appropriate and necessary categorical distinctions of what motivates/induces(?) shooters. there's probably a whole psycho-social-cultural taxonomy that can be developed around this recent phenomena. I can't help but get drawn into the 'weaponized remote-control humans' potential of it, though no academics or 'researchers' are going to take a dive down this rabbit hole.
before I comment I would like to say that I don't get ALL my ideas from Science Fiction (I mentioned Red Dwarf previously) BUT have you seen the movie "Serenity" (2005) ? It's part of the "Firefly" series.
It's good work, full of classic Western and Space Opera tropes. Anyway, at the denouement of the movie we learn the shocking origin of "The Reavers", an army of murderous cannibals who have been terrorizing the colonists of the outer planets.
Their origin was a government mass medication program with a drug called "Pax" designed to pacify the people and prevent rebellious thoughts. It worked fine until it didn't and the entire population of a planet just lay down and died. Except for a tiny percentage who experienced wildly paradoxical effects and become the murderous Reavers. The Reavers are also infectious, anyone who survives an attack may become one themselves.
So there we are, speculative fiction giving us something to speculate about. I don't think it's impossible that some artists have a greater insight into the collective unconscious and can come back from the dream world with some truths that the rest of us can use.
Maybe those old school desert prophets were just intelligent and imaginative guys who could see which way the wind was blowing and then tried to warn the people in the religious language of their time. Now we use sci-fi movies.
Thanks, Harrison. I'd read that article. The Breggins also posted an old interview from Peter's time testifying on behalf of 140 people who were suing Pfizer because Prozac had turned their loved ones suicidal or homicidal: https://gingerbreggin.substack.com/p/school-shooting-story-hasnt-changed
One of the top comments: "The near 1:1 correspondence between mass shooting & psychotropic drugs is widely repressed." It's strange to me how this "1:1 correspondence" has gained so much traction, when there doesn't seem to be any good evidence it is true.
Yes, I didn't see Laura's comment below until after I posted. And the line of inference seems to go in different directions. For Peter Breggin, there were 140 different accounts of people looking to prove that this one person's behavior took a turn towards violence against themselves or others, post-SSRIs. That's different than starting with mass shootings and working backwards.
I've been meaning to do an episode on Sandy Hook and other mass shootings, presenting some of the anomalies people have found. Those suspicious that they're staged usually believe it's for a ban on weapons. Is there an agenda to blame SSRIs? Maybe.
Could this just be one authoritative source (or widely publicized source) misreading, misinterpreting or cherry picking a study or data source? You know, like how even now, many people think it's recommended to drink 8 glasses of water every day, when that is not true. Water turnover varies between people as explained in a recent study in Science (paywalled: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm8668?cookieSet=1) (MSM article: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whitecoat/winter-water-hydration-1.6677254) but yet this advice has been around for as long as I can remember - at least 45 years or so.
Yes, that is what I meant. That's my bad English at work, there: I wasn't clear to what the definite article "this" referred. I apologize for the confusion.
As a psychiatrist and MD for 31 years I agree with your article. I have seen many side effects of psychotropics over the years but there is a fad lately to blame all ills on SSRIs by a number of Substack authors including AMD, Robert Yoho and even the Breggins. I have argued these issues with all of them. SSRIs are very beneficial when used in depression and anxiety but must be monitored for causing disinhibition and mania which could trigger aggression. Stimulants which are used in ADHD and some weight loss drugs and Methamphetamine are definite drivers of aggression and can cause psychosis which can lead to aggression. Testosterone and anabolic steroids obviously can cause aggression and violence. These are complex causes and interactions and I have seen very few homicidal responses on SSRIs but quite a few on stimulants ( prescription and street drug). Most aggression and violence is done by psychopaths, psychotics and the marginalised/ abused as you point out.
