Jr isn’t some champion of the people defending us from pharmaceutical companies, he’s trying to shill supplements!
Report comment
Mbs,
Your claim that “young women with depression on SSRIs are not murdering people” is not supported by the evidence. In fact, there are numerous documented cases of women involved in homicide while using antidepressants (http://antidepaware.co.uk/homicides/).
Additionally, your assertion that “there is ample evidence that SSRIs don’t cause aggression” overlooks critical research. Multiple studies have shown a striking connection between SSRIs and increased aggression. For example, Prozac (fluoxetine) has been linked to a 10.9 times greater likelihood of violent behavior, while Paxil (paroxetine), Luvox (fluvoxamine), Effexor (venlafaxine), and Pristiq (desvenlafaxine) were associated with violence at rates of 10.3, 8.4, 8.3, and 7.9 times, respectively (https://www.livescience.com/32934-do-antidepressants-increase-violent-behavior-111102html.html). Moreover, in 2004, the FDA issued a warning highlighting the risks of heightened depression, hostility, and suicidal thoughts among individuals using antidepressants (https://industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/drug/docs/#id=znbn0225).
Report comment
This is a ridiculous piece of opinion with nothing more than armchair facts pulled from Facebook.
If SSRIs are such an issue, why aren’t the millions of people taking them committing other acts of terrorism? There are an abundance of smart people with specific skills that are on SSRIs and have the means to do a lot of harm. Yet…
Start with misinformation being spread on social media first.
Report comment
This article is proof that critical thinking skills have never been lower. Absolutely brain dead take, I would be embarrassed to associate my name with this article.
Report comment
I thought it coincided more with parents not spanking there kids butt.
Report comment
And not making their kids goto school.
It’s amazed me how, kids disrespect elders, how kids can be kicked out of schools at young age for simply swearing…(what happened to detention) I’ve heard kids say I’ll report ‘parent’ if you spank them.
How is it these kids know that. (Taught to be bad) just my two cents.
Report comment
In 2003 mind freedom international had a hunger strike challenging the APA to come up with proof that antidepressants treated a chemical imbalance. They couldn’t do that, you can read about this here: https://mindfreedom.org/kb/2003/
That was 2003. Then in 2005 the drug companies were forced to have a black box warning label put on antidepressants, this was expanded in 2007.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/sep/21/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth
https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3697/rr-4
In MULTIPLE cases, regarding whether antidepressants or other psychiatric drugs were involved that evidence is withheld for reasons of confidentiality. This is QUITE remarkable regarding correlation that in any other setting one would find it irresponsible to not share. And so when Kennedy is told by another politician that there is scant evidence, he responds that one can’t say this, and the other politician actually makes a statement that no one can make. When THAT MUCH information is withheld it’s quite impossible. But that’s how it goes with those coached by drug company lobbyists.
Beyond that I have my own anecdotal story to tell. I was on a bus, and heard a man with a sarcastic tone mention his doctor had suggested antidepressants. I went and talked to him, knowing why he would have such a tone. The man had his own story beyond that. He told me he had had a foster care facility close to Columbine, and both the kids in the shootings would go to his foster care facility, and just play pool. They told how they were bullied at school, had gone to the principle, who sent them to the sherif, who send them to the principle, etc. Nothing was done, which happens so often, if not mostly too often in any school setting involving bullying. And then the ring leader of the two as is reported here already was put on an antidepressant, had it changed to Luvox close to the time line before the shootings. And the man on the bus said that he had complained about these “medications” making him angry at everyone. His parents, his friends, his girlfriend, everyone, and the doctor said to just keep taking them. Then the shootings happened. There was a court case pending, but that was bought out by the drug companies. That was 1999…. How much more is missing, from then, and afterwards as well!?
Of course the idea has to be there, that violence solves ANYTHING, but this society is so full of such excuses that would one believe in non violence most politician would make this out to be crazy or unrealistic, consequently those thoughts are floating, such excuses are potentially there as motives in how many people’s mind, and then with antidepressants, how they jiggle up first causing with serotonin reuptake being suppressed more serotonin, and then later, after the body has noticed this to start making as much, causes less serotonin to be produced, you get first too much, and then a deficiency. With such disabling of the brain, and also REM sleep being suppressed, you get people responding without having the physical brain activity to think things through (oh, I feel fine now, can’t see why I was upset before), and beyond that the area of brain activity used for REM dreaming, where there’s sleep paralyses, and people can work out their emotions in a dream, this is suppressed, and you can have the whole array of beliefs going on in dreams starting to drift into one’s awareness. Someone sees a fictitous danger somewhere, believes it’s real, and there you go. Or responds without thinking. Peter Breggin has testified in numerous court cases that exactly that was going on. I lose sight of how many times I’ve read something inexplicable going on in a news article involving violence, and then a statement such as “so and so was being treated for depression,” or such…… And AGAIN all of that is withheld from being reported because of confidentiality….
So what is it doing to be. Are we going to honor what Jesus, Buddha, and so many other simple normal people have seen as how things work, to honor non violence and the potential that allows, and works, despite people saying that unrealistic and crazy; or is it these “antidepressants” confusing people’s minds, making them think that a disabled mind is a happy one, but then you have these in explicable acts going on that are covered up for confidentiality reasons…..
Is that what’s going on? Who thinks that happiness is turning people into robots susceptible to programming? Why do we need all of these excuses for violence, and what kind of people does that quake on all sides of it, whether it’s those implimenting such “treatments” or the results in those being “treated.”
But would any answer be made to this, the information that’s not given out would have to be shared, and perhaps people would have to see that non violence IS possible rather than all the excuses for it. As yet, I don’t see that any gun has popped up on its own and started shooting people, or is that yet to come with AI!?
Again, here’s how antidepressants were approved…..
1) In trials used for approval often enough a sizeable amount of people had to leave the controlled group, because of the side effects of the medications, this wasn’t counted. In fact sometimes more had to leave than stayed.
Prozak side effecs http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/prozaceffex.html
And Paxel http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/paxileffex.html
2)People in the non control group who got better the first couple of weeks were taken out, as if they then weren’t depressed, although had been tested before hand. This ALSO rigs the odds despite the pseudo scientific label of “washout period.” And why would it have to be done, were the drugs so helpful?
3)Because they weren’t getting the results they wanted to, people in the trials were taken who already were on psychiatric drugs, so they were either used to having their neurotransmitters messed around with, they had been coerced into acknowledging the drugs helped them or labeled non compliant, which could mean commitment, or they indeed found the drugs helpful. In any case, this isn’t about an antidepressant anymore.
4)The same goes for people in the control group being given a sedative because of the amount of akithesia, this AGAIN is not about an antidepressant, but a drug cocktail already.
5)The period in the trials where those in the control group had to get off of a drug that wasn’t approved yet wasn’t reported at first, but when looked into it showed how people were having severe withdrawal symptoms. Couldn’t sleep, couldn’t stay awake, fevers, seizures…
6)There were many trials that took place, but only those with favorable results were used, and then there was still only a marginal efficacy shown, AFTER all of the game playing above….
