Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 4650 of 5179 (776327)
01-11-2016 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 4649 by Percy
01-11-2016 8:14 AM


Here is my point (with links)
My point is poor people are hurt badly, when seeking jobs, via state-sponsored discrimination. Disqualification from FAA, CDL trucking, security, military, firefighting, police, etc.
The NRA fully supports EVEYTHING Obama just did. Don't let their endless "2nd amendment talk fool you". They don't disagree with a thing Obama just did. The NRA had an awful transformation decades ago (around the early 90s). They support all kinds of background checks and databases (used for discrimination). They were promoting legislation (just a few months ago) to ban people for life from owning guns.
Here are some links to back me up.
quote:
On mental health, Cornyn rejects the obvious
4:21 pm, Thursday, October 29, 2015
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas is pushing legislation to reward states that send more information about residents with serious mental problems to the federal background check system for firearms purchasers. But what about helping the mentally ill get treatment before they wind up in court?
-----------
It’s so interesting to see U.S. Sen. John Cornyn frame the debate over gun violence as strictly a mental health issue
He’s an outspoken advocate for improved reporting on mental health to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. He also backs allowing judges to deny gun purchases to people who might be a danger to themselves or others, and offering incentives for improved forms of screening and treatment in courts.
These are the broad strokes of Cornyn’s Mental Health and Safe Communities Act, a bill that has the backing of the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the National Rifle Association. He’s taken to Twitter to promote it, tweeting at President Barack Obama earlier this month to back his bill as a way to address mass shootings but preserve gun rights.
There are some good ideas in Cornyn’s bill. No one is arguing that background checks and mental health treatment shouldn’t be improved, or that the criminal justice system fails many people with mental health issues. But there are also some notable gaps. Cornyn’s bill doesn’t address private gun sales, for example. And the vast majority of people with serious mental illness are nonviolent. It’s unclear just how much gun violence Cornyn’s bill would stop, especially since many shooters have no documented history of their mental health.
On mental health, Cornyn rejects the obvious
I only quoted part of a really long article, but the article had like a dozen or so hyper links (including parts I quoted here).
Here is one of the sites a hyper-link lead to.
quote:
Myth vs. Fact: Violence and Mental Health
A Q&A with an expert who studies the relationship between mental illness and violence.
by Lois Beckett
ProPublica, June 10, 2014, 2:30 p.m.
After mass shootings, like the ones these past weeks in Las Vegas, Seattle and Santa Barbara, the national conversation often focuses on mental illness. So what do we actually know about the connections between mental illness, mass shootings and gun violence overall?
To separate the facts from the media hype, we talked to Dr. Jeffrey Swanson, a professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Duke University School of Medicine, and one of the leading researchers on mental health and violence. Swanson talked about the dangers of passing laws in the wake of tragedy and which new violence-prevention strategies might actually work.
....
Federal law prohibits people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution from owning guns. Is that targeting the right people?
The criteria we have are both over-inclusive and under-inclusive at the same time. They capture a lot of people who are not really at risk, at least not anymore. For instance, think about someone who had a suicidal mental health crisis 25 years ago, was involuntarily hospitalized, but now they're recovered and fine, they haven't had problems in years. They want to get a job as a security guard and they can't because they can't possess firearms.
Under-inclusive, because think about someone who's in the middle of their first episode of psychosis, but hasn't been treated. This might be a serious, dangerous mental health crisis a person with paranoid delusions, believing that everyone else is out to get him, isolated, maybe drinking heavily but he is not disqualified from going and purchasing any number of guns.
Myth vs. Fact: Violence and Mental Health ProPublica
The NRA won't debate Obama because it might come out that they agree with everything he just did. They have been pushing it for decades. The NRA blamed the ACLU for decades for stopping what Obama is just doing. Obama hasn't gone far enough for the NRAs wishes and desires, but he just had the voluminous Social Security Disability send mental records to a central database. And it is only being used for discrimination. Ironic that Social Security cards and birth certificates ( which are nearly impossible or at least very difficult for poor people to possess) are never made universally available via the wonders of technology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4649 by Percy, posted 01-11-2016 8:14 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4651 by Percy, posted 01-12-2016 7:22 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 4652 of 5179 (776333)
01-12-2016 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 4651 by Percy
01-12-2016 7:22 AM


Understand something Percy.