Correlation is not necessarily causation, but when it rains, the pavements get wet. It's interesting to me that SSRI's are fluoride-based drugs. It's also interesting that some studies suggest so-called ADHD in children is most common in states with the highest intake of fluoridated water, whilst others have suggested a link between 'impulsive criminality' and ADHD. I guess the subsequent medication of the latter scenario is more grist for the Big Pharma money-go-round. On the basis of all the above, I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion "Guns don't kill people - fluoride kills people", although it's pretty self-evident that Big Pharma does kill people. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25890329/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20414822
This may be of some usefulness as it expands on the details of SSRI's. It also points out that there are those who "...have a hereditary weakness in their cytochrome P450 detoxification system. As this is responsible for removing SSRIs from the bloodstream, in these individuals, normal doses of SSRIs will result in them developing elevated blood levels of the SSRI that can often be toxic and produce psychosis. Many forensic investigations have confirmed that this occurs..." How the FDA Buried the Dangers of Antidepressants by Pierre Kory, MD, MPA https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/how-the-fda-buried-the-dangers-of?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=645524&post_id=112426040&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
This wasn’t a top of mind topic for me but I am really glad for this information too so thank you Harrison! The corona depopulation agenda is top of mind for me and the daily occurrence of young healthy people just dropping dead all around the world and the vaxx injured being completely ignored and smeared and cancelled by ALL of those responsible and msm compliantly not reporting on any of it while the jab is still being strongly pushed and recommended is where I’m focusing my energies now. Discovered new Substack author Dr. Makis called Covid Intel with 12,000 new subscribers in just the 2 months since he started it showing many interested and he is capturing stories one creepy story about the many school bus or city bus drivers truck drivers,and just plain old car drivers dying suddenly behind the wheel and the resulting damages this is causing as well as all the airline pilots co pilots and independent pilots where the same grim reality is occurring. The more people that become aware the better.
Thanks for clearing up some of this, or at least making it more clear. I was getting uncomfortable arguing about anti-d's and shootings, because there are so few facts out there. Though I am still certain we are a profoundly ill society that we default to pharmaceuticals, particularly with young people.
My group (CCHR) has heavily leaned in its publications on the dangers of all psychiatric drugs. But this is done with a similar attitude as that taken by those cautioning us about the mRNA shots. It's not that the negative effects of the jabs were huge in the population receiving them, but that they were unacceptably high. The data about the gene mutation is compelling (if true). Screening for that mutation might help a lot, yet would get very few people off these drugs.
CCHR has some errors in its materials, such as attributing the Marilyn Monroe death to an overdose, when that was never fully verified. But the larger point, which we don't overtly state but is obvious enough to us, is that drugs are not appropriate treatments for mental health problems. They may be appropriate for neurological problems, but that's not mental health; that's body health. The mind is not a body part, and thus should not be treated with drugs.
When it comes to extreme violence, such as these mass shooters, I don't know what other correlations have been looked at. My view is that there might be a higher correlation with "previous or current mental health (psychiatric) treatment" or an even higher correlation with "recent contact with a psychopath." But the fact is that these behaviors are latent in many of us, and can be triggered by a wide variety of occurrences. We need a huge overall improvement in our understanding of the human condition, as well as the adoption of much more effective treatments, most of which should be non-medical.
I have to say, I was a bit surprised, and confused, to read this article from you. You began it rather matter of factly. Then moved more towards the dismissal of another author's opinion, and then softened it all with partial agreements.
I can see your point about a lack of purely scientific, double blind testing white paper documentation of the correlation of psychopathic killers (specifically in schools) and the use of SSRIs and other psychotropic pharmaceuticals. But, simply because there isn't a clearly and openly (the biggest missing part) available evidence, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Clearly these individuals were mentally damaged. Clearly they were complex combinations of many issues. But denying the possibility, and even anecdotal connections between these powerful pharmaceuticals and horrific events, seems a bit "thou doth protest too much".
I would think that all causes of mental dysfunction should be explored.
