Quebec City mosque shooter was taking Paroxetine at the time of the murders

[[Rx...]]

I do believe there is a tendency with too many to pounce upon white males in general at any given opportunity.  No race or gender should be a target of generalizations, but it goes on and on in our world.  Sigh.

 

I also think the thing about any bias is that it is pretty obvious to anyone with their thinking cap on.

[[Lo...]]

Stop blaming mental illness for mass shootings

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/9/16618472/mental-illness-gun-homicide-mass-shootings

[[La...]]

Can I just point out that we have a very different history, culture and rate of gun-related crime in Canada compared to the U.S. ? It is very unusual for us to have a mass shooting here, and this particular one was quite shocking based on the details. As we learn more about the shooter during this sentencing hearing, we can understand more about why it happened. Applying generalizations doesn't make sense. You have to look at the details of this particular case.

 

 

[[Lo...]]

Can I just point out that we have a very different history, culture and rate of gun-related crime in Canada compared to the U.S. ? It is very unusual for us to have a mass shooting here, and this particular one was quite shocking based on the details. As we learn more about the shooter during this sentencing hearing, we can understand more about why it happened. Applying generalizations doesn't make sense. You have to look at the details of this particular case.

 

Right. This point is not lost on me. The mass shootings in Canada have been extremely rare. Since there are quite a few Canadians on psychiatric drugs and so few shootings like this, there doesn't seem to be a correlation between psychiatric drugs use and mass shootings in your country. Based on that, and based on the sources you've provided, there are so many factors here that have nothing to with psychiatric drugs, so I fail to see why there is so much attention given to the shooter's use of psychiatric medications when there have been so many other factors at play.

 

Sadly, he seems to be a copycat murderer with poorly understood motives, who is probably going to try to blame it on his alleged mental illness that fueled his alleged Islamophobia in order to get a lesser sentence.

 

[Guest [Kp...]]

Can I just point out that we have a very different history, culture and rate of gun-related crime in Canada compared to the U.S. ?

 

Canada has a population of 30 million. There were 4 incidents of mass shootings in Canada between the period 2014 to 2018, by single perpetrators, in which more than 4 people were killed in a public place, with no motive for the shootings established till today. There have thus been 0.89  mass shootings per year for unknown reasons since 2014 in Canada. source 1

 

USA has a population of 300 million. There were 10 incidents of mass shootings in USA between the period 2014 to 2018, by single perpetrators, in which more than 4 people were killed in a public place, with no motive for the shootings established till today. There have thus been .22  mass shootings per year for unknown reasons since 2014 in USA (were USA to be of the population of Canada). source 2

 

India has a population of 1300 million. There were 0 incidents of mass shootings in India between the period 2014 to 2018, by single perpetrators, in which more than 4 people were killed in a public place, with no motive for the shootings established till today. There have thus been 0  mass shootings per year for unknown reasons since 2014 (were India to be of the population of Canada). source 3

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dr. Peter Breggin comments - This confirms my warnings about the alarming levels of materialism in Canadian culture. Prohibitive school and college tuition fees, lack of state subsidies, free American pork and chinese electronic gadgets has led to the alienation of the Canadian youth, making Canada the most violent nation on Earth. India, because it still nurtures ancient wisdom, is the safest.

 

Applying generalizations doesn't make sense.

 

When the Nazis refused to generalize that all humans were the same, the crop that they thought were inferior, were transformed by Nature into the most superior mankind has ever seen.

[[La...]]

Can I just point out that we have a very different history, culture and rate of gun-related crime in Canada compared to the U.S. ? It is very unusual for us to have a mass shooting here, and this particular one was quite shocking based on the details. As we learn more about the shooter during this sentencing hearing, we can understand more about why it happened. Applying generalizations doesn't make sense. You have to look at the details of this particular case.

 

Right. This point is not lost on me. The mass shootings in Canada have been extremely rare. Since there are quite a few Canadians on psychiatric drugs and so few shootings like this, there doesn't seem to be a correlation between psychiatric drugs use and mass shootings in your country. Based on that, and based on the sources you've provided, there are so many factors here that have nothing to with psychiatric drugs, so I fail to see why there is so much attention given to the shooter's use of psychiatric medications when there have been so many other factors at play.

