No, Mentally Ill People Would NOT Necessarily Have Become Violent Without Anti-Depressants

Scientific Evidence Shows that New Anti-Depressants MAKE Disturbed People Violent

The number of school shootings, murders and murder-suicides, workplace violence, road rage, and random violence by soldiers by people taking anti-depressants is staggering.

It is a reasonable – but false – assumption that mentally disturbed people who commit violence would have done so whether or not they were on medication.

For example, the Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience published a study in 2001 showing that one modern anti-depressant is associated with violent acts.

David Healy and David Menkes from Cardiff University, and Andrew Herxheimer from the UK Cochrane Centre, published a study in 2006 showing that antidepressants can cause severe violence in a small number of individuals.

Numerous other mental health experts say that anti-depressants may be a substantial factor in school shootings and other gun-related violence. And see this, this, this, this.

If you have any doubt that anti-depressants cause violence in disturbed people, please watch this Congressional testimony by a top expert on anti-depressants:

And this short interview with a number of other mental health experts:

And these short videos:

So – whatever else we do to address school shootings – we must either stop pushing anti-depressants on kids or at least stop selling guns to people taking anti-depressants.

This entry was posted in General, Politics / World News, Science / Technology. Bookmark the permalink.
  • gozounlimited

    There is the “in your face gun violence” and then there is “the soft kill” both perpetrated on each of us by resonate evil. I don’t think anyone has missed the linear connection between our “corporate/government” (whom insists on being in control)” and the waste of human life…..

    Chemtrails Clearly Visible Above Newtown Connecticut School Shooting – Libor Connection

  • TheWanderer

    I am a mentally ill professional. Without medication, I was unable to cope with life and rapidly heading for self-destruction. With medication, I hold down a position with a six-figure income. Do not take away my medication!!

    • Mike G

      Adults react differently to children on such medications. Lanza was 20 years old, so not a child, but not fully developed adult either. Also, everyone reacts differently to different medications. We still don’t know what he was on or how many different things.

      • It is certain that Adam Lanza was prescribe too many antidepressants, in my view. Just my gut feeling

        • some pompous name

          you have no idea what he might or might not have been taking, nor do you have any evidence that can withstand scrutiny that proves beyond all reasonable doubt the he in fact even fired a shot!


          • I am proposing antidepressants as a major factor, and it is just a suggestion. enuff said. you are a wortless dick of a idiot who just don’t read between the lines!!!!

          • It is a common fact that some SSRI can incude suicidal thoughts, so it is certainly possible that the doctors overprescribed medications for Adam Lanza!

  • medicated and peaceful

    As someone who has taken anti-depressants for many years, and could not function without them, I can guarantee to you that they make me no more violent than I ever was (which is not at all). Everyone needs a scapegoat, but why would you pick a medicine that saves millions of lives every day? Educate yourself about depression and anxiety before you start talking out of your ass.

    • gozounlimited

      Placebo Effect?

      • Considering I was put on them when I was a child and had no understanding of what effects the drug was supposed to have… no.

    • Mike G

      Um, I think he plainly DID educate himself. Hence the evidence he presented. None of which is new or controversial. I took anti-depressants at one time, and believed the helped me, so I guess they did. However, there have now been a number of studies showing that Prozac (what I took) is no more effective than a placebo. Perhaps it’s time for you to do some research yourself perhaps instead of blindly trusting a profit driven industry?

    • paulbrye

      The antidepressants you take can very well improve your function, but being on antidepressants doesn’t make you any more qualified to opine on the subject than my dog. Everyone except you apparently knows that these drugs produce the dangerous effects under discussion in a fraction of the population who take them.

      • I agree with you paul. i believe that there are doctors who constantly prescribing these SSRI without understanding the implication of these new medicines.

    • stmccrea

      Let’s use a simple analogy…

      I like peanuts. I eat them and nothing bad ever happens to me. I know a lot of other people who can eat peanuts with no side effects. Some people claim that peanuts cause them anaphylactic shock which can kill them. Obviously, they must be making this up, because no one I know has had this problem, and they all like peanuts. Why should those people pick on the poor peanut? It’s obvious they need a scapegoat for their overdramatic display of false allergic reaction. Probably have some kind of mental disorder that makes them fake being ill…

      Get the picture? Just because you don’t get violent taking antidepressant doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen to anyone else. Supposing one person in ten thousand has such a reaction. There are millions of people on SSRIs, so it follows that hundreds or even thousands of people could have this reaction and be hurting or even killing people without it making much of a blip in statistical terms. It’s pretty arrogant to assume that your experience reflects everyone else’s, especially when we’re talking about potential loss of life. Do a bit of research – you will find that this concern was raised in the earliest days of Prozac, and even caused it to be banned in Germany for some period of time. No, they are not making this up. It really does happen.

      —– Steve

      • I never said anyone was making it up, but using this 1-in-10,000 chance of an adverse effect to occur as a reason to discriminate against people using anti-depressants or deny treatment to those who sorely need it will cause more stigmatization of mental illness and cause fewer people who need treatment to seek it.