What's surprising and confusing? When he says things that are factual, of course I agree. When he writes things that are wrong, I disagree.
It's not the lack of a double blind study. It's the lack of evidence. Did you read the part where the article he quoted said some of these kids were on drugs, when there's no evidence they were on drugs?
//Clearly these individuals were mentally damaged. Clearly they were complex combinations of many issues. But denying the possibility, and even anecdotal connections between these powerful pharmaceuticals and horrific events, seems a bit "thou doth protest too much".//
It's not protesting too much. It's pointing out that random people online make stuff up.
//I would think that all causes of mental dysfunction should be explored.//
If you read my article and got the impression that I would disagree with this statement, I suggest you reread it.
I understand your points. I read it, reread it, opened and read most of the linked articles and documentation. And, for you, I will reread it again.
I can see that not having medical testimony or evidence of the use of pharmacology would be a concern, but just because a doctor doesn't say it in court, doesn't provide copies of what was prescribed, or testimony admitting such, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Lack of evidence is not always proof of nonexistence. People often mis-speak, mis-remember, to protect themselves from potential legalities, especially in such high profile cases. I'm not being conspiratorial, just rational. These individuals, who were obviously overwhelmed with evil, and who expressed multiple symptoms of mental illness, who were by a vast majority under medical health care concurrent with their atrocities (or within a recent timeline), were most likely on some form of anti-psychotic medication, whether that showed up in court documents or not.
I am not sure where stuff is being "made up", other than many are suggesting a possible and probable look into the connections between anti-psychotic medications and extreme violence albeit statistical outliers.
//I can see that not having medical testimony or evidence of the use of pharmacology would be a concern, but just because a doctor doesn't say it in court, doesn't provide copies of what was prescribed, or testimony admitting such, doesn't mean it didn't happen.//
This is true. Let me add a couple points, though. It is very easy to say something like "Well, even though there isn't evidence that something like 53-66% of them were on drugs, they probably were, and anyone who points out that there's no evidence for it is ignoring the probability that it's true." Just because someone makes such a claim, doesn't mean it happened. It cuts off these possibilities from the get go: that some WEREN'T on drugs, because they didn't have any history with mental health professionals, that some had been on drugs, but stopped taking them, and that some were on drugs, but such drugs didn't influence their behavior. And in fact, there is evidence for those possibilities being true in a significant number of these cases.
Merely posing a possibility is fine, but it's too easy to let that influence one's thinking to the point of denying evidence of cases where it may not be true. There are probably a percentage of cases where the evidence IS lacking. I.e., the number of school shooters who were on drugs is probably higher than the number that can be proved. But there is no good reason to think that it is high enough to say that practically all such shooters were on drugs.
//These individuals, who were obviously overwhelmed with evil, and who expressed multiple symptoms of mental illness, who were by a vast majority under medical health care concurrent with their atrocities (or within a recent timeline), were most likely on some form of anti-psychotic medication, whether that showed up in court documents or not.//
I don't think this last statement is justified. Again, there simply isn't evidence that "a vast majority [were] under medical health care concurrent with their atrocities." That is a conjecture. And the paper I cited actually looked at that. They included shooters who were under medical health care, but for whom there was no evidence they were on prescribed meds, under the category of those who WERE prescribed meds, simply on the likelihood that they would have been. That's what gave them the number of 47%. (And even then, that doesn't prove they were taking their meds. There will always be degrees of uncertainty in cases like this.)
//I am not sure where stuff is being "made up"//
Recall Langman's article responding to the Facebook list. As just one example from it, the list claimed that Luke Woodham was on Prozac. The facebook article is the ONLY source to claim that (and it has been repeated on the Net countless times, with no source BUT that facebook article). What is more likely: that the person who made this list had access to sources not available to the public (something the author himself didn't even claim, but it's the only possible reason I can think of), or that he made it up? If I say Bill Clinton was on PCP when he denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and I'm the only person to say it, what's the most likely explanation? That I made it up (and in fact, that's what I just did).