Report comment
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-establishes-the-make-america-healthy-again-commission/
I am old enough to remember when the people were healthy, until they died. I am shocked at the quantities of relatively young people who are sick. It’s the cancer in the under 40 set, that shocks me most.
That link is the facts – as the White House sees it. It is collectively “our White House.”
As MSN reports:
“The order specifically directs the commission to assess widely-used mental health interventions like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers …”
I have no idea if what MSN is reporting is true or not, but I certainly hope so!
Pharmaceuticals darn near killed me. My kidney function is impaired and does not filter pharmaceuticals as expected. Thus, the general practice of ever increasing dosages was effectively poisoning me.
I am not the only human this has happened to.
I am glad pharmaceuticals have saved people’s lives. Good food and exercise out in the fresh air saved mine.
We need informed choices. Not “one size fits all”, forced mandates.
Report comment
There needs to be an HHS secretary brave enough to meaningfully address the overprescription of psychiatric drugs as well as the lack of informed consent.
Report comment
No, he’s not.
He’s a heroin addict with a brain worm. All of his views are incorrect. There are too many people who know the truth and he won’t get away with this.
No more lies.
Report comment
You make the same simplistic mistake that Mr. Kennedy makes. Correlation is not causation. Of course a number of these mentally disturbed individuals were on psych meds…they were psych patients. If your sample is only people who do insane, disturbing things, that’s going to be the case. Now please, since you’re a dealer in junk science, tell me how many of these shootings psych meds have prevented.
Report comment
You make the simplistic mistake of assuming that all “psych patients” are “mentally disturbed” and do “insane disturbing things.” This is rank bigotry, Andy. The vast majority of “psych patients,” in particular depressed individuals, do NOT engage in doing “insane, disturbing things.” Most in my experience AND in statistical studies are actually quite safe, and are much more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violent incidents. This is particularly true for female patients. School shooters tend to be young and male. There isn’t a lot more that they have in common with each other statistically.
As for SSRIs and violence, this is not new information. SSRIs were initially banned in Germany for inducing violence and aggressive behavior back in the late 80s, in people who did NOT have that kind of problem to start with. I don’t think it’s appropriate to ever pin a particular crime on SSRIs, but the correlation is not made up. It’s a very small number, but it does happen. Look at the Germanwings plane crash for a good example.
I am not a fan of RFK, Jr, but again, “explaining” things by blaming the patients is an immature and cowardly approach to the problem. I think we’d do better to do some honest research and to add appropriate warnings if need be.
Report comment
Such a nice fact based and intelligent refutation Steve. Probably we can only shoot holes through things rather then shoot new structures of reason into being at the moment and once we’ve destroyed everything we might find we’ve also cured all mental health problems. That’s my philosophy anyway which is why I would like to go out with baskets of free magic mushroom and ayahuasca and develop more and more creative and effective ways to hoodwink people into taking them. Now that would be fun. If I could start now I bet there’d be something like the summer of love again this year and by Christmas everyone would have given up work including the government. Happy days. And psychiatrists will be passing around the joint with their patients, and prostitutes will be sharing crack pipes with the nuns. And right wing fascists will be enjoying games of scrabble and penetrating conversations with ISIS militants who has many skeletons in his closet because he collects the skeletons of fallen Westerners a bit like red Indians keep feathers in their hats. Sorry – I feel I’ve somewhat strayed from the true substance of my comment into something resembling Scobie Doo. Happy days though. If you take enough hallucinogens you no longer need them anymore. That’s my kind of retirement planning.
Report comment
Hi, Steve,
Thanks for having the patience and courage to try to make some kind of sense of the chaos on this forum.
In fact, I think ‘chaos’ is part of the intent of this… er, individual… being appointed. He’s meant to scare the living hell out of everyone, both those who support the continued, excessive, and reflexive use of SSRIs and those who think we should regulate them more strictly than opiates and benzos.
I’m furious about the overprescription of psychiatric medication generally, most angry about SSRIs, and have sincere concerns about mood stabilizers and antipsychotics, including atypicals. But I still don’t think that forcing doctors to live in fear is a meaningful path forward. Attitudes are only going to change one doctor and one patient at a time, and I think it is the responsibility of psychologists, MFTs, and more principled, cautious psychiatrists to step up and advocate for our patients. We have to be willing to work hard, and often to expose ourselves to liability, to report objectively and accurately what we see in our own patients, and to be vigilant in our own therapy and consultation to keep our own biases out of that assessment as much as possible. It’s imperfect, and messy as hell.
When I do call a psychiatrist to report concerns, do you know what the most common reaction is from them, or their staff who answers my call? “You are the first psychotherapist who has ever called me.” And I have called dozens of psychiatrists.
Mark, I think your perspective is very accurate: Critics of SSRIs are now likely to be labeled as crackpots (and Scientologists) and further marginalized. And I do not think Kennedy will do anything meaningful to curb the proliferation of these medications. The reason I think so is partly because I don’t believe his stated interest in improving the health of Americans is genuine; I think he’s just another influencer trying to bolster his brand.
I also feel he’s not competent I would not hire a lawyer to be in charge of my healthcare any more than I’d want my surgery done by my mechanic. He has no relevant background in medicine, psychology or public health. His well-documented behavior with animals, both dead and alive, is also really a serious concern, and should be disqualifying.
I find the link between SSRIs and violence to be dramatic, obvious, and really hard to ignore, particularly when initiated, discontinued, or during dosage changes. It surprises me that Altostrata is so skeptical here, though I appreciate the measured tone of her comments. Where I disagree here is not her idea that there is no proven causal link between SSRIs and homicides, particularly mass shootings. Unfortunately, it’s one of those data points that is virtually impossible to prove. You can’t design an experiment that will measure that, any more than you could measure, say, the number of crimes that registered firearms have prevented. What metrics would one use? What would be the methodology?
The increase in aggression just seems impossible to ignore if you have worked with patients on these medications and read about the institutionalized misconduct surrounding studies like STAR*D and Paxil Study #329, though it does seem like the risk of harm to self is greater than the risk of harm to others.
I do not believe that these medications should be banned. They may still be helpful to a small number of patients, though I say that with some hesitation, because I often feel that patients FEEL like they have improved on SSRIs when I see no evidence of this whatsoever. My experience has been that these folks sometimes stagnate, stay in the same dead-end jobs, and remain attached to the idea that their “depression” of other symptoms is what is holding them back. It’s not as if they let go of some hierarchical notion of achievement, either; they just don’t care as much about anything.
It can be– not always, but often– very, very difficult to get a patient on SSRIs interested in rekindling and building their assets. I have to remind patients on SSRIs of positive experiences they mentioned even in the last appointment; it’s like some kind of weird memory impairment. These are, generally, not the patients trying new things, learning to sail, trying a new sport or career. Often, their empathy and concern for others seems to degrade over time, though this certainly doesn’t happen for everyone.