 

Sadly, he seems to be a copycat murderer with poorly understood motives, who is probably going to try to blame it on his alleged mental illness that fueled his alleged Islamophobia in order to get a lesser sentence.

 

Actually, LorazepamFree, there isn't much attention being given to the shooter's use of psychiatric medications. The French media paid some attention, but the English media didn't -- at least, according to the major publications I've shared here. I find that point interesting. The question is worth asking, though, since some people react very badly to these medications. If the medication contributed to his state of mind at the time, then that's a relevant fact.

 

If you read the another story here in the News section about David Carmichael -- also a Canadian man -- then you'll know that he, too, was on Paxil when he strangled his son to death. He was considered "Not Criminally Responsible" for his crime based on his mental state at the time, although I believe the medications were not discussed as the cause of that mental state. (My understanding is that the lawyers felt it would be impossible to prove.) So, we have to look at other acts of violence towards self and others, based on what has been noted in the literature on this topic. We're not just looking at shootings -- and certainly not just mass shootings -- when it comes to these medications.

 

By the way, Alexandre Bissonnette has already pleaded guilty to, and taken responsibility for, the six murders, but we have yet to see how he will be sentenced. That's up to the judge. He will get at least life in prison, with no eligibility for parole for at least 25 years, but the other lawyers are arguing for him to get six consecutive life sentences, i.e. 150 years, which has never happened here. We have to wait and see what the judge says when he hands down the sentence.

[[Fl...]]

Most what you posted is unsubstantiated confimation bias. The only resources you have ever provided to  claim your case is Robert Whitaker's "Anatomy of an Epidemic", (and Robert Whitaker is a journalist and not a doctor), as well as Dr. Peter Breggin, whose license is questionable (see the sources below). Can you prove to me that these psych drugs cause mass shootings? I'd love to read what you come up with.

 

I can't prove it and I never claimed to be able to. But it is a bit of an odd coincidence that many if not most of these shooters are on psych drugs at the time of the shootings, don't you think?

 

This idea that we shouldn't try to look for patterns and correlations without having a mountain of scientific evidence to back something up is very disturbing to me. Most people here know that benzos (and other psych drugs) can cause severe, debilitating and sometimes protracted neurological problems that can last for years, yet the scientific and medical communities will tell you that this is impossible. By your logic we shouldn't warn anyone of the dangers of these drugs since we have no way to prove it. And with the mass shooting thing I am not saying "X causes Y", I am just saying that there seems to be a strong correlation, and I think it is in everyone's best interest to look into this.

 

As my therapist said, it comes down to underlying personalities. Some people are just more aggressive and violent by nature, psych drugs or not.

 

Which of course does absolutely nothing to explain why the mass shooting thing has only been a problem for the past 30 years or so. Were people less violent in the 50's, 60's and 70's? Of course not. But during that time divorce and the use of psych drugs has skyrocketed. Something else is going on and taking away guns and ignoring the social problems (and possibly the mountain of DRUGS that people are on) that are very likely the root cause of it is foolish.

 

Your posts dangerously border on anti-psychiatry, anti-medicine end. If you are so anti-medication, why did you take it in the first place?

 

Suggesting there might be a link between mass shootings and psych drugs is anti-whatever? Get real man. Have you taken a look around here lately? These drugs have caused thousands of people untold amounts of suffering. They have ruined lives and in some cases even claimed lives. "Suicidal thoughts and actions" are a well documented side effect of many of these drugs. Is it really a stretch to think that they couldn't be a trigger to make people want to take the lives of others?

 

Apparently, you have missed this piece, also, so I will re-post it.