I understand your point. I don't understand the willingness to give the Langman article the air of certainty because of citations, the citation of 47% being based on what he had available (not considering what he didn't have available) to admonish the common term of "most", and your seemingly profound questioning of the potential harm from these types of pharmacology. Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, or right. It just seemed to me that you went out of your way to defend the use of these drugs, seemed to dismiss questions of concern about possible (even if rare) severely negative side effects in particular individuals.
Maybe I'm skeptical of pharmacology after the past several years, maybe I see correlations in events, maybe all I see is a defense of pharmacology in your article, maybe I need to re-re-read and see what point I missed beyond the debunking of a less than scientific theory around the increase in the mentally ill, killing innocent people.
//I understand your point. I don't understand the willingness to give the Langman article the air of certainty because of citations, the citation of 47% being based on what he had available (not considering what he didn't have available) to admonish the common term of "most", //
Small nitpick: the 47% was this paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31513302/. Langman was the 66% figure (with a larger sample than the previous paper). As for my "willingness", let me justify it. The Facebook article had no sources, just claims. When trying to verify those claims, I come up with nothing. Langman 1) did the same thing, 2) wrote it all out in a handy source so that others don't have to repeat writing it all out, 3) has access to way more sources than anyone else on the Net and has made them publicly available, and 4) when I check Langman's claims, they are verifiable, unlike the facebook post. So let me turn this around: I don't understand your willingness to give a random facebook article, without citations, the air of certainty, especially when its claims not only do not stand up to scrutiny, making obvious errors of fact, but also including what seem to be deliberate fabrications.
//and your seemingly profound questioning of the potential harm from these types of pharmacology.//
//It just seemed to me that you went out of your way to defend the use of these drugs, seemed to dismiss questions of concern about possible (even if rare) severely negative side effects in particular individuals.//
You said you read it more than once. Let me remind you once again of these parts:
"When it comes to drug-induced homicide, “any elevated risk in this regard should be viewed as unacceptable without any exceptions.” Again, I agree."
"That said, I want to reiterate that I agree wholeheartedly with AMD’s other main points, specifically on the damages these drugs are known to cause."
"While he was referring to permanent changes to personality caused by drug-induced brain damage, I think we should add the temporary effects of prescribed psychiatric medications to the list."
How much clearer can I be that I consider these drugs dangerous, and that the akathisia-related homicides alone make them unacceptable? I find it hard to believe that you could read the article and come to the conclusion that I'm "questioning the potential harm" of these drugs or making a "defense of pharmacology."
Here's another point I only hinted at in the article: the examples of akathisia-induced homicides have all the signs of psychotic, irrational crimes: people losing touch with reality and killing their spouses, children, and other close relations in an uncontrolled psychotic break. They do NOT have the kind of premeditated planning and execution seen in school shootings. So on the face of it, the link between akathisia (the proposed mechanism by which SSRIs lead to homicidal events) isn't even present in the vast majority of school shooting scenarios. In other words they are two *different* types of homicide.
You are talking about the USA, right ?
Do such mass shooting occur in other countries ?
Are the said drugs supplied with similar prevalence in other countries ?
Are the shooters confined to a specific age range ?
1) Yep.
2) Yep, but not as frequently by far. Though other countries have mass stabbings (e.g. China), for example.
3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_antidepressant_consumption Looks like the highest might be either Iceland or the U.S.
4) The shooters in Langman's psych med tally range in age from 11 to 62, but the majority are teens (26 out of the 68 were over the age of 21).
Thank you for helping me correct my notions about the relevant facts, Harrison! I had been trusting the very reports that you just so kindly debunked.
I had been too, until the last couple years!