The NRA is attempting to change the subject from the actual Obama policy of Obama's executive actions. Many on both the right and left hate what Obama and the NRA just did, and the NRA needs to hide behind the "2nd amendment" issue as a smokescreen.
That link of yours showed the NRA changing the subject. The recent policy action of Obama wasn't even mentioned.
Here is a much better indication of where the NRA stands (frankly, I already showed you the Cornyn/NRA proposal of a few months ago but THESE LINKS BELOW show the NRA view of this SPECIFIC Obama action of the past week).
quote:
Source: CNN
Added on 10:17 AM ET, Sat January 9, 2016
Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, "Lone survivor" author and NRA spokesman, tells Smerconish he agrees with background checks for gun owners.
"Lone Survivor" Luttrell on Obama's Gun Law Proposals - CNN Video
quote:
Saturday on CNN’s Smerconish, Luttrell argued, when you start messing with the Constitution and what this country was founded on, our baseline is what we call it. It just opens up too many doors.
....
but Luttrell interjected, Let me put this out to you, man. I applaud him [Obama] for trying to do something, alright.
....
Something has to be done. I mean, I think that should be said, too. Everybody takes jabs at him but he’s trying to do something. I get that, Luttrell argued. And I’m not 100 percent on this, but didn’t they open up that if you get a psych eval and the doc thinks you’re crazy he can turn you over to the feds?
I don’t know if that’s internet lure or that’s part and parcel of this. Because my understanding and I’ve read it, Smerconish said. What he’s trying to do is identify who is a hobbyist at gun sales and to make people subject to background checks. That’s the bottom line. It seems pretty modest, frankly.
....
Yeah. I don’t see, why is that a problem? I mean, people get driver’s licenses and I don’t think that’s an issue. In 2016, I don’t think that that’s a problem, Luttrell said.
Marcus, they may yank you off that NRA ad, if they hear you say that, Smerconish interjected.
To have people with with psychological problems have a background check before they can buy a weapon? I don’t think the NRA would pull me off that one, Luttrell said. If they do, then I need to be pulled off it because you can’t give a weapon to someone who has mental issues, right.
‘Lone Survivor’ Marcus Luttrell Endorses Background Checks For Gun Purchases [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller
Anyway, the NRA has angered many (libertarian types) on the right for a long time with their criticism that Clinton didn't go far enough in a fascist direction (such as "he hasn't enforced the background check laws already on the books").
Your NRA link was the same old fascist crap ("Clinton or Obama havn't gone far enough yet") that informed people understand as sly support. It's only low-information folks that think it constitutes actual opposition.
The NRA is speaking in codes. Telling one group (the uninformed) one thing, and another group another thing. This is typical in the United States (though it happens to some extent everywhere).
This is one of those situations that demands a "decoder ring" (as the now old clich goes).
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4651 by Percy, posted 01-12-2016 7:22 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4654 by Percy, posted 01-12-2016 11:32 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 4653 of 5179 (776334)
01-12-2016 8:11 AM


Most famous "decoder ring" situation.
The most typical involves the issue of foreign aid, which Americans, especially on the right, oppose monumentally.
Republican politicians are trained to respond a certain way to the legions of constituents that oppose foreign aid (politicians will admit that they can find 10 people in their districts that support foreign aid).
The GOP politicians will say "I oppose foreign aid, except to those who are with us 100% of the time" of "I will votes against foreign aid except when our true allies need it in extreme situations". It usually is code for support of foreign aid to Israel (at the very least). Which then leads to treaties which enables support for most foreign aid.
Constituents are led to think they oppose almost 100% of foreign aid but the political class, as well as the 1% of Americans who are informed, knows it means support for foreign aid in general.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 4656 of 5179 (776358)
01-12-2016 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 4654 by Percy
01-12-2016 11:32 AM


But are they refering to the policies of the Ex Action?
What part of Obama's action are they challenging?
The only substantive policy change part is Obama's capture of medical records for social security disability (mental health issues require 3-7 years of endless court challenges to "prove" mental disability), and the NRA offered legislation (a few months ago) to reward states that get the medical records to the central Federal database.