 

https://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/breggin.html

 

Breggin's Background

Peter R. Breggin, M.D., is a Harvard College graduate who obtained his medical degree from Case Western Reserve Medical School in 1962. After training in psychiatry at Harvard and State University of New York Upstate Medical Center (Syracuse), he worked for two years at the National Institute of Mental Health. Since 1968, he has practiced psychiatry in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area [14]. Breggin describes his private practice as "psychotherapy for individuals, couples, and families, including children," with "subspecialties" in "the adverse effects of medications, electroshock, and psychosurgery" and "forensic psychiatry and patient rights." [15] In 2002, his online resumé stated that he had testified as an expert in about 40 cases, many of which involved psychiatric drugs, FDA regulations, and product liability [15]. His 18 books, most written for the general public, attack psychosurgery, electroconvulsive therapy ("shock treatments"), Prozac, Ritalin, and the use of psychiatric drugs in general.

 

In 1972, Breggin founded The International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP), a nonprofit organization "concerned with the impact of mental health theory and practices upon individual well-being, personal freedom, and family and community values." [15] ICSPP's 2000 federal tax report states that its primary purpose is to gather and distribute information about the "hazards of bio-medical model of psychiatry." [16] Other information I found on the Internet states that ICSPP had one part time employee [17] and less than $25,000 in annual income throughout most of its existence [16]. Breggin also launched Ethical Human Sciences and Services, a journal that began publication in 1999. He is also been listed on the advisory board of Network Against Coercive Psychiatry, an anti-psychiatry organization whose home page asserts that the "mental health establishment has conned the American people."

 

Breggin's Web site states that he "has been informing the professions, media and the public about the potential dangers of drugs, electroshock, psychosurgery, involuntary treatment, and the biological theories of psychiatry for over three decades." [14] The back cover of his Ritalin Fact Book describes him as "the conscience of psychiatry." [12] I believe it would be more accurate to characterize him as a harmful nuisance whose views can undermine trust in the medical profession and frighten people away from helpful treatment.

 

A Bit of Puffery?

Breggin's resumé and other biographical reports describe him as a Diplomate of the National Board of Medical Examiners; a "Specialist in Psychiatry" recognized by the State of Maryland, Department of Mental Health and Hygiene, Board of Physician Quality Assurance; a Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Medicine; and a Fellow of the American College of Forensic Examiners. He also states that he is (or has been) on the editorial board of six peer-reviewed journals and has published more than 25 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Although these accomplishments might sound impressive, they actually are much less than they might seem.

 

Breggin is not certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, which is the recognized agency for certifying psychiatrists.

Having completed three years of psychiatric training, Breggin is entitled to call himself a psychiatrist or a "specialist in psychiatry." Until 1996, the Maryland Board of Quality Assurance maintained a list of "identified" specialists. Anyone who completed an approved training program was eligible for listing. No special examination or additional qualifications were required.

To become licensed in the United States, every physician must pass an examination given by the National Board of Medical Examiners or an equivalent examination by a state licensing board. Thus being a "diplomate" of the National Board of Medical Examiners means nothing more than the fact that the doctor has passed a standard licensing exam. Most resumés I have seen do not list this credential.

The American Board of Forensic Examiners is not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), which is the recognized standard-setting organization. ABMS offers subspecialty certification in forensic psychiatry and forensic pathology, neither of which Breggin has achieved.

Only one of the six journals with which Breggin has been affiliated is significant enough to be listed in MEDLINE, the National Library of Medicine's principal online database.

On September 5, 2002, I found that Breggin had 33 citations listed in MEDLINE. None of these publications appears to be a research report. Eight were letters to the editor, two were books, and most of the rest were expressions of his opinion on various psychiatric topics.

 

So essentially Breggin is a fully certified medical doctor, but since he isn't a member of a trade organization he is a quack. LOL. That's some damning evidence there.

 

I should put my thinking hat on? I think you should take the blinders off your eyes.

 

[Guest [Kp...]]

 

I can't prove it and I never claimed to be able to. But it is a bit of an odd coincidence that many if not most of these shooters are on psych drugs at the time of the shootings, don't you think?

 

Come on FH!

 

80% of people who died of cancer were on cancer drugs.

 

Thus cancer drugs cause death in cancer patients.

 

I really cannot prove this! But it has to be true!

 

[[La...]]