Basically? I think we could be CENTURIES away from any real understanding of the serotonin system, and I think that norepinephrine and dopamine interact with emotions and behavior in ways that can be pretty chaotic. The idea of functional specificity in neurochemistry has got some serious problems. GABA and opiate receptors seem much more predictable, though of course drugs that alter activity at these sites can be deadly as well.
I’m not claiming my own– or anyone else’s– anecdotal experiences with these medications are the only point of information that should be considered. If I’m researching a medication, I look at several different studies with several different designs, and factor in my own experience, the experience of my colleagues, the experience of mu clients, and I read a f*ck ton of user reports on Drugs.com, Surviving Antidepressants, and multiple other sites.
I will say, not many of my colleagues agree with me about SSRIs, but several do– particularly those who have taken them themselves.
–Catalyzt
Report comment
Great, measured post Catalyzt.
Report comment
Excellent points.
I think another aspect not yet discussed is the other layers of the causes of our world’s chaos and hard times. The use of chemicals to treat humans and a long history and certainly complex with always the snake oil salesperson and teams walking along side science.
There are the ancient colonialism and imperialism systems and our more recent relatively speaking in some ways eras of again violence and chaos and outright horrific oppression of all kinds from inquisitions to slavery to death camps and use of holding places of all sorts and prisons as control. Trauma for the survivors and ongoing the old biblical 7 seven generation phrase one of those old folk tales but still packs punch.
Then there is the issue of environmental concern always there again tin mines in ancient times to hat factories where mercury an issue and the killing of birds for feathers.
The issue of so many people on medication also makes one think of the tertiary possible pollution of those medications in the waste and sewage systems.
And then the old concept of utopias which English and others like Robert Owen then Jane Addams and other communities secular and nonsecular for support. And with that always the issues of abuse and neglect and many times those who helped were abusers and usually they were abused themselves.
Lots of yuck. And in this current administration not the kind of people who can grasp or handle any of the yuck. I would perhaps call them intentional or nonintentional yuck creators.
I understand the anger and take the systems down but ultimately resentment is the poison you drink yourself. But agonizingly slow!!!! But one step and more always both tiny and giant and I think there may be a coming reckoning with this administration that could create the allowing of new ways of thinking and acting for all survivors and we all are survivors.And then more global actions because everything is connected.
Report comment
I think that Peter Breggin, when he testified in court cases regarding the influence of antidepressants on people who otherwise didn’t behave such, and returned to their other self when off of them, that this might start to point out what’s not really been looked into.
When you look at the difference, same as perhaps with alcohol, that situations a person wouldn’t have associated with violence, that the antidepressants, whether it’s the initial increase in serotonin with the re-uptake inhibition, or the decrease when the body stops making as much because of the inhibition…… that this might act like when anything is disrupted, like shaking anything up, that connections are made that otherwise wouldn’t be, and that people, when they believe violence is a tool to be used, start making such connections that otherwise wouldn’t have been going on. You’d actually have to talk to these people in a way that allows for such inner searching to be going on, but I don’t really see that’s encouraged or understood with how any kind of “research” is going on. To find out simply, “I wouldn’t have thought this was necessary, or wouldn’t have done this,” compared to when there wasn’t the influence of the drug. But then, one would have to also point out that people who don’t invest in violence, they don’t have this problem added to that the logic regarding non violence, or pacifism, and that AGAIN is something research is going to shy away from, and would rather find pacifism “crazy.” As if such a community can’t exist, so it’s not even considered.
And I don’t find it crazy to consider that when people are supposed to believe violence is a necessary resort, and deterrence, and trauma policing such, that perhaps taking an antidepressant in order to avoid the real feelings inside causes the eruption of violence that is considered crazy or criminal. But then what if such investments in such (violence, deterrence, trauma) weren’t condoned to begin with, whether they were considered appropriate or not? There might be no sadness to need to escape from as if one has to loose one’s humanity to be functional, nor the need for finding a solution that causes the disruption that shows what such investments cause when at large to make “crazy” or illegal connection, placed there as appropriate but falling prey to what happens with……
“I don’t want to have to feel this way, don’t want to have to think about it, it can’t be that non violence works…..”
You shake things up, as antidepressants do with serotonin upon initial use and after “stabilization” or when going off, and that belief that such is necessary finds a crazy or criminal connection…… shake anything up and that belief makes connection that weren’t there before……sane, criminal, crazy whatever……..
And yet it remains at large considered “crazy” to think one is safe without such a belief, such excuses for violence.
And I don’t see the real experience or data of how time resonates when such beliefs are discarded actually freely shared, without it so often being called crazy, or non realistic belief in miracles etc. Or denied, even when there is clear data…… whether sociological or physical
Report comment
Really. Say you become a victim of a streetside male gangrape somewhere by a bunch of dudes a foot taller than you and you end up with crippling trauma and humiliation which completely destroys your dignity and life and turns your behaviour odd looking to a common viewer and you eventually land up in Psychiatry; it would be a nice characterisation of you to say “you’re a mentally disturbed psych patient who does insane things” right?
If we’re going to get specific, though we may colloquially use terms like “mentally disturbed” and “insane”, those terms are neither characterisations nor explanations of anything and they’re junk science themselves if you’re going to analyse things from a scientific perspective.
You might as well have said “Correlation is not causation. We need to look into other factors that led to them shooting up schools than simply the fact that they were on SSRIs”.
Here’s an example where a guy explains why he almost became a school shooter. He sheds light on those other factors and gives a lot more insight into the kind of maltreatment and bullying he endured, the loneliness he felt and that ultimately it was an act of kindness that brought him out of it and prevented him from becoming another shooter.
Be careful of the people you so callously disparage. In this life, you could become a part of the very group you have such a cavalier attitude towards in an instant. All of us are just a slip in the shower away from paralysis or death and from instantly losing all the machismo and apathetic confidence we have.
Report comment
Not a Trump cult member, just an independent thinker. Also a former nurse with 10 years in psych. I have to agree with Kennedy on this one. Antidepressants are absolutely overprescribed and dangerous. Mental health is guesswork. I wouldn’t take insulin based on mere guesswork. The system is also fraught with confirmation bias. I know people say their antidepressants are lifesavers. That’s fine, but it isn’t the norm. More people are harmed by psychotropic drugs than helped. I know because I was on the front lines of this human rights disaster.
Report comment
There has always been a disclaimer on these drugs that it could cause bad side effects in younger adults. But even worse, when a young adult takes more than prescribed, as referenced above, that is not a drug company or provider issue, that is a patient issue. Don’t make those, where these medications are working stop taking them. I have been on Zoloft and never suicidal or wanting to kill anyone, I think the masses feel the same way.
And oh, btw, I heard the Republicans stating that Sandy Hook was staged, it didn’t really happen. Now they want to use it as part of their statistics? Convenient.