It helps to have a team, sorting out the truth. We're awash in lies.
appropriate and necessary categorical distinctions of what motivates/induces(?) shooters. there's probably a whole psycho-social-cultural taxonomy that can be developed around this recent phenomena. I can't help but get drawn into the 'weaponized remote-control humans' potential of it, though no academics or 'researchers' are going to take a dive down this rabbit hole.
https://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/government-accidentally-sends-files-on-remote-mind-control-to-journalist/
Yep, I'm open to considering this line of thinking too.
Hi Harrison and thank you for your work,
before I comment I would like to say that I don't get ALL my ideas from Science Fiction (I mentioned Red Dwarf previously) BUT have you seen the movie "Serenity" (2005) ? It's part of the "Firefly" series.
It's good work, full of classic Western and Space Opera tropes. Anyway, at the denouement of the movie we learn the shocking origin of "The Reavers", an army of murderous cannibals who have been terrorizing the colonists of the outer planets.
Their origin was a government mass medication program with a drug called "Pax" designed to pacify the people and prevent rebellious thoughts. It worked fine until it didn't and the entire population of a planet just lay down and died. Except for a tiny percentage who experienced wildly paradoxical effects and become the murderous Reavers. The Reavers are also infectious, anyone who survives an attack may become one themselves.
So there we are, speculative fiction giving us something to speculate about. I don't think it's impossible that some artists have a greater insight into the collective unconscious and can come back from the dream world with some truths that the rest of us can use.
Maybe those old school desert prophets were just intelligent and imaginative guys who could see which way the wind was blowing and then tried to warn the people in the religious language of their time. Now we use sci-fi movies.
Peace be with you
All the best ideas come from scifi. ;)
If you haven't seen it yet, you'll like John Carter's latest: https://barsoom.substack.com/p/this-stupid-virus
Red Dwarf and Firefly—two of my favorite things in the world.
Thanks, Harrison. I'd read that article. The Breggins also posted an old interview from Peter's time testifying on behalf of 140 people who were suing Pfizer because Prozac had turned their loved ones suicidal or homicidal: https://gingerbreggin.substack.com/p/school-shooting-story-hasnt-changed
One of the top comments: "The near 1:1 correspondence between mass shooting & psychotropic drugs is widely repressed." It's strange to me how this "1:1 correspondence" has gained so much traction, when there doesn't seem to be any good evidence it is true.
Yes, I didn't see Laura's comment below until after I posted. And the line of inference seems to go in different directions. For Peter Breggin, there were 140 different accounts of people looking to prove that this one person's behavior took a turn towards violence against themselves or others, post-SSRIs. That's different than starting with mass shootings and working backwards.
I've been meaning to do an episode on Sandy Hook and other mass shootings, presenting some of the anomalies people have found. Those suspicious that they're staged usually believe it's for a ban on weapons. Is there an agenda to blame SSRIs? Maybe.
I posted a long discussion I'd had with AMD on another topic on my last episode: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-psyop-cyclops
Could this just be one authoritative source (or widely publicized source) misreading, misinterpreting or cherry picking a study or data source? You know, like how even now, many people think it's recommended to drink 8 glasses of water every day, when that is not true. Water turnover varies between people as explained in a recent study in Science (paywalled: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm8668?cookieSet=1) (MSM article: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whitecoat/winter-water-hydration-1.6677254) but yet this advice has been around for as long as I can remember - at least 45 years or so.
If you mean a widely publicized source misreading data and as a result claiming a near 1:1 correlation between school shooters and psych meds, yeah.
Yes, that is what I meant. That's my bad English at work, there: I wasn't clear to what the definite article "this" referred. I apologize for the confusion.