The NRA has always supported banning people with so-called "mental issues" from owning guns (and blamed the ACLU for preventing such). The NRA has also always complained that people don't get arrested for trying to own a gun when they have a past criminal conviction. "they don't go after those who violate the law and attempt to get a gun... bla bla bla ...IT'S THE PROSECUTION STUPID...bla bla bla Why aren't we prosecuting people trying to buy guns?"
The NRA disagrees with nothing here.
It's just vague "Obama doesn't respect gun rights and our constitution"
"No respect for the 2nd amendment"
"No respect for the legislative process"
Trickery.
NRA has no choice but to slither around this and hope the specifics go away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4654 by Percy, posted 01-12-2016 11:32 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 4661 of 5179 (776458)
01-13-2016 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 4657 by Percy
01-12-2016 2:42 PM


Forbesbama Gun Proposals Largely Capitulate To NRA--And Nobody Notices
quote:
Obama Gun Proposals Largely Capitulate To NRA--And Nobody Notices
Jan 6, 2016 @ 12:26 PM
For more years than I can recall, gun rights advocates have implored those seeking to make it more difficult to acquire a firearm in America to use the laws on the books for keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them before further constraining 2nd Amendment rights.
Indeed, in a recent video released by the NRA, Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre reminded us, yet again, that we could better address our gun violence problem by simply doing a better job with the laws we already have.
Under the existing federal gun laws, [Obama] could take every felon with a gun, drug dealer with a gun and criminal gangbanger with a gun off the streets tomorrow and lock them up for five years or more. But he won’t do it, his Justice Department won’t do it, and the media never asks why.
LaPierre continued by noting, No organization has been louder, clearer or more consistent on the urgent need to enforce the federal gun laws than the NRA.
He is right about that. The NRA is constantly arguing that we do not need new gun lawswe simply need to better enforce the ones we already have.
Apparently, President Obama has been listening.
Obama Gun Proposals Largely Capitulate To NRA--And Nobody Notices
The truth is hiding in plain site. The NRA (which doesn't represent truth) really is hiding though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4657 by Percy, posted 01-12-2016 2:42 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4663 by NoNukes, posted 01-14-2016 8:41 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 4666 of 5179 (776614)
01-17-2016 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 4665 by Percy
01-17-2016 10:39 AM


Re: The True Danger of Guns
quote:
Attitudes will change gradually
These gun restrictions are only going to cause people to get arrested for violating gun laws. I havn't seen any evidence that they reduce crime at all.
It did reduce the amount of Democrats elected to congress starting in 1994.
Democrats won the house in 2006 and 2008 ONLY after the national part made it clear to voters that gun control was off the table. Obama ran in 2008 as an opponent of the Assault Weapons Ban, and then in December 2012 - after safely re-elected - did an about face.
As a result, the House of Representatives is fundamentally Republican FYI.
Yes, I said fundamentally. The Republicans have a better chance at electing a governor in California than Democrats have a chance at controlling the U.S. House.
Even an anti-GOP wave election wouldn't produce a Democratic majority (218 seats).
What is the end result of "gun-control"?
That's the long and short of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4665 by Percy, posted 01-17-2016 10:39 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 4906 of 5179 (782157)
04-18-2016 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4615 by Straggler
01-06-2016 2:49 AM


Straggler wanted scientific studies link drugs to violence.
I said "My biggest objection to "gun control" is that it includes the issue of forcing children on psychotropic drugs." and Straggler responded "I assume you have data to back this claim up? International comparisons showing a link between gun control laws and the number of children on psychotic drugs in different nations, for example?"
There was a big study (of a million people over multiple years)showing massive increases in acts of violence in Sweden just released 6 months ago. The hypothesis was that SSRIs would be found to not increase acts of violence. Here is text from the introduction to the study results.
quote:
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are among the most widely prescribed psychiatric medications in many countries [1—6]. At the same time, concerns about their adverse effects, including suicide and violence, have been widely discussed and remain controversial
....
Despite a number of legal cases linking SSRIs and violent behaviour [16], empirical research on the association is limited and inconclusive. Ecological studies suggest that increased SSRI prescriptions have been associated with decreases in violent crimes in the US [17] and lethal violence in the Netherlands [18]. In contrast, an expert review of clinical trials concluded that there was an excess of violence in both adults and children on SSRIs compared with placebo [16]. Furthermore, drug safety (or pharmacovigilance) data have shown a disproportionate association between SSRIs and violent behaviours [19] and serious violent acts [20], and an observational study found an association of work-related violence with antidepressant purchases [21]
....