Cancer is much different. What a strange comparison! We're talking about medications that are meant to cause changes in mental status. All of the psychiatric drugs work on neurotransmitters in the brain, and while some people seem to tolerate them okay, others do not. This cannot be disputed. Some people have terrible reactions to them, and most of us around here are examples of that.

 

With pharmacogenetic testing, we might soon be able to predict more accurately who will do okay with a given medication and who will not.

[[Fl...]]

Come on FH!

 

80% of people who died of cancer were on cancer drugs.

 

Thus cancer drugs cause death in cancer patients.

 

I really cannot prove this! But it has to be true!

 

I'm not sure what the disconnect is here. Correlation is not causation but it's a good place to start if you want to figure out how to solve a problem.

 

Mental illness has skyrocketed since the advent of psych drugs. Does that prove unequivocally that psych drugs cause mental illness? No, but it should cause us to start asking questions.

 

There seems to be a lot of pushback to the idea that these drugs can cause something as heinous as a mass shooting. I realize that some of you are still on these kinds of drugs so that might not be a pleasant thing to think about but I think most of us here agree that there are PROBLEMS with these drugs and I don't think it is wise to ignore any of these red flags.

[[Fl...]]

I get the impression that a lot of people here are willing to acknowledge that these drugs can be bad up to the point that they have been affected by them but they don't want to believe that they can be that bad.

[Guest [Kp...]]

Correlation is not causation but it's a good place to start if you want to figure out how to solve a problem.

 

Mental illness has skyrocketed since the advent of psych drugs. Does that prove unequivocally that psych drugs cause mental illness? No, but it should cause us to start asking questions.

So has cancer. So has the need for shoes after shoes were invented. So has the need for sports accessories, iphones and electronic cigarettes after each was invented. If we have been making more and more sports accessories, every year, it must mean that our ancestors hardly played any sports! If nobody wears shoes in India, it must mean Indians, unlike Americans, do not step outdoors! Is that the kind of correlation that you wish to start with to get anywhere in any analysis?

 

There seems to be a lot of pushback to the idea that these drugs can cause something as heinous as a mass shooting.

 

Of course! Psychiatric drugs save lives! Maybe not your life! Psychiatric drugs do not make people kill! You are not in danger! But still if you are intent upon getting psychiatric drugs banned, it would be only be natural to ask of you -- what is your beef with drugs that you do not use and have no concern with? Why this unnatural obsession with them? Pick another class of medicines please -- that Quebec guy was also on a proton pump inhibitor. Most such killers had been regularly consuming caffeine too.

 

I realize that some of you are still on these kinds of drugs so that might not be a pleasant thing to think about but I think most of us here agree that there are PROBLEMS with these drugs and I don't think it is wise to ignore any of these red flags.

 

I am not concerned about what you "think" about BB or its members. It is your prerogative to make assumptions about members here and act superstitious or even prejudiced.

[[Rx...]]

I get the impression that a lot of people here are willing to acknowledge that these drugs can be bad up to the point that they have been affected by them but they don't want to believe that they can be that bad.

 

I'm a person who has suffered many rare side effects of Rx medication.  This could be interpreted as fearmongering by some, but it's simply my truth.  I was luckily never troubled by violent urges towards others, but I think different brains can be affected differently.  Even if rare, rare does not equate to non-existent.

[Guest [Kp...]]

I get the impression that a lot of people here are willing to acknowledge that these drugs can be bad up to the point that they have been affected by them but they don't want to believe that they can be that bad.

 

"That bad" is a very vague term.

 

Can you cite me literature that says psychiatric drugs can cause violence? Where did this "corelatin" start in the first place.

 

If you are going to quote me Breggin or Whitwaker or Scientology then do not bother.

[[La...]]

There's obviously not going to be any agreement here, and I don't think we can look at this as a black or white question. The meds work for some and not for others. There are enough examples in the last few years of violence to self and others by people taking these drugs. Actually, the drug companies themselves included a black box warning with regards to young people for this very thing. So even THEY agree they drugs can be problematic for some.