No problem! Just wanted to be sure. ;)
As a psychiatrist and MD for 31 years I agree with your article. I have seen many side effects of psychotropics over the years but there is a fad lately to blame all ills on SSRIs by a number of Substack authors including AMD, Robert Yoho and even the Breggins. I have argued these issues with all of them. SSRIs are very beneficial when used in depression and anxiety but must be monitored for causing disinhibition and mania which could trigger aggression. Stimulants which are used in ADHD and some weight loss drugs and Methamphetamine are definite drivers of aggression and can cause psychosis which can lead to aggression. Testosterone and anabolic steroids obviously can cause aggression and violence. These are complex causes and interactions and I have seen very few homicidal responses on SSRIs but quite a few on stimulants ( prescription and street drug). Most aggression and violence is done by psychopaths, psychotics and the marginalised/ abused as you point out.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Laura. I think your take on it is very reasonable.
Harrison, a great & timely article, well done !
Correlation is not necessarily causation, but when it rains, the pavements get wet. It's interesting to me that SSRI's are fluoride-based drugs. It's also interesting that some studies suggest so-called ADHD in children is most common in states with the highest intake of fluoridated water, whilst others have suggested a link between 'impulsive criminality' and ADHD. I guess the subsequent medication of the latter scenario is more grist for the Big Pharma money-go-round. On the basis of all the above, I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion "Guns don't kill people - fluoride kills people", although it's pretty self-evident that Big Pharma does kill people. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25890329/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20414822
This may be of some usefulness as it expands on the details of SSRI's. It also points out that there are those who "...have a hereditary weakness in their cytochrome P450 detoxification system. As this is responsible for removing SSRIs from the bloodstream, in these individuals, normal doses of SSRIs will result in them developing elevated blood levels of the SSRI that can often be toxic and produce psychosis. Many forensic investigations have confirmed that this occurs..." How the FDA Buried the Dangers of Antidepressants by Pierre Kory, MD, MPA https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/how-the-fda-buried-the-dangers-of?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=645524&post_id=112426040&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
This wasn’t a top of mind topic for me but I am really glad for this information too so thank you Harrison! The corona depopulation agenda is top of mind for me and the daily occurrence of young healthy people just dropping dead all around the world and the vaxx injured being completely ignored and smeared and cancelled by ALL of those responsible and msm compliantly not reporting on any of it while the jab is still being strongly pushed and recommended is where I’m focusing my energies now. Discovered new Substack author Dr. Makis called Covid Intel with 12,000 new subscribers in just the 2 months since he started it showing many interested and he is capturing stories one creepy story about the many school bus or city bus drivers truck drivers,and just plain old car drivers dying suddenly behind the wheel and the resulting damages this is causing as well as all the airline pilots co pilots and independent pilots where the same grim reality is occurring. The more people that become aware the better.
Thanks for clearing up some of this, or at least making it more clear. I was getting uncomfortable arguing about anti-d's and shootings, because there are so few facts out there. Though I am still certain we are a profoundly ill society that we default to pharmaceuticals, particularly with young people.
My group (CCHR) has heavily leaned in its publications on the dangers of all psychiatric drugs. But this is done with a similar attitude as that taken by those cautioning us about the mRNA shots. It's not that the negative effects of the jabs were huge in the population receiving them, but that they were unacceptably high. The data about the gene mutation is compelling (if true). Screening for that mutation might help a lot, yet would get very few people off these drugs.
CCHR has some errors in its materials, such as attributing the Marilyn Monroe death to an overdose, when that was never fully verified. But the larger point, which we don't overtly state but is obvious enough to us, is that drugs are not appropriate treatments for mental health problems. They may be appropriate for neurological problems, but that's not mental health; that's body health. The mind is not a body part, and thus should not be treated with drugs.
When it comes to extreme violence, such as these mass shooters, I don't know what other correlations have been looked at. My view is that there might be a higher correlation with "previous or current mental health (psychiatric) treatment" or an even higher correlation with "recent contact with a psychopath." But the fact is that these behaviors are latent in many of us, and can be triggered by a wide variety of occurrences. We need a huge overall improvement in our understanding of the human condition, as well as the adoption of much more effective treatments, most of which should be non-medical.