Our objective was thus to investigate the association between SSRIs and violence outcomes by linking data from Swedish national registers on individual SSRI prescriptions, use of other psychotropic drugs, and violent crimes in a large population-based cohort.
....
Our null hypothesis was that no associations between SSRI medication and violent outcomes would be demonstrated using a within-individual design, including in different age groups.
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Violent Crime: A Cohort Study | PLOS Medicine
The evidence was a very large increase in acts of violence.
Here is another scientific work that just came out.
quote:
Antidepressants can raise the risk of suicide, biggest ever review finds
By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor
27 January 2016 11:30am
Antidepressants can raise the risk of suicide, the biggest ever review has found, as pharmaceutical companies were accused of failing to report side-effects and even deaths linked to the drugs.
An analysis of 70 trials of the most common antidepressants - involving more than 18,000 people - found they doubled the risk of suicide and aggressive behaviour in under 18s.
Although a similarly stark link was not seen in adults, the authors said misreporting of trial data could have led to a ‘serious under-estimation of the harms.’
For years families have claimed that antidepressant medication drove their loved ones to commit suicide, but have been continually dismissed by medical companies and doctors who claimed a link was unproven.
The review - the biggest oif its kind into the effects of the drugs - was carried out by the Nordic Cochrane Centre and analysed by University College London (UCL) who today endorse the findings in an editorial in the British Medical Journal (BMJ).
After comparing clinical trial information to actual patient reports the scientists found pharmaceutical companies had regularly misclassified deaths and suicidal events in people taking anti-depressants to "favour their products".
Experts said the review's findings were "startling" and said it was "deeply worrying" that clinical trials appear to have been misreported.
Antidepressants can raise the risk of suicide, biggest ever review finds
There is much more text in the article.
I did a (messed up) thread on a congresscritter who supports forcing kids on drugs. That is the godawful Timothy Murphy of Pennsylvania. The thread was a mess but here it is. It was a few weeks before this Telegraph article.
EvC Forum: Does Republican Congressman Tim Murphy use fraudulent science?
People were wondering if there was scientific fraud going on today (in a thread on objectivity started by Percy), so I got the idea for the thread on Timothy Murphy and SSRIs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4615 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2016 2:49 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4907 by Percy, posted 04-18-2016 7:07 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 4925 of 5179 (782393)
04-22-2016 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4907 by Percy
04-18-2016 7:07 PM


Re: Straggler wanted scientific studies link drugs to violence.
quote:
[Percy]
A "very large increase" and a "significant association" are not the same thing. The statistical correlation doesn't translate naturally into some magnitude of increase, I'm not sure myself how to interpret it.
"Mentally ill" people on the SSRI (anti-depressant) drugs compared to those same types off of them, based on studies, is associated with large percentages of higher numbers of suicides and acts of violence in the "on" group in study after study. You were referencing the Swedish study that was releases in September 2015.
I also referenced other studies. The Telegraph article should be the icing on the cake as it is broad in its coverage.
Lets put these gun death numbers into perspective.
quote:
[Dr. Peter C. Gotzsche, a physician specializing in internal medicine at Denmark's Nordic Cochrane Centre, alleged in the May 12, 2015 British Medical Journal:]
"Psychiatric drugs are responsible for the deaths of more than half a million people aged 65 and older each year in the Western world... Their benefits would need to be colossal to justify this, but they are minimal. ... Given their lack of benefit, I estimate we could stop almost all psychotropic drugs without causing harm ... This would lead to healthier and longer-lived populations."
Does long term use of psychiatric drugs cause more harm than good? | The BMJ
The BMJ requires a subscription. I found the quote here: Why Psychiatry is Evil
These deaths include all the "natural" deaths (not just ones from using a weapon) from chemically induced side-effects brought on by anti-psychotics (in addition to SSRIs which are anti-depressants).
I think the gun issue is a side issue (though it is more of a complete red herring and terrible distraction based on the present situation) when one studies the history of gun violence and then places the historical timeline alongside the scientific studies.
