Most people rarely think about the role meds play in such tragedies. Thoughts run along the lines of "Just goes to show you how nuts he was" and "Imagine if he wouldn't have been on meds...he'd have slaughtered an entire village."

Tragic. I'm sure lexapro is a bad trip, and yet what troubles me is that the chair of the psychiatry department argues that what was most troubling was the lack of prescribed antipsychotics in the victim, drugs the Chair of the Psychiatry department describes as being prescribed "to help people cope with aggression, psychosis, hostility and hallucinations." Aggression and hostility cannot be controlled by drugs. Sure the horrible sedation of Geodon, Risperdal or Seroquel might physically debilitate, but these are weapons not treatment as we've seen with their recent usage to physically control deportees.

Think about what the word mad means in common usage. It means angry. People get angry for a reason. Wonder what the cop did to the child he murdered that provoked that child into hitting him with a baseball bat. Cop picking on the kids in the "emotionally disturbed" class maybe. And then giving the kid lexapro, a drug which causes paranoia. What happens when you make an angry person paranoid?

And of course underlying the whole thing, the paper blames the teen for not taking his meds properly. If the kid was as nuts as the article claims, how could he be responsible for taking meds? And what is the possibility that the school never even told the kid's poor hispanic family what his label was? Bet it was schizophrenia, or schizoaffective (which has actually been determined not to exist, see thelastpsychiatrist.com). Classic example of a child murdered by his bullshit psychiatric label and everyone that participated in the labeling system.

I agree Lexapro can be weird stuff. My daughter was placed on it three or so years ago and became homicidal/suicidal within one day. Off to the hospital for her. And off the drug, and on to Lamictal. Another bad chapter.

What is unusual about this case is that the Medical Examiner thought the high level of Lexapro could have caused the boy to become paranoid.

Do you suppose the Medical Examiner looked in the Physicians Desk Reference and found it was listed as a side effect for Lexapro - and not a rare side effect either.

One never knows.

Also, this tragic story is an example of how children/adolescents are being harmed by the SSRIs.

On www.SSRIstories.com there are now 43 school shooting/incidents involving SSRIs with a preponderance of the cases involving Prozac.

Right here in Texas there was a school stabbing three months ago where a 17 year old girl stabbed a friend and the principal. She tried to plead "innocent" because she had forgotten to take her Med for Depression that morning but, upon further questioning by the judge, she admitted that she had been taking her medication for depression at the time of HER OTHER TWO OFFENSES. That story can be read in full on www.SSRIstories.com/index.php by going to the date: 2008-02-29.

People who comment on this board, for example the person known as "Rosie", probably think I had some terrible tragedy happen in my family. The truth is that I did not have anything happen to my family because of Prozac/SSRIs. My husband and children, etc. are all fine. This is a "personal crusade" which I wish to keep confidential. But my heart goes out to all those who have lost a loved one and are posting on this site. They are brave people and I admire them.

Dearest Philip:

Ripley's Believe or Not! I used to take upto 80 mg of lexipro daily since it was the only antidepressant my body and mind could tolerate; of course until it quit working and the doctors were afraid to go any higher on the dose with the multitude of other drugs in my mind altering cocktail at the time.

So it goes back to that same old what is good for the gander may kill a whole other flock of geese. Though it’s moderately to highly possible the lexipro in this boy’s particular system was the trigger to aggression and psychotic behavior; there also maybe other extenuating circumstances that were in play here. I don’t believe the story gave us enough information and depth to make a direct connection in this case anywise. Just my two cents! Don’t spend it all in one place Dr. Dawdy {laughing}.

Yours truly
Stan

Current Depression Medications: Do The Benefits Outweigh the Harm?

Presently, for the treatment of depression and other what some claim are mental disorders, some of which are questionable, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are the drugs of choice by most prescribers. Such meds, meds that affect the mind, are called psychotropic medications. SSRIs also include a few meds in this class with the addition of a norepinephrine uptake inhibitor added to the SSRI, and these are referred to SNRI medications. Examples of SNRIs are Cymbalta and Effexor. Some consider these classes of meds a next generation after benzodiazepines, as there are similarities regarding their intake by others, yet the mechanisms of action are clearly different, but not their continued use and popularity by others.

Some Definitions:

Serotonin is a neurotransmitter thought to be associated with mood. The hypothesis was first suggested in the mid 1960s that this neurotransmitter may play a role in moods and emotions in humans. Yet to this day, the serotonin correlation with such behavioral and mental conditions is only theoretical. In fact, the psychiatrist’s bible, which is the DSM, states that the definite etiology of depression remains a mystery and is unknown. So a chemical imbalance in the brain is not proven to be the cause of mood disorders, it is only suspected with limited scientific evidence. In fact, diagnosing diseases such as depression is based on subjective assessment only, as interpreted by the prescriber, so one could question the accuracy of such diagnoses.

