Are you sharing hypotheses, then? Only i got the distinct impression you were claiming to be stating facts.Why? In which case no scientist would ever share a hypothesis.
It's a core tenet of scientific thought that you can't prove a negative. You really need to read those links I posted last time you were in the middle of owning yourself.I eagerly await your 'stone cold proof' that psychotropic medications have no causative association with school shootings. Perhaps it will be of the science you describe as necessary, and which does not exist.
I eagerly await your stone cold proof, or even any evidence to suggest that psychotropic medications are not both strongly and causatively associated with school shootings.It's a core tenet of scientific thought that you can't prove a negative. You really need to read those links I posted last time you were in the middle of owning yourself.
I started off my part in this debate by saying that I carry no brief for them. But I have considerable professional experience in the field, and that leads me to believe that they are neither as bad as the conspiraloons claim, nor as universally wonderful as some would have it, either. It's not about "trust".existentialist - Your trust in ant-depressants disturbs me... or have I just read too many tabloid scare stories?
Happy drug Prozac can bring on impulse to suicide, study says
Antidepressants linked to suicide and aggression in teens
I think the ant-depressants might play a part.... not as much as the guns though.
Your claim. Your obligation to supply proof.I eagerly await your stone cold proof, or even any evidence to suggest that psychotropic medications are not both strongly and causatively associated with school shootings.
There is some evidence to suggest that suicide risk, in particular, is somewhat increased after people commence on antidepressant medications, and that has been seized upon by the usual, ah, "special interest groups" as evidence that these drugs have murderous potential, but the likeliest reason is that people often find their motivation levels rise after commencing on ADs, quite often before their mood begins to lift...so you now have the combination of improved motivation and low mood - which would explain the potential increase in suicide attempts. Although it is possible that the picture is far more complex than that, especially given the role of things like placebo effect in medications of this type.
I have not seen any such rule in the FAQ. If there was such a rule, it would be absurd as this is a discussion forum.Your claim. Your obligation to supply proof.
Use and Abuse of the Precautionary PrincipleThe precautionary principle states that when there is reasonable suspicion of harm, lack of scientific certainty or consensus must not be used to postpone preventative action.
I have not seen any such rule in the FAQ. If there was such a rule, it would be absurd as this is a discussion forum.
In a scientific sense, which certainly applies in the case - the 'precautionary principle' requires action where proof does not exist:
Use and Abuse of the Precautionary Principle
In a decent society, we'd have a comprehensive early intervention and acute service that supported people throughout the progress of their difficulties.I agree with with the possible placebo effect (if people are aware a drug may make them suicidal/aggressive), but the first part about moods rising too fast... that would be a good reason to ban them and find alternative methods/drugs .... in a decent society.
In a decent society, we'd have a comprehensive early intervention and acute service that supported people throughout the progress of their difficulties.
this one?Yeah, that Gandhi quote springs to mind...
this one?
“Drugs and drink are the two arms of the devil with which he strikes his helpless slaves into stupefaction and intoxication.”
Not that, though I like that one.
(Despite being a bit stupefied by both right now)
Which one ? I know little about the cunt apart from he encouraged unarmed people to walk into gun fire until the ammunition ran out.
One of the big ones, Jeffrey Weise, 2005
RED LAKE, Minn., March 25 - In their sleepless search for answers, the family of Jeff Weise, the teenager who killed nine people and then himself, says it is left wondering about the drugs he was prescribed for his waves of depression.
On Friday, as Tammy Lussier prepared to bury Mr. Weise, who was her nephew, and her father, who was among those he killed, she found herself looking back over the last year, she said, when Mr. Weise began taking the antidepressant Prozac after a suicide attempt that Ms. Lussier described as a "cry for help."
"They kept upping the dose for him," she said, "and by the end, he was taking three of the 20 milligram pills a day. I can't help but think it was too much, that it must have set him off."
Lee Cook, another relative of Mr. Weise, said his medication had increased a few weeks before the shootings on Monday.
"I do wonder," Mr. Cook said, "whether on top of everything else he had going on in his life, on top of all the other problems, whether the drugs could have been the final straw."
Family Wonders if Prozac Prompted School Shootings
No.would he of killed 9 people without the gun Squirrel
[b]DR. JONATHAN METZL[/b] said:But I see it, at a policy level, as the height of irresponsibility to do what President Trump did yesterday, which is to make the discourse really—excuse me—about mental health, because, on a statistical level, people with mental illness, first of all, are far less likely than sane people to commit gun crimes. And even in the case of mass shootings, what we see is that even though we jump to this question of mental illness right away, many other factors are probably more explanatory—everything from social networks, ideologies, male gender, race, the access of firearms. And in that sense, these are very complicated policy questions. And so, I feel like what President Trump is doing when he shifts the conversation just to mental health, as he said, is to cynically shut down, I think, a real conversation about what we can really do as a society to stop mass shootings, and also just to stop gun crime, more broadly.
An argument against psychotropic drugs is not an argument for unrestricted gun access.right can i suggest reading more than the information present by your sources that validates your opinion before quoting them
See I'd 'like' that, if you didn't appear to be arguing: get rid of the meds and the gun problem goes awayAn argument against psychotropic drugs is not an argument for unrestricted gun access.
“For everyone, it was a distraction or a reprieve,” said the White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reflect internal conversations. “A lot of people here felt like it was a reprieve from seven or eight days of just getting pummeled.”
“But as we all know, sadly, when the coverage dies down a little bit, we’ll be back through the chaos,” the official said.