Report comment
A simple simple look into WHEN the black box warning labels were put into place, and WHEN the antidepressants were approved would show ANYONE that the one is 1987 the other 2005. So, this statement is completely not true, never has been: “There has always been a disclaimer on these drugs that it could cause bad side effects in younger adults. “The drug companies tried to prevent this all the years they KNEW the side effects were going on, and they had ALREADY turned up when the initial trials were going on. ADDED to this, regarding HIGHLY addicted drugs that most people who are on can’t get off of without side effects often severe causing them to stay ON them. To simply say get off of them is quite insensitive. Added to that, neither general practitioners nor agents of the mental health system are particularly keen in knowing how to help someone having difficulty getting off such substances….
Neither is this a partisan issue regarding the mental health system at all, and whoever said what regarding Sandy Hook can hardly be put into a category of “Republicans,” as little as that what Hagee says is “Christian,” or that this statement of yours categorizes “the masses:” “I have been on Zoloft and never suicidal or wanting to kill anyone, I think the masses feel the same way.” And NO, I’m not “Republican,” in general I don’t vote for either major party in ways constituting one big “Business” party, and go for Greens.
Report comment
This statement is frivilous:
“especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), have been proved to both sweep away self-regulating internal inhibitions while triggering explosive acts of violence and murderous behaviour”
The author’s own provision of links to the Glaxo case supports the possible role of SSRI’s in suicidal ideation as a black box warning, but the homicidal ideation is not linked to SSRI in any case or study. The recent interest in the link is driven by half facts and a lack of critical analysis. An insinuation by a politician in what you call senate hearings, and we call circuses, does not a fact make if its not backed up with credible information.
Your final paragraph purports the same on homicidal ideation and yet not a single link even suggests this link. In fact the “FDA was duplicitous” is a rather average meta review that found bias in only reporting positive data (a general problem) but does not hint at duplicity (and this was focused on risk:benefit which was found to be skewed towards a preferred manufacturer based on results but had nothing to do with side effects).
It’s almost as if the author is aware of the fact that no-one is actually going to read the text because the assumption is that they’re just supporting his fiction.
BTW, school shootings are a uniquely American misadventure, at least in terms of the frequency and tolerance. If there was remotely a correlation with homicidal ideation we should see an equal number of cases in any country that treats teens with SSRIs. And if school shootings were an outcome, we’d see them in our country in exclusively wealthier areas where those teens are more likely to have access to SSRIs that in our poorer schools – we don’t.
The link to Columbine is simply trying to make the math math, but Frank Peretti addresses the role that bullying plays in his non fiction work “The Wounded Spirit”. Invisible teens treated like outsiders, ignored by authorities and let down by the system should be the first place to look. My fear is that you, as a country, are going to see more of this happening because the level of discourse is at toxic levels.
We can talk about over medicalisation and the corruption of big business (because crass capitalism is surely not just Pharma) but let’s be honest about what we’re doing. Amplifying alt facts is not helping win any battles, and it’s certainly going to harm those who most need the remedies you’re stigmatising.
But let’s also be real, this topic is close to home for you, not because you’ve been personally impacted, but rather because you have a book to promote. As a mogul in advertising you know that the line “may have played a role in the killing” is a hook devoid of factual basis. I’d rather encourage you to read Peretti’s book first to understand what true teen helplessness feels like in the face of bullying with zero systemic support.
Report comment
Here is the whole paragraph regarding the fragment “Shane” quoted as being “frivolous.”
“That this House is horrified at the recent increase in school shootings; is puzzled that the English language media failed to mention that in the Finnish tragedies, Mr. Pekka-Eric Auvinen said that he ‘ate SSRI anti-depressants’ which, he said, made him feel ‘aggressive’; notes that the perpetrators of 28 other school shootings, including at Columbine and in Minnesota, were also on anti-depressants; notes that anti-depressants, especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), have been proved to both sweep away self-regulating internal inhibitions while triggering explosive acts of violence and murderous behaviour; and calls for a study of the links between SSRI use and almost all school shootings and a rethink on the wisdom of the mass prescribing of anti-depressants to young people.” And one can click on the last sentence above quoted, for a link.
Numerous times it has been stated, as well as in the above article that the amount of involvement with psychiatric drugs isn’t really known because that information is withheld due to confidentiality reasons. ADDED to this, it’s constantly stated by the drug companies and the mental health system that more of what has been shown to correlate with the problem is necessary to get it to stop. (28 listed in above paragraph). With the amount of correlation already present, it would be responsible to look further. But then we get the responses shown here AGAIN that: “but the homicidal ideation is not linked to SSRI in any case or study” when in reality no such case or study is possible without the information that’s withheld. THAT IMHO I wouldn’t even call frivolous, that’s highly HIGHLY irresponsible, if not corrupt, biased filled with financial nepotism etc.
This is honoring confidentiality when the treatment could be correlating with causing a spike in the problem, but any study in such can be prevented by “confidentiality.” What does this SAY about informed consent to BEGIN with!?
Further more. To bring such logic as to when it’s going on here and not there this means the correlation with whatever isn’t going on, or is, or would, or wouldn’t, or whatever: since it’s stated that school shootings are a somewhat solely American phenomenon, “BTW, school shootings are a uniquely American misadventure, at least in terms of the frequency and tolerance.” and it not going on so much over there someplace else where antidepressants are also prescribed, although it’s not stated how much. Should we then also go stating that when women don’t wear Burkas in the United States, mostly, although coffee is popular in the US and Islam countries, that you can say there’s no correlation with the two in the US and “Islam” countries where women wear Burkas (if that is even true)? Or if the fashion starts in the US, for whatever reason, that it’s because of coffee? What if suddenly they stop drinking coffee over there, or over here, or on Mars? THEN what kind of correlation is there!? Because coffee is popular in both countries or situations? But we haven’t looked at Mars or Pluto…… I mean it WOULD have to correlate there too. Is NASA ready to start delivering coffee to those places so we have accurate info regarding Burkas!? Different countries are different countries, when one thing happening isn’t going on so much in the other this isn’t some magic as to cause and effect. Perhaps there are other correlations with antidepressants in other countries. As well as other things leading to whether school shootings are going on or not, which there would be quite a number of, not that an additional cause negates the other.
“FRIVOLOUS”
Report comment
“Autism isn’t real”.
Why stop there? Since you’re on a roll, why not also declare anxiety, depression, PTSD, schizophrenia, OCD and dozens of other disorders to be fake and therefore not worthy of being named? Because just like autism, there is no test to definitively prove their existence either.
Huh? What say you?
* * * * *
Putting my acerbic satire aside, for the record I’m not in favour of inventing a new diagnosis for every single human difference. But we are far from the point where human experiences are automatically accepted, and whatever needs or accommodations we require are met without intense scrutiny to make sure the “sufferer” isn’t actually a malingering con artist, are we?
Hell, we are still a LONG way from getting past race and gender differences, FFS.
And so, imperfect as they are, we often have to resort to using words to describe the inner human experience.