 

Kpin, I didn't see anything about a proton pump inhibitor, so I'm not sure where that was written. The articles in French are questioning the possible role of the paroxetine in the shooter's behaviour, and while I can't translate them for everyone here, it is worthwhile for you to know that those articles are posing pertinent and pressing questions that have been considered before in medical literature, in the media and by those adversely affected by these medications. We're not pulling this out of a hat here! These questions are out there and have been so for awhile now.

 

So, for people who find the medications helpful, good! That's fine! I think people should have that option. But they can be very problematic for other people. So, again, it's not an all or nothing thing. I don't think anyone is talking about banning them.

[Guest [Kp...]]

There's obviously not going to be any agreement here, and I don't think we can look at this as a black or white question. The meds work for some and not for others. There are enough examples in the last few years of violence to self and others by people taking these drugs. Actually, the drug companies themselves included a black box warning with regards to young people for this very thing. So even THEY agree they drugs can be problematic for some.

 

Kpin, I didn't see anything about a proton pump inhibitor, so I'm not sure where that was written. The articles in French are questioning the possible role of the paroxetine in the shooter's behaviour, and while I can't translate them for everyone here, it is worthwhile for you to know that those articles are posing pertinent and pressing questions that have been considered before in medical literature, in the media and by those adversely affected by these medications. We're not pulling this out of a hat here! These questions are out there and have been so for awhile now.

 

AFAIK, the black box warnings are for self-harm.

 

Do throw some links about studies that suggest that these drugs might induce homicidal tendencies. Why is this fact not listed by canadian regulators? Because it is still in controversy? Clue me in here please.

[[be...]]

If you look at the end of this paper published by The International Society for Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry, based in the USA,  there are 21 studies correlating violence and psychiatric drugs:

 

http://psychintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/White-Paper-Psychiatric-Drugs-and-Violence.pdf

 

The International Society for Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry:  http://psychintegrity.org/

 

Here are some other studies:

 

Oct. 2016, BMJ, SSRIs double the risk of suicide and violence in healthy adults

https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5504.full

 

Sept. 2015, PLOS Medicine, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Violent Crime: A Cohort Study

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001875

 

Study, June 2015, Psychotropic drugs and homicide: A prospective cohort study from Finland:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4471985/

 

Sept. 2006, PLOS Medicine, Antidepressants and Violence: Problems at the Interface of Medicine and Law

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564177/

 

There are more.

[Guest [Kp...]]

OK, thanks! I'll check them out. Frankly I was not aware of this side of the argument.

[[be...]]

You're welcome.

[[Lo...]]

It's apparent to me that some of the members on this thread who have gotten off of psychiatric drugs have not exactly found the "promise land" that they were expecting, which people like Breggin and Whitaker were making them believe they would get to.

 

It is also apparent to me that some members on this thread here who have gotten off of their psychiatric drugs seem to have a very unhealthy obsession with media coverage of gun violence and seem to be so over-focused on the correlation of psychiatric drugs and violence to the extent that nothing else matters. I wonder why that is.

 

One would expect such folks who have gone through vicious psychiatric drug withdrawals and gone off their psychiatric drugs to maybe support the new members and help them out, rather than be so self-centered and just pump out these narratives of psych drugs and/or violence ad nauseum.

 

For those of you who are interested in correlation between psych drugs and violence to such an extent that nothing else really matters, why not go and find one of the 10,000 political or other media web sites and make your comments there and leave the rest of us alone and in peace? Why not "educate" people on those sites? Most people who come here are already on a mission to either reduce the number or dosages of the psychiatric drugs they are taking or trying to go off of them completely, and stories about mass shootings and psych drugs don't help such folks.

 

Also, if some of you on this thread are years off the psych drugs and claim to be much better off, why not just move on with your lives and forget the psychiatric drug chapter of your life and look forward to the better moments and better things to come your way?

 

The way it stands right now, some of you on this particular thread will never convince me that you are actually better off without psych drugs. Being several yeas off the psych drugs and getting so angry when someone dares to criticize Whitaker and Breggin is not a sign of a person who has an open mind and is appreciative to different perspectives and troubles people go through. It is a sign of someone who is still very angry and maybe needs to grieve his losses and find a path and a way that lets him move on, rather than lingering in the anger zone, permanently.