I have to say, I was a bit surprised, and confused, to read this article from you. You began it rather matter of factly. Then moved more towards the dismissal of another author's opinion, and then softened it all with partial agreements.
I can see your point about a lack of purely scientific, double blind testing white paper documentation of the correlation of psychopathic killers (specifically in schools) and the use of SSRIs and other psychotropic pharmaceuticals. But, simply because there isn't a clearly and openly (the biggest missing part) available evidence, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Clearly these individuals were mentally damaged. Clearly they were complex combinations of many issues. But denying the possibility, and even anecdotal connections between these powerful pharmaceuticals and horrific events, seems a bit "thou doth protest too much".
I would think that all causes of mental dysfunction should be explored.
What's surprising and confusing? When he says things that are factual, of course I agree. When he writes things that are wrong, I disagree.
It's not the lack of a double blind study. It's the lack of evidence. Did you read the part where the article he quoted said some of these kids were on drugs, when there's no evidence they were on drugs?
//Clearly these individuals were mentally damaged. Clearly they were complex combinations of many issues. But denying the possibility, and even anecdotal connections between these powerful pharmaceuticals and horrific events, seems a bit "thou doth protest too much".//
It's not protesting too much. It's pointing out that random people online make stuff up.
//I would think that all causes of mental dysfunction should be explored.//
If you read my article and got the impression that I would disagree with this statement, I suggest you reread it.
I understand your points. I read it, reread it, opened and read most of the linked articles and documentation. And, for you, I will reread it again.
I can see that not having medical testimony or evidence of the use of pharmacology would be a concern, but just because a doctor doesn't say it in court, doesn't provide copies of what was prescribed, or testimony admitting such, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Lack of evidence is not always proof of nonexistence. People often mis-speak, mis-remember, to protect themselves from potential legalities, especially in such high profile cases. I'm not being conspiratorial, just rational. These individuals, who were obviously overwhelmed with evil, and who expressed multiple symptoms of mental illness, who were by a vast majority under medical health care concurrent with their atrocities (or within a recent timeline), were most likely on some form of anti-psychotic medication, whether that showed up in court documents or not.
I am not sure where stuff is being "made up", other than many are suggesting a possible and probable look into the connections between anti-psychotic medications and extreme violence albeit statistical outliers.
//I can see that not having medical testimony or evidence of the use of pharmacology would be a concern, but just because a doctor doesn't say it in court, doesn't provide copies of what was prescribed, or testimony admitting such, doesn't mean it didn't happen.//
This is true. Let me add a couple points, though. It is very easy to say something like "Well, even though there isn't evidence that something like 53-66% of them were on drugs, they probably were, and anyone who points out that there's no evidence for it is ignoring the probability that it's true." Just because someone makes such a claim, doesn't mean it happened. It cuts off these possibilities from the get go: that some WEREN'T on drugs, because they didn't have any history with mental health professionals, that some had been on drugs, but stopped taking them, and that some were on drugs, but such drugs didn't influence their behavior. And in fact, there is evidence for those possibilities being true in a significant number of these cases.
Merely posing a possibility is fine, but it's too easy to let that influence one's thinking to the point of denying evidence of cases where it may not be true. There are probably a percentage of cases where the evidence IS lacking. I.e., the number of school shooters who were on drugs is probably higher than the number that can be proved. But there is no good reason to think that it is high enough to say that practically all such shooters were on drugs.
//These individuals, who were obviously overwhelmed with evil, and who expressed multiple symptoms of mental illness, who were by a vast majority under medical health care concurrent with their atrocities (or within a recent timeline), were most likely on some form of anti-psychotic medication, whether that showed up in court documents or not.//
I don't think this last statement is justified. Again, there simply isn't evidence that "a vast majority [were] under medical health care concurrent with their atrocities." That is a conjecture. And the paper I cited actually looked at that. They included shooters who were under medical health care, but for whom there was no evidence they were on prescribed meds, under the category of those who WERE prescribed meds, simply on the likelihood that they would have been. That's what gave them the number of 47%. (And even then, that doesn't prove they were taking their meds. There will always be degrees of uncertainty in cases like this.)