But here’s what IS real: suffering. You often can’t see it, hear it or smell it, but we know it is real because we have all experienced it. And yet, just like RFK, it seems so easy to arrogantly disregard someone else’s suffering because it doesn’t neatly fit our idea of what is and isn’t plausible or rational. And then we thoughtlessly trot out our beliefs on the internet, because, you know “F*ck anyone who doesn’t agree with me and my giant f*cking ego”.
You aren’t helping.
Report comment
When you have hurt your foot, and you can’t walk, because the foot is healing, is this also a disease. You can test the lack of “ability” same as with any “psychiatric” disorder, the result being adding up to such diagnosis. Which IS the cause with ALL psychiatric disorders that there is NO clear proof they are biological, added to this when biological trauma is added, which CAN be labeled clearly as a biological disease CAUSED by treatment, there’s then USUALLY call for more of what in REALITY caused a biological disease, all in order to “treat” one.
Further more, yes a wound may be a sort of disorder, but calling it a disease etc. or treating it the way it is, regardless of what you call it, that’s a whole other matter.
It may be YOU who are denying disorders, and when they can be treated by means that expose what denies not only the disorders but what treats them to heal, you go on who is denying what!?
One can use pain killers to stop the foot from hurting, walk on the foot for a period that gets in the way of the healing, and then in the long term, when the foot hasn’t healed properly, or it’s the pain that’s made out to be a disease rather than why it’s there, what’s the result!?
Report comment
Have you ever experienced severe mental illness? Because I have and it doesn’t generally go away. I’ll have to be on antidepressants the rest of my life and I’m okay with that. I’d rather that than be completely dysfunctional, sobbing all day and night. You’re comparing hurting your foot to the usually permanent paralysis. Being sad occasionally would be the hurt foot. Being SO sad you want to kill yourself daily ( before antidepressants) is a whole different animal.
Report comment
The problem, Renate, is that not everyone experiences antidepressants the way you do. As I said before, everyone should do what works for them. But because it works for you does NOT mean it works for others, and you should be careful not to state or imply that. If “Depression” were a clear-cut, identifiable disease state, we’d be able to predict who would and would not respond to antidepressants in a positive manner. But we can’t, because “Depression” is a vague and subjective concept that does not describe a group of people who necessarily have ANYTHING in common besides how they are feeling. Just to clarify – you were seriously depressed starting at a young age and have not identified any trigger or event that changed that for better or worse. Do you think that is the same as a kid in foster care being seriously depressed because his mother abandoned him at a young age, or an aging adult who is depressed about his/her life deteriorating and losing abilities, or someone who is in chronic, unresolvable pain and does not want to get out of bed every day because their life seems so hopeless? I’ve seen kids in foster care who are far WORSE after taking antidepressants, including being aggressive, suicidal or psychotic. I’ve seen doctors not listen to them or their advocates because they believed that antidepressants are “the answer” for all forms of “Depression,” regardless of the cause.
You seem an intelligent and rational person. Surely, you can see that “Depression” is far to vague to be viewed as a single entity, and that there can be many reasons for being severely depressed, and as many possible solutions as there are people suffering?
I would never want to take away something that works for you. I just want you to see that other people don’t have the same experience and for good reasons are very suspicious about antidepressants as a solution for ALL cases of “Depression.”
Report comment
Heh, I don’t mean to sound like YOU are ignoring a disorder, not the other guy……. That doesn’t work to begin with, I was trying to offer a solution, actually, but had to wade through…..
My point actually was simply waiting and see that life isn’t made to make us suffer. Instead of anesthetizing a hurt foot, wait till nature heals it, and see that the hurt is there to allow for the healing. If someone is sad, and it interfere’s with society deciding, or even paying them, regarding “functionality,” instead listen to them, they might have insights that are more pertinent than thinking everyone should be “happy” about how the system is working, running, set up etc.. And when the actually workings or emotions, reactions or responses are thus understood, rather than seeing them as a disease, then this might bring true positivity to the human condition, rather than discriminating against things people find difficult or disruptive or “inappropriate.”
The “disorder” I was going on about possibly being ignored might simply be that. Insight not allowed or labeled disruptive, patience dismissed as unrealistic, the illusion that at least something being done is better than “nothing…..”
I don’t find RFK ignoring someone’s suffering when he asks for real research to be done, would the information that’s hidden because of “confidentiality” be given forth. Certainly not when there’s the rest of what’s ignored, such as the long term revolving door syndrome with antidepressants, or that someone is pulled out of therapy, by the drug companies, when there’s not a drug intervention. Despite everything that’s known regarding long term results, what’s hidden because of “confidentiality.” I do think he’s ignoring people’s suffering when he promotes the slaughter of people in what he thinks is a just war. And there might possibly be quite a bit of insight missing regarding what he “thinks” is going on, or even is allowed to entertain as to what is going on, or what he thinks is a loss for whatever reason would he acknowledge [it]……
Report comment
So, do you believe that something that disrupts your entire life so that you can’t function is just a ” human emotion “? There is a VAST difference between being sad occasionally and not being able to get out of bed for days on end and wanting to die every day ( BEFORE antidepressants). I tried for years to get better with ” natural healing ” and it almost killed me because I was deathly ill from depression. You often can’t just ” ait it out “.
Report comment
Dear dear Renate, human emotions are amazing vehicles of multidimensionality. The very fact that we can feel, and it determines our responses, or that we can reason and what we think makes a difference, is a veritable gift from where it came from: nature. God, the Universe…… to denigrate that and the condition of being human with the phrase: “just a ” human emotion,” as nothing. What are you missing? Emotions are amazingly wonderfully multidimensional, they effect everything you do, every response that any nerve has, are related to your memory, how you respond, the choices you make, what you take in to your life to have the experiences you have. They have an intelligence that transcends conscious thought. There would be no relationships between people, between them and their environment, between them and time, no music, no art, no poetry, no stories……..
Report comment
Mark, thank you for your very entertaining comments!
You may agree that all human suffering may be seen as on a vast spectrum, one which leaves not one of us out? (And, if we truly are all equal, perhaps we all suffer equally, eventually. too?)
And you may agree that, very much like “depression” (hopelessness), “anxiety” (worrying), “ADHD” (distractibility, impatience, reslessness) and more, all “autism” may be viewed as being on a spectrum, too?
You know that “Asperger’s” evolved from being discovered or first recognized as “a disorder,” to then becoming “a syndrome,” and to now being viewed as “a spectrum?”
But, in regards to any such spectrum or continuum, we may ask:
Does it have any beginning or end, please?
Does it not include everyone, please?
Is there any definitive line to be clearly, objectively drawn across it differentiating between what is to be considered “normal” and what is to be considered “abnormal,” “pathological,” disordered,” or “diseased,” please?
Who is qualified and how to reliably draw any such lines, please?
How do we know who these people are, please?
And how, when and where do they or we draw any such lines, please?