The mass shootings that have gained so much attention seemed to coincide with the psychiatric pill-pushing revolution, and infact the vast majority of shooters have had SSRIs in their system.
The whole of the gun issue focus seems to be based on looking at just a small part of the puzzle of various factors that make up the collective whole of all the respective violent fatal events.
The mounting scientific evidence backs up my conclusion more and more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4907 by Percy, posted 04-18-2016 7:07 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 4927 of 5179 (782490)
04-24-2016 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4907 by Percy
04-18-2016 7:07 PM


I found the Jan 27 2016 Britich Medical Journal text.
Suicidality and aggression during antidepressant treatment: systematic review and meta-analyses based on clinical study reports | The BMJ
This is the study that the Telegraph referenced. Scientific American is covering it on their May 1 2016 issue.
quote:
Abstract
Objective To study serious harms associated with selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.
Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Main outcome measures Mortality and suicidality. Secondary outcomes were aggressive behaviour and akathisia.
Data sources Clinical study reports for duloxetine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine obtained from the European and UK drug regulators, and summary trial reports for duloxetine and fluoxetine from Eli Lilly’s website.
Eligibility criteria for study selection Double blind placebo controlled trials that contained any patient narratives or individual patient listings of harms.
Data extraction and analysis Two researchers extracted data independently; the outcomes were meta-analysed by Peto’s exact method (fixed effect model).
Results We included 70 trials (64 381 pages of clinical study reports) with 18 526 patients. These trials had limitations in the study design and discrepancies in reporting, which may have led to serious under-reporting of harms. For example, some outcomes appeared only in individual patient listings in appendices, which we had for only 32 trials, and we did not have case report forms for any of the trials. Differences in mortality (all deaths were in adults, odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 4.06), suicidality (1.21, 0.84 to 1.74), and akathisia (2.04, 0.93 to 4.48) were not significant, whereas patients taking antidepressants displayed more aggressive behaviour (1.93, 1.26 to 2.95). For adults, the odds ratios were 0.81 (0.51 to 1.28) for suicidality, 1.09 (0.55 to 2.14) for aggression, and 2.00 (0.79 to 5.04) for akathisia. The corresponding values for children and adolescents were 2.39 (1.31 to 4.33), 2.79 (1.62 to 4.81), and 2.15 (0.48 to 9.65). In the summary trial reports on Eli Lilly’s website, almost all deaths were noted, but all suicidal ideation events were missing, and the information on the remaining outcomes was incomplete.
Conclusions Because of the shortcomings identified and having only partial access to appendices with no access to case report forms, the harms could not be estimated accurately. In adults there was no significant increase in all four outcomes, but in children and adolescents the risk of suicidality and aggression doubled. To elucidate the harms reliably, access to anonymised individual patient data is needed.
due to code issues I had to make an alteration (and it is difficult to explain my corrections as the code has messed that up too.
Then just below, in the introduction. It actually says ..."in children and adolescents (aged <18 years"
quote:
Introduction
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are some of the most commonly prescribed drugs.1 2 SSRI induced suicidality was first reported in 19903 but only became generally recognised after a BBC Panorama programme focused on it in 2002.4
A 2004 UK review showed a noticeable discrepancy between published and unpublished trials and increased suicidal behaviour in children and adolescents (aged 18 years),5 which resulted in serious warnings against these drugs being used in this age group.6 It is widely believed that the risk of suicide is not increased in adults, and support for this was provided by a Food and Drug Administration meta-analysis of about 100 000 patients.7 However, a large systematic review of published trials found an increase in suicide attempts with SSRI treatment,1 and another review using data submitted to the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) could not rule out an increased risk of suicidal behaviour during early treatment with these drugs.8
For aggressive behaviour (for example, hostility, assault) in general, reports are conflicting.9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A UK review using MHRA data found an increase in hostility in children and adolescents,16 and an analysis of adverse events reported to the FDA showed that antidepressants were disproportionately involved in cases of violence, including murder.17 Many cases of aggressive behaviour have been reported,2 4 but, unlike with suicidality, little systematic research has been undertaken. Perpetrators of school shootings and similar events have often been reported to be users of antidepressants18 and the courts have in many cases found them not guilty as a result of drug induced insanity.4
....