Norepinephrine is a stress hormone, which many believe help those who have such mood disorders as depression. Basically, with the theory that by adding this hormone, the SSRI will be more efficacious for a patient prescribed such a med.
And depression is only one of those mood disorders that may exist, yet possibly the most devastating one. An accurate diagnosis of these mood conditions lack complete accuracy as they can only be defined conceptually, so the diagnosis is dependent on subjective criteria, such as questionnaires. There is no objective diagnostic testing for depression. Yet the diagnosis of depression in patients has increased quite a bit over the decades. Also, few would argue that depression does not exist in other people. Yet, one may contemplate, actually how many other people are really depressed?

Several decades ago, less than 1 percent of the U.S. populations were thought to have depression. Today, it is believed that about 15 percent of the populations have depression at some time in their lives. Why this great increase in the growth of this condition remains unknown and is subject to speculation. What is known is that the psychiatry specialty is the one specialty most paid to by certain pharmaceutical companies for support of their psychotropic meds, as this industry clearly desires market growth of these products, as this objective is part of their nature. Regardless, SSRIs and SRNIs are the preferred treatment methods if depression or other mood disorders that may be suspected by a doctor. Yet these meds discussed clearly are not the only treatments, medicinally or otherwise, for depression treatment.

Over 30 million scripts of these types of meds are written annually, and the franchise is around 20 billion dollars a year, with some of the meds costing over 3 dollars per tablet. There are about ten different SSRI/SRNI meds available, many of which are now generic, yet essentially, they appear to be similar in regards to their efficacy and adverse events. The newest one, a SNRI called Pristiq, was approved in 2008, and is being promoted for treatment for menopause. The first one of these SSRI meds was Prozac, which was available in 1988, and the drug was greatly praised for its ability to transform the lives of those who consumed this medication in the years that followed. Some termed Prozac, ‘the happy pill’. In addition, as the years went by and more drugs in this class became available, Prozac was the one of preference for many doctors for children. A favorable book was published specifically regarding this medication soon after it became so popular with others.

Furthermore, these meds have received additional indications besides depression for some really questionable conditions, such as social phobia and premenstrual syndrome. With the latter, I find it hard to believe that a natural female experience can be considered a treatable disease. Social phobia is a personality trait, in my opinion, which has been called shyness or perhaps a term coined by Dr. Carl Jung, which is introversion, so this probably should not be labeled a treatable disease as well. There are other indications for certain behavioral manifestations as well with the different SSRIs or SRNIs. So the market continues to grow with these meds. Yet, it is believed that these meds are effective in only about half of those who take them, so they are not going to be beneficial for those suspected of having certain medical illnesses treated by such meds. The makers of such meds seemed to have created such conditions besides depression for additional utilization of these types of medications, and are active and have been active in forming symbiotic relationships with related disease specific groups, such as providing financial support for screenings for the indicated conditions of their meds- screening of children and adolescents in particular, I understand, and consider dangerous and inappropriate for several reasons.
Danger and concern primarily involves the adverse effects associated with these types of meds, which include suicidal thoughts and actions, violence, including acts of homicide, and aggression, among others, and the makers of such drugs are suspected to have known about these effects and did not share them with the public in a timely and critical manner. While most SSRIs and SNRIs are approved for use in adults only, prescribing these meds to children and adolescents has drawn the most attention and debate with others, such as those in the medical profession as well as citizen watchdog groups. The reasons for this attention are due to the potential off-label use of these meds in this population, yet what may be most shocking is the fact that some of the makers of these meds did not release clinical study information about the risks of suicide as well as the other adverse events related to such populations, including the decreased efficacy of SSRIs in general, which is believed to be less than 10 percent more effective than a placebo. Paxil caught the attention of the government regarding this issue of data suppression some time ago, this hiding such important information.