[[La...]]

benzohno, thanks for putting up all of those articles!

 

LorazepamFree, I'm not quite sure who you're pointing fingers at, but I put the articles up because we're just learning new information about the Quebec City shooter, now that the sentencing hearing is going on. I shared it here in the News section, because that's exactly where such information belongs.

 

Again, please bear in mind that there's no black and white here. Some people seem to be helped by these medications, while others aren't. They have known side effects, including lowered bone density, lowered sodium, dizziness and withdrawal effects, all of which I have suffered with. These meds were not good for me, but I wouldn't tell others what to do. I'd tell them to seek out the information and then make a decision based on what they know. That's it. No black or white.

 

In this very specific case, the questions remain about the reasons why this young man was so violent. As we learn more and as the judge eventually passes his sentence, we may have more to go on. But I suspect that we'll never really know. Such things are complicated and involve many factors, and it's not clear whether he was properly assessed before and after the crime.

 

With regards to medications, what I support is informed consent. If you know the possible side effects and withdrawal effects of a medication, and you choose to take it, then that's what matters. It's about choice.

[[Gr...]]

Lapis -thanks for posting this.  I had just read that he was on a AD in I think it was the Guardian, but I was unaware of the coverage the French press was doing.

 

It was the article about the Canadian Dad who killed his 11 year old that really brought it home for me.  It wasn't just homicidal thoughts,  it was a whole slew of paranoid thoughts and in his mind, he thought he was actually helping.  This, I believe, is what happens when people do kill and then afterwards are confused as to why they did it.

 

Also, I'd like to point out that you don't actually have to take drugs to get crazy like that, it just seems to be a quick route there for people who otherwise, were only having minor problems in life.  And that, to me, is way more dangerous than someone who is having mental problems their whole lives. 

[[be...]]

One more:

 

July, 2016, Forensic and Legal Medicine, The relevance of cytochrome P450 polymorphism in forensic medicine and akathisia-related violence and suicide.

 

http://www.jflmjournal.org/article/S1752-928X(16)30005-1/fulltext

 

There are many references following this article, including ones about pharmacogenetics, dating as far back as 2003, maybe 1999 if "genotyping" is the same as pharmacogenetics.

 

You're welcome Lapis!

[[La...]]

Lapis -thanks for posting this.  I had just read that he was on a AD in I think it was the Guardian, but I was unaware of the coverage the French press was doing.

 

It was the article about the Canadian Dad who killed his 11 year old that really brought it home for me.  It wasn't just homicidal thoughts,  it was a whole slew of paranoid thoughts and in his mind, he thought he was actually helping.  This, I believe, is what happens when people do kill and then afterwards are confused as to why they did it.

 

Also, I'd like to point out that you don't actually have to take drugs to get crazy like that, it just seems to be a quick route there for people who otherwise, were only having minor problems in life.  And that, to me, is way more dangerous than someone who is having mental problems their whole lives.

 

Thanks for your input, Green Cup. I, too, was quite affected by the David Carmichael story. I've read about it and seen a few videos in which he recounted his story. There's no doubt in his mind that the medication played  a huge role in what he did to his son, and he continues to be distraught about it all these years later.

 

What I'm hoping -- and this speaks to benzohno's post too -- is that there will be pharmacogenetic testing widely available so that doctors can better predict which medications will work or be better for a given person and which could be problematic. There are biological indicators, i.e. the CYP450 liver enzymes, that are different for each one of us, and we don't all metabolize medications in the same way.

[[Lo...]]

What I'm hoping -- and this speaks to benzohno's post too -- is that there will be pharmacogenetic testing widely available so that doctors can better predict which medications will work or be better for a given person and which could be problematic. There are biological indicators, i.e. the CYP450 liver enzymes, that are different for each one of us, and we don't all metabolize medications in the same way.

 

Thanks, Lapis2. I very much hope this will become a reality one day, as well.