04.↵ Gtzsche PC. Deadly psychiatry and organised denial.People’s Press, 2015.
....
18.↵ SSRI stories. SSRI stories: antidepressant nightmares. 2013. Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied.
Suicidality and aggression during antidepressant treatment: systematic review and meta-analyses based on clinical study reports | The BMJ
This is the Jan 2016 BMJ which covers Denmark work (I think). Different from the Sept 2016 Swedish study.
The larger body of adults were found "insignificant" in increased acts of violence in the (referenced by Percy) Swedish study (from Sept 2015) too but if you clip it down to those adults under 25 then the increases are very significant. Actually, Percy likes to point out that "significant associations" should not be equated to "increases". There was also some evidence for associations of increased violence in those older than 25 in the Swedish study. I suspect up till age 30 (or so) but I remember they were grouped into a larger age group than just 25-30 or 25-25. Something like 25-44 I think.
This is a developing issue but a lot of the evidence has been around for a long time. But Scientific American presents is a new evidence.
The Hidden Harm of Antidepressants - Scientific American
quote:
Mental Health
The Hidden Harm of Antidepressants
An in-depth analysis of clinical trials reveals widespread underreporting of negative side effects, including suicide attempts and aggressive behavior
By Diana Kwon on February 3, 2016
Valo en espaol
....
Because many prior studies found increased suicidal ideation with antidepressant use, in 2004 the FDA gave these drugs a black box warninga label reserved for the most serious hazardsand the EMA issued similar alerts. There are no labels about risks for aggression, however. Although hints about hostile behavior existed in the past, including in published case studies, last week’s BMJ study was the first large-scale work to document an increase in aggressive behavior in children and adolescents. This is obviously important in the debate about school shootings in the States and in other places where the perpetrators are frequently taking antidepressants, Moncrieff says.
This is a longer article than the May 1 2016 article coming out. The link address url looks the same though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4907 by Percy, posted 04-18-2016 7:07 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 5099 of 5179 (821387)
10-06-2017 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 5086 by Phat
10-05-2017 12:14 PM


Sounds like the mental health slander is coming up again. I have academic sources.
First, the predictable comment.
quote:
He was a compulsive gambler. Politically, he was likely a conservative. He had genetic mental health issues, but these normally would not have been the predisposing factor. The factor was, as Percy suggested, that he was a compulsive/obsessive OCD brain damaged individual. We don't know what exactly he was angry at or whom, but it appears to be non-political...despite the forensic claim that the media needs to be more sensitive to gun owners.
The Lincoln Journal Star editorial actually seemed to be in touch with the fact that it is
(or was) the GOP that always brings up the mental health issue as the reason for gun violence while Democrats bring up the gun issue itself. The Star seemed to forget that things have changed, and now Democrats have jumped on that slander wagon.
I don't have the quotes but the paragraph that started the GOP viewpoint didn't mention that Democrats have bought the subscription.
Now my academic reference was spotted when I read the part of the introduction to Mario Scalora.
quote:
Lincoln Journal STAR
Wednesday, October 6, 2017
Local Security Experts Cite Las Vegas Shooting
by Cory Matteson
He's written or co-written numerous journal articles centered around threat assessment factors and nonfactors - he and fellow UNL psychology professor Heath Hodges argued in a 2015 paper titled "Challenging the Political Assumption that " 'Guns Don't Kill People, Crazy People Kill People!' " that lawmakers would be better served "if they focused on dangerousness as a disqualifying criteria rather than mental illness" regarding firearm possessions, for instance.
Glad I found that one.
It sounds right to me.
At least there isn't slanderous discrimination involved. (with lots of negative consequences)
Eugene Robinson seems to want discrimination though.
quote:
Carnage Will Continue
by Eugene Robinson
If not now, then when? Everyone agrees we should do something about mental health, but we end up doing nothing. A long series of sad funerals ends the ritual.
Gun Control at any cost is bad gun control.
I used to like the idea of bipartisanship until I saw that it brings us the worst possible compromise.
(However, I actually like the fact that Democrats have given the GOP many tens of billions in military spending increases in return for upping the NIH funding a few billion a year higher. The NIH is up to $36 billion in federal support now, so that is cool. It used to get cut or held frozen year after year)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5086 by Phat, posted 10-05-2017 12:14 PM Phat has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024