And there are very serious questions about the use of SSRIs in children and adolescents regarding the effects of these meds on them. For example, do the SSRIs correct or create brain states considered not within normal limits, which in effect could cause harm rather than benefit? Are adolescents really depressed, or just experiencing what was once considered normal teenage angst? Do SSRIs have an effect on the brain development and their identity of such young people? Do adolescents in particular become dangerous or bizarre due to SSRIs interfering with the myelination occurring in their still developing brains? No one seems to know the correct answer to such questions, yet the danger associated with the use of SSRIs does in fact exist. It is observed in some who take such meds, but not all who take these meds. Yet health care providers possibly should be much more aware of these possibilities
Finally, if SSRIs are discontinued, immediately in particular instead of a gradual discontinuation, withdrawals are believed to be quite brutal, and may be a catalyst for suicide in itself, as not only are these meds habit forming, but discontinuing these meds, I understand, leaves the brain in a state of neurochemical instability, as the neurons are recalibrating upon discontinuation of the SSRI that altered the brain of the consumer of this type of med. This occurs to some degree with any psychotropic med, yet the withdrawals can reach a state of danger for the victim in some classes of meds such as SSRIs, it is believed.

SSRIs and SRNIs have been claimed by doctors and patients to be extremely beneficial for the patient’s well -being regarding the patient’s mental issues where these types of meds are used, yet the risk factors associated with this class of medications may outweigh any perceived benefit for the patient taking such a drug. Considering the lack of efficacy that has been demonstrated objectively, along with the deadly adverse events with these meds only recently brought to the attention of others, other treatment options should probably be considered, but that is up to the discretion of the prescriber.

“I use to care, but now I take a pill for that.” --- Author unknown

Dan Abshear

Current Depression Medications: Do The Benefits Outweigh the Harm?

Presently, for the treatment of depression and other what some claim are mental disorders, some of which are questionable, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are the drugs of choice by most prescribers. Such meds, meds that affect the mind, are called psychotropic medications. SSRIs also include a few meds in this class with the addition of a norepinephrine uptake inhibitor added to the SSRI, and these are referred to SNRI medications. Examples of SNRIs are Cymbalta and Effexor. Some consider these classes of meds a next generation after benzodiazepines, as there are similarities regarding their intake by others, yet the mechanisms of action are clearly different, but not their continued use and popularity by others.

Some Definitions:

Serotonin is a neurotransmitter thought to be associated with mood. The hypothesis was first suggested in the mid 1960s that this neurotransmitter may play a role in moods and emotions in humans. Yet to this day, the serotonin correlation with such behavioral and mental conditions is only theoretical. In fact, the psychiatrist’s bible, which is the DSM, states that the definite etiology of depression remains a mystery and is unknown. So a chemical imbalance in the brain is not proven to be the cause of mood disorders, it is only suspected with limited scientific evidence. In fact, diagnosing diseases such as depression is based on subjective assessment only, as interpreted by the prescriber, so one could question the accuracy of such diagnoses.

Norepinephrine is a stress hormone, which many believe help those who have such mood disorders as depression. Basically, with the theory that by adding this hormone, the SSRI will be more efficacious for a patient prescribed such a med.
And depression is only one of those mood disorders that may exist, yet possibly the most devastating one. An accurate diagnosis of these mood conditions lack complete accuracy as they can only be defined conceptually, so the diagnosis is dependent on subjective criteria, such as questionnaires. There is no objective diagnostic testing for depression. Yet the diagnosis of depression in patients has increased quite a bit over the decades. Also, few would argue that depression does not exist in other people. Yet, one may contemplate, actually how many other people are really depressed?
Several decades ago, less than 1 percent of the U.S. populations were thought to have depression. Today, it is believed that about 15 percent of the populations have depression at some time in their lives. Why this great increase in the growth of this condition remains unknown and is subject to speculation. What is known is that the psychiatry specialty is the one specialty most paid to by certain pharmaceutical companies for support of their psychotropic meds, as this industry clearly desires market growth of these products, as this objective is part of their nature. Regardless, SSRIs and SRNIs are the preferred treatment methods if depression or other mood disorders that may be suspected by a doctor. Yet these meds discussed clearly are not the only treatments, medicinally or otherwise, for depression treatment.

Over 30 million scripts of these types of meds are written annually, and the franchise is around 20 billion dollars a year, with some of the meds costing over 3 dollars per tablet. There are about ten different SSRI/SRNI meds available, many of which are now generic, yet essentially, they appear to be similar in regards to their efficacy and adverse events. The newest one, a SNRI called Pristiq, was approved in 2008, and is being promoted for treatment for menopause. The first one of these SSRI meds was Prozac, which was available in 1988, and the drug was greatly praised for its ability to transform the lives of those who consumed this medication in the years that followed. Some termed Prozac, ‘the happy pill’. In addition, as the years went by and more drugs in this class became available, Prozac was the one of preference for many doctors for children. A favorable book was published specifically regarding this medication soon after it became so popular with others.