And, while we are at it, if we are immortal souls or spirits or psyches, do we have any beginning, either, please?
And is not a presumption, spoken or unspoken, of mortaility, of YOLOhood, or of immortaility not crucial to any decisions we make about how anyone else ought to be treated, like, ever?
In any case, are we not all in this all, altogether, please?
So, do we, can we, and shoud we draw any battle lines, please – and then live or die by them?
“There is some soul of goodness in things evil,
Would men observingly distill it out.” – Shakespeare’s Henry V before the Battle of Agincourt.
“O Lord, Thou knowest how busy I must be this day.
If I forget Thee, do not Thou forget me!” – Baron Astley before the Battle of Edgehill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU-tixmc7ms
Tom.
“Anyone who tries to make a distinction between education and entertainment doesn’t know the first thing about either.”—Marshall McLuhan.
Report comment
Just to be clear:
I don’t care about any diagnoses.
I don’t care about any labels.
I don’t even care about the sense of relief, identity, community or any other positives that some people report they get when they receive either of the above.
As an artist, inventor and activist, all I care about are finding solutions to persistent problems.
In order to solve a problem, you first have to identify it somehow.
For example, in order to travel somewhere you may need a map or, like the ancient wayfinders, knowing where you currently are in relation to where you started from in order to accurately continue on the course to your planned destination.
This is where words such as anxiety, depression, autism etc come in. They are merely descriptive signposts indicating where we are on the road to understanding where we need to get to.
So where are we on our course towards better mental health for the average person? For regular readers of Mad In America, it seems apparent that we have not gotten very far – if anywhere at all – compared to where we started at the beginnings of the mental healthcare system over 100 years ago.
Some argue we’ve actually gone backwards.
So if there is an overarching story among the articles on MIA, may I be so bold as to suggest that it is that nobody “owns” the map of human experience, psychology, emotions or suffering.
You’d think this lack of certainty would humble people and make them more tolerant and more compassionate towards each other and their claimed experiences. But no, even here, even people with absolutely no personal lived experience, still feel free to claim they know better about these matters, with no thought given to who it may hurt.
Like I said, they are not helping.
Thanks Tom. 🙂
Report comment
Awesome! Absolutely awesome, thank you, Mark!
Yes, we must first identify the problem. Identify it. Elucidate it. Shine light on it. Make it conscious. Make the unconscious conscious by shining the light of our consciousness on it. Solve the problem from the only place any problem can truly be solved – from a higher level of consciousness than that which created and which continues to create it.
So, what is the problem?
The anxiety? The depression? The suffering?
I think everybody suffers from anxiety and depression because nobody has learned to enjoy it yet.
And, given how long we’ve already been trying to, maybe we should just stop trying and so stop suffering, finally?
Is “enlightenment the end of suffering?”
In a previous post, you mentioned “ego.”
I guess ego may mean something different to each of us, and even then different things in different contexts
Depending on how we define or use the word, it may be the entire problem in three letters.
If we take any of Eckhart Tolle’s definitions (although he, too, refers elsewhere to “big” egos!) such as our “unobserved mind” – our unobserved thoughts emotions – or “total identification with form,” we may also agree with his summation “The human condition: lost in thought” which appears in his book “Stillness Speaks.”
This echoes the conclusion of so many ancient and modern philosophers that it is our unconsciousness which causes our suffering and that “enlightenment is the end of suffering.”
Socrates’s Cave Analogy has the protagonist dragged painfully out into the searing light of day, I believe – unconscious suffering.
After s/he has returned to The Cave, their eyes must become reaccustomed to the dim light therein before learning to consciously share their insights with the blind Cave-dwellers, echoing at least two Upanishads, both of which Jesus reportedly later echoed, too:
“Ignorant of their ignorance, yet wise
In their own esteem, those deluded men
Proud of their van learning go round and round
Like the blind led by the blind.” – The Katha Upanishad 2:5.
“Ignorant of their ignorance, yet wise
In their own esteem, those deluded men
Proud of their van learning go round and round
Like the blind led by the blind.
Living in darkness, immature, unaware
Of any higher good or goal, they fall
Again and again into the sea.” – The Mundaka Upanishad 1.2.7-1.2.10.
“Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” – Gospel of Matthew 15:14, words attributed to Jesus of Nazareth.
Like Socrates, Jesus seems to me to have been forced to succumb to the darkness with which folks surrounded him before (seemingly) surrendering his life for his principles.
There is no coming to consciousness without pain.” – Carl Jung.
Mark, when you create, I believe you rise above thought and above ego and so above suffering – and find there the joy and the peace and the beauty and the truth which we all consciously and unconsciously pursue.
If this is our human destiny and the present political etc. turmoil is seen as some of the last flailing and thrashing and, ultimately the last gasp of our collective ego in a thus-far male-dominated world, then I believe there is every reason for Hope, that ultimate and only cure for hopelessness, for “anxiety-and-depression.”
And I hope you may agree with at least some of this?
Heartfelt thanks, again!
Tom.
“Eternity IS a very long time, especially towards the end,” but timelessness MAY be quite doable…
Report comment
Tom, yes I do agree with you on much of this. But what we actually need to do is beyond me.
I used to read a lot of the same spiritual stuff that you mentioned, and so I’d become convinced that enlightenment was real and attainable. Which is kind of laughable to me now, given how stupid and naive I was, and sometimes still am.
So it makes sense to me now that “the fool” is the archetype that resonates with me the most. 😉
Cheers.
Report comment
I’m sorry, but this article needs more research. There’s a lot of good reasons to not trust antidepressants, the companies that make them and the diagnoses that drive them, but the school shooting argument is based on anecdotes and cherry picking examples to support a point. Saying the that “this person went on this spree after taking antidepressants therefore antidepressants were the problem” is like saying “this person went on a spree after the full moon,” therefore it was the full moon that causes killing sprees.
This article follows the trend to politicize mass violence by simplifying the cause to one thing, and that one thing is always something we don’t like: immigration, mental health, the liberal-run Deep State, etc. The reality, the facts, show us that gun violence goes up as it gets normalized, and every major mass shooting that gets a lot of press spawns other mass shootings. The US has a culture of guns and violence and the degree and type of violence is not seen in any other country.
I know the argument is that SSRIs increase homocidal thoughts, therefore increases the risk of violence, but the article has shown nothing causal. RFK was wrong about this, too.
Report comment
Somehow, the fact that the moon isn’t hidden in contrast to the data regarding antidepressants and school shootings under the label medical confidentiality, I think this might have something to do regarding correlations between the moon and shootings. Also, the moon was there the whole time, I think, or would it or should it be introduced in one’s awareness regarding this or that treatment.
Apart from whether the moon should have a black box warning label that it can turn people into lunatics, or that we should project the Pepsi logos on it so people don’t know what it is anymore……
RFK didn’t say there was a causal link, he said you can’t make that statement because proper research hasn’t been done.
How many people have responded now that RFK said something he didn’t, to cover up whether or not proper research should be done?
