Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Comments by dankriegman

Showing 3 of 3 comments.

  • I can understand why the 9/11 terrorists killed thousands of strangers. They held the incredible belief that killing infidels would guarantee them an eternal place in heaven with 72 virgins. But why would a suicidal man want to take 150 strangers with him?

    Then I recalled the late Loren Mosher saying, “Every time I read of what seems like a random multi-person shooting, I always presume that that person had just started an SSRI or just stopped.” (You can see a video of Loren talking about this at http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/234#lm — fast forward to 5:08 for this part of the discussion where he responds to anecdotal evidence that a large number of psychiatrists and psychologists take or have taken SSRIs.)

    So after some painful contemplation of this tragedy, like many here at MIA, I conjectured that the copilot was taking (or recently stopped taking) an antidepressant. This was prior to reports that he had been treated for depression and actual antidepressants had been found.

    I tried to leave a comment suggesting this possible explanation on an article at The New York Times. The Times has reviewed and posted numerous comments I have made in the past. This one never appeared.

    David Healy wrote, “These companies will in a variety of ways play the card that anyone suggesting treatment may have been part of what went wrong are just conspiracy theorists.” I assume that their propaganda has also influenced folks like the moderator of comments at The Times so that my comment was seen as coming from such a conspiracy theorist. They wouldn’t even post a comment that raised the question of a possible link to psychiatric medication. In mainstream forums, we can’t even bring up the notion for consideration.

  • Using excerpts from the above, I posted a very brief summary of the problems in assessing dangerousness and intervening based on such assessments (1500 character limit) in response to a NY Times piece entitled “Focus on Mental Health Laws to Curb Violence Is Unfair, Some Say.” The article was an exploration of the pros and cons of trying to prevent Newtowns and Columbines by targeting the “mentally ill” in the community. A social worker responded by arguing for “community commitment” as an effective intervention. I responded. Take a look and add your comments and reactions to the discussion. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/us/focus-on-mental-health-laws-to-curb-violence-is-unfair-some-say.html?comments#permid=117