Furthermore, these meds have received additional indications besides depression for some really questionable conditions, such as social phobia and premenstrual syndrome. With the latter, I find it hard to believe that a natural female experience can be considered a treatable disease. Social phobia is a personality trait, in my opinion, which has been called shyness or perhaps a term coined by Dr. Carl Jung, which is introversion, so this probably should not be labeled a treatable disease as well. There are other indications for certain behavioral manifestations as well with the different SSRIs or SRNIs. So the market continues to grow with these meds. Yet, it is believed that these meds are effective in only about half of those who take them, so they are not going to be beneficial for those suspected of having certain medical illnesses treated by such meds. The makers of such meds seemed to have created such conditions besides depression for additional utilization of these types of medications, and are active and have been active in forming symbiotic relationships with related disease specific groups, such as providing financial support for screenings for the indicated conditions of their meds- screening of children and adolescents in particular, I understand, and consider dangerous and inappropriate for several reasons.
Danger and concern primarily involves the adverse effects associated with these types of meds, which include suicidal thoughts and actions, violence, including acts of homicide, and aggression, among others, and the makers of such drugs are suspected to have known about these effects and did not share them with the public in a timely and critical manner. While most SSRIs and SNRIs are approved for use in adults only, prescribing these meds to children and adolescents has drawn the most attention and debate with others, such as those in the medical profession as well as citizen watchdog groups. The reasons for this attention are due to the potential off-label use of these meds in this population, yet what may be most shocking is the fact that some of the makers of these meds did not release clinical study information about the risks of suicide as well as the other adverse events related to such populations, including the decreased efficacy of SSRIs in general, which is believed to be less than 10 percent more effective than a placebo. Paxil caught the attention of the government regarding this issue of data suppression some time ago, this hiding such important information.

And there are very serious questions about the use of SSRIs in children and adolescents regarding the effects of these meds on them. For example, do the SSRIs correct or create brain states considered not within normal limits, which in effect could cause harm rather than benefit? Are adolescents really depressed, or just experiencing what was once considered normal teenage angst? Do SSRIs have an effect on the brain development and their identity of such young people? Do adolescents in particular become dangerous or bizarre due to SSRIs interfering with the myelination occurring in their still developing brains? No one seems to know the correct answer to such questions, yet the danger associated with the use of SSRIs does in fact exist. It is observed in some who take such meds, but not all who take these meds. Yet health care providers possibly should be much more aware of these possibilities
Finally, if SSRIs are discontinued, immediately in particular instead of a gradual discontinuation, withdrawals are believed to be quite brutal, and may be a catalyst for suicide in itself, as not only are these meds habit forming, but discontinuing these meds, I understand, leaves the brain in a state of neurochemical instability, as the neurons are recalibrating upon discontinuation of the SSRI that altered the brain of the consumer of this type of med. This occurs to some degree with any psychotropic med, yet the withdrawals can reach a state of danger for the victim in some classes of meds such as SSRIs, it is believed.

SSRIs and SRNIs have been claimed by doctors and patients to be extremely beneficial for the patient’s well -being regarding the patient’s mental issues where these types of meds are used, yet the risk factors associated with this class of medications may outweigh any perceived benefit for the patient taking such a drug. Considering the lack of efficacy that has been demonstrated objectively, along with the deadly adverse events with these meds only recently brought to the attention of others, other treatment options should probably be considered, but that is up to the discretion of the prescriber.

“I use to care, but now I take a pill for that.” --- Author unknown

Dan Abshear

I'm 17, and I was put on psychiatric drugs for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder when I was 13. I went from traumatized to psychotic almost right away. They told me I was schizophrenic and put me on more. I got worse. Only when I secretly took myself off of them years later was I albe to function again.

Me: "Don't you think it's obvious? I was sane before the pills, and I became psychotic right after I was put on them. And as soon as they were out of my system, I became sane again. You're denying the drugs had anything to do with that??"



My Therapist: "The drugs must've cured you."



Me: "You told my mom that I was schizophrenic and that this would be ongoing, even with medication."



My therapist: "Body chemistry changes."

Me: "Why can't you just admit it. Those drugs were bad for me, and you knew it."

My Therapist: "Lucy, with this kind of attitude, you're not outpatient material." (she wanted to hospitalize me for disagreeing.)

While I was on the pills, they did everything they could to raise the dosages and put me on new ones. They even raised my seroquel because I had bad periods. Ridiculous, no? And while I was in the hospital, their "treatment" was TERRIBLE. If you cried too much, they'd take you down and inject you with thorazine and restrain you or put you in a seclusion room. (That's the last thing you need after being injected with Thorazine.)



Mental Health treament needs some major improvements, at least where I am. I'm just glad (no thanks to them) that I'm okay now. And my heart goes out to all the people going through what I went through.