Here AGAIN, from the article:
“RFK JR: I don’t think anybody can answer that question, and I didn’t answer that question… I said that it should be studied… because there’s no science on that, Senator.
SENATOR SMITH: There is, Mr. Kennedy. Science shows that there is no link between school shootings and antidepressants. In fact, most school shooters were not even treated and with those that were, there was no evidence of association…
RFK JR: I don’t think you can say… that, Senator. Because of HIPAA rules, nobody knows.”
Report comment
Dear dear Renata, please feel free to completely tell us how antidepressants helped you, how you came out of a state you felt was keeping you from life. I’m sorry if it feels like you can’t express that, as if we are saying you don’t deserve something that helped you. Or that you are wrong. Please don’t feel anyone here is wanting to take away from you the fact that you deserved something to help you. Please don’t feel violated that we have a different angle on it. When there’s more variations on what helps a person, that only creates more potential, and doesn’t take away from anyone. There’s a lot of stuff we simply can not just ignore, nor would we be responsible would we, the same you would feel irresponsible did you not share how antidepressants have helped you. There’s a lot of stuff that involves the lives of other people who need another approach, and might otherwise not find what helps them…. And there are a lot of adverse reactions to antidepressants.
A girl working at a coffee house who could talk to me, said she could not tell her parents antidepressants made her violent, and they didn’t allow her to quit, and she had to leave the home. I’ve shared what someone told me about the Columbine shootings above Feb.15th. Steve mentions kids in foster care facilities who can’t express what the antidepressants do to them. People committed to an asylum often can’t. And more. It’s very human, when we’ve found something that helps, and yet there’s further details confounding or contradicting that, to feel that’s not fair, but life isn’t that limited. I don’t know how it could exist to be the experience that it is were everything that uniform……
Report comment
I am disappointed in mad in america for siding with RFK on this one. I see so many people
There are many, many problems with SSRIs, but there is little evidence to suggest they are a significant factor in mass shootings, besides these anecdotes that you give in these articles. About 10% of the population are taking mental health drugs if I remember correctly? So, like, yeah, of course some school shooters are going to be on them. That doesn’t mean that SSRIs are the cause. These drugs are overprescribed all over the west. If SSRIs were a big factor, why aren’t other western countries seeing a higher instance of crime and violence? America is the only country that has this mass shooting problem. Clearly SSRIs are not a huge contributing factor.
Kennedy isn’t arguing in good faith here, and honestly doesn’t give a rats ass about the potential harm that SSRIs cause. He wants to take these drugs away from people, which is criminal. Plus, he wants to make mentally ill people go work on fucking farms, which sounds like a worse version of involuntarily care too me. So many depend on these drugs, and need them to function, regardless of their many problems. Their lives woll be ruined, and guess what? Because people see what a fucking looney RFK jr is and how he will be responsible for the deaths of many with his reckless and anti-sicence health policy, they will NEVER trust the anti-psychiatry movement again seeing we were the ones siding with him!
So please, cut this bullshit out.
Report comment
I’ve heard or rather read, that RFK supposedly said people would be forced into farms rather than get antidepressants!? I really wonder what that’s about. What I think is that he simply repeated what history has shown, and also healing homes of Finland, and that, people that would be committed to an asylum, when they are simply surrounded by a healthy life, an asylum, as the Quakers did, where the idea of asylums come from, and that there was recovery. That’s recovery, which then is lacking in present treatment. I think he simply stated THAT, regarding people that would be committed to an asylum. He stated what correlates with recovery for those that would be committed. I don’t think he anywhere said anyone wanting antidepressants should be locked up in a farm. But oh, someone says where recovery happens despite the biochemical model of mental illness that correlates with less recovery, even less recovery than no treatment, then suddenly he’s saying anyone that wants antidepressants would be locked up in a farm. No, he was stating something regarding recovery that’s proven science and history, regarding those that are committed to an asylum, nothing regarding someone wanting antidepressants or not. And I think he also was simply talking about informed consent. And no, wanting informed consent, when people can then still make their own choice regarding whether they go on antidepressants, this in now way turns into him saying anyone that wants antidepressants is forced to work on a farm. I think he stated how the older Quaker method worked, and homes of Finland worked for those that are committed, and there’s more recovery.
Then, supposedly he said false things regarding proof of correlation with school shootings and antidepressants. And he only said regarding the tests that aren’t happening because of information withheld through medical confidentiality regarding mass shooters, that if that information was there, you might be able to further state correlation with the two. And when he says this, pointing out what would have to happen to determine correlation, he’s either supposedly saying there is correlation, which he didn’t, while in reality he’s only stating there’s enough to warrant looking whether there is correlation but information withheld because of confidentiality would have to be looked at, which isn’t done but he and MANY people feel should be. And then it’s constantly said that there’s no proven correlation, but it’s not acknowledged that to prove there ISN’T correlation you’d have to have the information that’s withheld. “We can’t tell you whether school shooters were on antidepressants because that information is withheld because of patient confidentiality,” does not prove there’s no correlation.
Then it’s stated how many people are on whatever, as if this proves whatever works. Then sugar would be a miracle drug in the US given the amount of people saying they need it, or keeping up the habit, along with a whole list of other stuff, like artificial coloring, MSG, preservatives, what have you……anything addictive or mainstream with enough consumer consumption suddenly enhances their life and works. The statistics however show otherwise, and that’s also the case with psychiatric drugs.
No, suppressing symptoms with medications that cause chemical imbalance, while mostly not even giving informed consent, and saying that a brain chemically imbalanced by drugs interfering with natural functions of the brain this treats what it causes, that isn’t treating a chemical imbalance, it’s causing one. THAT is science. To say so many people are on such, does NOT make it science. Added that there’s more disability and mental illness ADDS to the fact that this doesn’t prove it’s science at work healing, it rather proves the opposite is going on. And then there’s the history of making out the disease causes what in reality the drugs do. That the disease causes a chemical imbalance, rather than the drugs scientifically have been proven to, but the disease hasn’t. First the drug companies stating this, AFTER people have been “medicated” and the drugs clearly correlate with the chemical imbalance. Then it has to be proven false, then they have to retract that. Happened with schizophrenia, that supposedly it’s too much dopamine, but then this turned up because of the medications, clearly, after this was really looked at scientifically. Or antidepressants are because of serotonin deficiency, when AGAIN, in reality, that shows up after someone is on antidepressants long enough that the brain starts making less of it. Simple TRUE science. You inhibit serotonin re-uptake and there’s more of it lounging around, and the brain after awhile starts making less. You put another something in the receptors for dopamine and the dopamine doesn’t attach, so the brain starts making more BECAUSE the dopamine isn’t doing what it’s there for, because of the medications, but this is said to be what the disease does. NO! In BOTH cases it’s the drugs. They still haven’t proven any chemical imbalance they say they are treating, although all their medications scientifically cause chemical imbalance. But again, when anyone states these truths, this is “unscientific.” Why is that? Because now 10 percent of people, actually more, in the US are on such drugs. This supposedly proves they need it, and it works. Then AGAIN one is supposed to dismiss science, this time statistics. There isn’t less mental illness or disability, there’s MORE of it, WHEN there’s that many people in such “treatments.”