//I am not sure where stuff is being "made up"//
Recall Langman's article responding to the Facebook list. As just one example from it, the list claimed that Luke Woodham was on Prozac. The facebook article is the ONLY source to claim that (and it has been repeated on the Net countless times, with no source BUT that facebook article). What is more likely: that the person who made this list had access to sources not available to the public (something the author himself didn't even claim, but it's the only possible reason I can think of), or that he made it up? If I say Bill Clinton was on PCP when he denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and I'm the only person to say it, what's the most likely explanation? That I made it up (and in fact, that's what I just did).
I understand your point. I don't understand the willingness to give the Langman article the air of certainty because of citations, the citation of 47% being based on what he had available (not considering what he didn't have available) to admonish the common term of "most", and your seemingly profound questioning of the potential harm from these types of pharmacology. Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, or right. It just seemed to me that you went out of your way to defend the use of these drugs, seemed to dismiss questions of concern about possible (even if rare) severely negative side effects in particular individuals.
Maybe I'm skeptical of pharmacology after the past several years, maybe I see correlations in events, maybe all I see is a defense of pharmacology in your article, maybe I need to re-re-read and see what point I missed beyond the debunking of a less than scientific theory around the increase in the mentally ill, killing innocent people.
//I understand your point. I don't understand the willingness to give the Langman article the air of certainty because of citations, the citation of 47% being based on what he had available (not considering what he didn't have available) to admonish the common term of "most", //
Small nitpick: the 47% was this paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31513302/. Langman was the 66% figure (with a larger sample than the previous paper). As for my "willingness", let me justify it. The Facebook article had no sources, just claims. When trying to verify those claims, I come up with nothing. Langman 1) did the same thing, 2) wrote it all out in a handy source so that others don't have to repeat writing it all out, 3) has access to way more sources than anyone else on the Net and has made them publicly available, and 4) when I check Langman's claims, they are verifiable, unlike the facebook post. So let me turn this around: I don't understand your willingness to give a random facebook article, without citations, the air of certainty, especially when its claims not only do not stand up to scrutiny, making obvious errors of fact, but also including what seem to be deliberate fabrications.
//and your seemingly profound questioning of the potential harm from these types of pharmacology.//
//It just seemed to me that you went out of your way to defend the use of these drugs, seemed to dismiss questions of concern about possible (even if rare) severely negative side effects in particular individuals.//
You said you read it more than once. Let me remind you once again of these parts:
"When it comes to drug-induced homicide, “any elevated risk in this regard should be viewed as unacceptable without any exceptions.” Again, I agree."
"That said, I want to reiterate that I agree wholeheartedly with AMD’s other main points, specifically on the damages these drugs are known to cause."
"While he was referring to permanent changes to personality caused by drug-induced brain damage, I think we should add the temporary effects of prescribed psychiatric medications to the list."
How much clearer can I be that I consider these drugs dangerous, and that the akathisia-related homicides alone make them unacceptable? I find it hard to believe that you could read the article and come to the conclusion that I'm "questioning the potential harm" of these drugs or making a "defense of pharmacology."
Here's another point I only hinted at in the article: the examples of akathisia-induced homicides have all the signs of psychotic, irrational crimes: people losing touch with reality and killing their spouses, children, and other close relations in an uncontrolled psychotic break. They do NOT have the kind of premeditated planning and execution seen in school shootings. So on the face of it, the link between akathisia (the proposed mechanism by which SSRIs lead to homicidal events) isn't even present in the vast majority of school shooting scenarios. In other words they are two *different* types of homicide.
I will reread, slowly, and reread the links, with a clear palate, before I comment further.
I didn't mean to offend, I just don't fully grasp the main theme, yet.