        • stmccrea

          I fail to see how being honest about a side effect, including its relatively low probability, is in any way discriminating against people who choose to use antidepressants, or denying treatment to those who need it. Explain how this would cause stigmatization in your mind. To me, all it does is help people be aware that they need to notice if they are becoming more aggressive after starting so they can stop if they happen to be one of the minority who have this unfortunate side effect. Denying this information could lead (and has apparently led) to very dire consequences, yet you seem to prefer lying to people in order to make them feel safer than they actually should? I really don’t get it. We’re talking about treating people like adults and giving them informed consent to a medical intervention, just as the law and medical ethics requires. What exactly is the problem with that?

          In fact, I think NOT providing this information is stigmatizing to those suffering from depression, because it implies that they are too foolish or deluded tor irresponsible to be able to rationally decide if they want to assume that risk or not. I think that’s a very undignified and disrespectful way to treat anyone. You wouldn’t suggest giving a person a heart medication without informing them of the possibility of grave side effects, however infrequent. Why should antidepressant users be denied the right to that information, if not because they are believed to be too irresponsible to make good use of it?

          —- Steve

          • stmccrea

            And I will add that it is PSYCHIATRISTS who are stigmatizing and demonizing the “mentally ill” by blaming the failure of their drugs on their clients. If, as appears to be the case, a good proportion of these mass murders are caused or exacerbated by the drugs these people are prescribed, isn’t it pretty discriminatory to claim that they did it “because they had depression” or “because they had schizophrenia?” Doesn’t this blame the powerless victim and build upon the prevalent stereotype that “mentally ill” people are irresponsible, violent and dangerous? And such stigmatizing “explanations” are always used to promote ever more repressive measures against “mentally ill” clients, including enforced treatment and enforced hospitalization on larger numbers of people, based on increasing fear that failure to enforce treatment on mentally ill people might lead to liability, even if the treatment is actually causing more violence.

            I get really steamed up about this “stigma” crap. The current mental health model of blaming the victim’s brain, labeling them with a “disorder,” and excusing their parents, schools, treatment providers, and society from having to confront the need for change is what really leads to stigma. (This has actually been shown to be the case in a scientific study – being labeled with a “disorder” and calling it a medical problem makes people MORE likely to judge you negatively because of “mental illness!”) The “mentally ill” have become a societal scapegoat, largely at the hands of the mental health industry itself, and I think articles like this actually DECREASE stigma, by humanizing the sufferers and making it clear that psychiatry doesn’t really have all the answers.

            —- Steve

  • dgdgdg

    Author is an idiot, not a physician.

    • paulbrye

      The author is not a physician, so he reported the testimony of respected professionals and physicians, which makes your comment … idiotic.

  • So what I have just read is that Temple Grandin apparently claims that medication dosing needs to be much lower for autistic spectrum folks. If he was on fanapt, AFAIK not proven yet, then according to this site the main patient reported side effects are:

    2Suicidal Thoughts
    3Violent And Suicidal Thoughts

  • steven andresen

    The shootings in Connecticut seem too pointless and so unnecessarily cruel that they demands some more explanation than just the guy had powerful weapons so he used them.
    The suggestion that he was on some medication for his autism that made him “snap” is a reasonable conjecture. One has to have evidence of what he might have been on before we could make any further suppositions. However, it does not appear that the authorities are going to let us know what medications he was on.
    The fact that these meds, the antideppresants, could make many people feel better and allow them to have better lives does not prove that these same meds could not have cause suicidal or homicidal thoughts in some small segment of the people who take them. There are many reasons why some people can’t tolerate certain drugs. So, the fact that “medicated and peaceful” or “the wanderer” are doing fine, does not prove that these drugs could not be implicated in these shooter’s behaviors.
    The claim that other than the gun issue, these shootings are a “mental health issue” seems to be a complete red herring. What kind of mental health issue? I think the shooter’s mental health situation seemed to have been unremarkable for all of his life. What would explain his sudden “snapping”. This sudden resort to senseless violence seems more the result of some change in his situation, like his not tolerating a mind altering pharmaceutical.
    I want to add that given the post-Constitutional mafia state we find ourselves, I have more sympathy with the 2nd Amendment crowd.

  • You’re full of ignorant baloney. THis has no bearing on the Connecticut incident. Stop stereotyping US, that is, fully 1/3 of Americans. Antidepressants are designed to help and most of the time they do. The Newtown shooter wasn’t taking psychotropic meds; meanwhile, millions of us have had our lives saved by them. Your post and similar beliefs are stigmatizing and misinformed.

    • paulbrye

      Cite your proof the Newton shooter was not on psychotropic meds, please. Last I looked, the information had not been released, and the circumstantial evidence (not just the shootings) suggested he was on such meds.

    • you brainless fuck. Read my comments above. I am pointing out that Adam Lanza’s doc may had overprescribed the SSRI and as a result he ended up the way he was!!!!!!

    • and have you heard of PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE??? i also believe that some of the mass shooting has this as factors!