And then we hear once again that in other countries there aren’t that many mass shootings. It’s not mentioned that probably at least the antidepressant use is 1/3rd of what it is in the US. It’s not mentioned that in those countries the media isn’t bombarded or bombarding people regularly with stories regarding mass shootings. It’s not mentioned that those countries probably aren’t like the US, having a military budget that is more than how many other countries or what sort of population on the planet together and the population might be a bit less inundated with excuses for why weapons are salvation. Someplace RFK might start with, rather than going straight to antidepressants, but that doesn’t mean antidepressants don’t leave a person more programmable to such influences, and there’s enough hinting that there might be such a correlation, but again information is withheld because of medical confidentiality. But he can’t even say that it would be prudent to allow that information to be opened up, to see if there’s correlation. He can’t say that without people saying he says there’s correlation when he hasn’t said so, only that you can’t say that BECAUSE of the data that’s kept hidden. It’s not possible to see whether there’s correlation when what would need to be allowed as data to determine such isn’t allowed.
And then there’s correlation that’s there but is simply dismissed.
In “developing” countries where they don’t have money for all of these psychiatric “medications” and recovery is much greater, then when there is correlation this is dismissed why? Is that AGAIN because it’s another country? Still it remains in THIS country that there is, in the long run, more recovery without such drugs, or when a person gets off of them. Again science is denied…….
I DO think RFK might help himself and the country, that if it’s proven there’s a link between antidepressants and school shootings, or other forms of violence beyond what’s already in the black box warning label, despite the drug companies trying to prevent that, he might look at why people in this country are vulnerable to thinking such is a solution; that even if there does show to be a correlation, it might point out to something else needs to be attended to. Or he might just start there, and start seeing the many ways violence is excused as just or necessary, or defense, when it never really ends up being such in the long run………
Report comment
If anyone cares to hear the opinion of someone who has actually been involuntarily committed, and actually has numerous mental health conditions, I wrote a response to this article. https://chapien.net/blog/2025/we_deserve_better/
Report comment
I’ve read the whole article linked, and then went to a link from the article, regarding that Kennedy wants to send people to farms to work against their will, when on antidepressants, yet one only has to read the link and it says the opposite:
“I’m going to create these wellness farms where they can go to get off of illegal drugs, off of opiates, but also illegal drugs, other psychiatric drugs, if they want to, to get off of SSRIs, to get off of benzos, to get off of Adderall, and to spend time as much time as they need—three or four years if they need it—to learn to get reparented, to reconnect with communities.”
Making it available for people, who want to get off of antidepressants or other drugs, that such a resource exists, when they want to, this is not at all sending people to force work on farms. It’s more partisan mud slinging to not see that. And no, me saying that doesn’t mean I’m on whatever side, either.
It says “if they want to” which anyone can read. When someone proposes programs for people, if they want to, to get off of antidepressants, this is giving people free choice. In fact the whole article linked https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/07/rfk-jr-wants-to-send-people-on-antidepressants-to-government-wellness-farms/ runs about as rampant as saying that any sort of recovery program, would someone want to get off of a medication, that that is something else than it is. The Quakers had such programs and they worked in a way that there was way more recovery than exists now. PERIOD. FULL. STOP. Would anyone read what the articles say, Kennedy is only making such a program available for those who want to get off of antidepressants.
It’s also completely not true that people on this site who have written articles haven’t themselves experienced mental illness, which “Claire” describes as “neurodiverse.” Neither is it true that they haven’t had the more “severe” conditions. Again, one only has to actually read the many articles on this site. In fact, what’s descriptive regarding this site is that it allows people to say things they couldn’t say, so often, to their psychiatrist or even their MD, without being labeled as non compliant, and then forced on treatment. This site also allows people to actually share what was healing for them, even after it wasn’t allowed as a potential. Just read the comments and the articles on this site. It’s also quite descriptive that Claire fails to mention that the majority of what one reads regarding mental illness, from those promoting mainstream drugging: not only is the great majority of it from people who don’t have a psychiatric label, haven’t been through treatment themselves, but it’s mostly those same people (psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, the drug companies, social workers, academicians, media outlets) that wouldn’t allow a patient to even state the truth regarding whether the treatment is working for them and back it up with scientific and statistical data; that would force, or promote forcing someone who simply states scientific or statistical facts against a treatment on that treatment. That would force a person on treatments that scientifically correlate with causing a chemical imbalance, treatments are said to be treating one when in reality causing one. Nor acknowledge the scientific and statistical data, as well as suppress the stories of those who have found a different modality of healing. Now whose voice isn’t being heard? And you only have to read the articles here, or the comments, and see that there indeed are a whole collection of people who have had serious mental illness diagnosis and symptoms that found healing their own way. Of course there are researchers and others. Of course, and then the whole community of people who have found help in such a fashion, the people that mainstream psychiatry not only refused to listen to, said were non compliant and then forced on treatments that didn’t work for them, and then recovered on their own, these people supposedly don’t exist on this site. People with every bit as severe symptoms, that go for, in whatever way they could find, a treatment that’s not via psychiatric drugs, it is not true that they don’t exist. It’s not true that they – people who have had as serious symptoms as anyone else regarding what’s called mental illness – don’t have their voice on this site. Nor is it true that because they healed without or by getting off of psychiatric drugs, that their symptoms weren’t as bad. Neither is it true that Robert Whitaker says that people’s conditions come from their drugs, he simply states evidence that the drugs, when looked at statistically given long term effects, correlate with less recovery. He and many other people also do enough research and have enough perspective to be able to point out when what’s called a psychiatric symptom may be coming from side effects or withdrawal symptoms or from the initial starting period of psychiatric drugs. And no, to label all of that as stating that what was there in the first place, and that people on this site who have found alternative methods that healed them share, that he is saying what they healed when the drugs didn’t help them, that it comes from the drugs, that’s so out of place, despite it dismissing other people’s experiences (they supposedly had nothing going on with them then, you can just dismiss their story), one can only wonder what is being disabled that the scientific data consistently proves is being disabled regarding natural brain functions, despite it’s supposed to be treating a chemical imbalance rather than causing one, when it is causing one. That’s also why a program, for people that want to get off of their antidepressants, would be helpful. To turn that into hysterics, that once again Kennedy said something he didn’t, propped up by partisan politics, well, there you go again. NOTHING is that one sided.
Report comment
Seen in the comments section of Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring’s short YouTube video titled “Antidepressants vs Heroine: was RFK Jr right?”
“I followed the science” and found none. I followed the MONEY and found “the science.”
Report comment
CORRECTION: “I ‘followed the science’ and found none. I followed the MONEY and found ‘the science'”.
Report comment