I said I don't know the statistics. But what I asked was not "what % of shooting incidents are committed by antidepressant users?", but more like "what % of people taking antidepressants commit these atrocities?". I still don't know the answer, but I suspect it is something like 1 in 100,000, based on my observation that these drugs are widely prescribed and shooting rampages are pretty rare. If shooting rampages were a common side-effect of SSRI use, these drugs would be pulled off the market, no matter how much influence the drug companies have in Washington.
That's a warm, fuzzy, fantasy. Do you know the effort it took just to get a black-box warning put on antidepressants for kids? And how many research studies demonstrating adverse effects were occluded?
This list, which is not comprehensive- can't find two that happened in Texas- indicates that all is not well in Medville.
http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?sort=whatWhy don't we have the stats? We know the FDA and PharmCo aren't interested in those numbers.
So, who would be?
And how many cases were potentially drug-induced but no connection was considered or reported in the media? No toxicology report?
It might also be true that 90% of these crazed shooters were coffee drinkers. But that wouldn't prove cause and effect -- it would be foolish to infer that coffee drinking leads to shooting rampages.
It might also be true that 100% of the shooters took a shit every day. Drinking coffee and taking a shit don't create suicidal/homicidal/violent behavior, last I checked. Antidepressants can, and do.
Some of these drugs have been on the market for over 10 years, although clinical studies haven't tracked specific patients for that long.
Why? Again, who is really interested in the truth?
The side-effects must be weighed against the benefits by each individual. Some people would rather live with the side effects than suffer through life without the drug. What are the "side effects" of untreated chronic depression? Reduced quality of life? Maybe suicide? Maybe a homicidal shooting rampage?
If the "cure" is potentially as harmful as the "disease", might we be better off looking for alternatives that don't carry those side-effects? One shouldn't presume that consumers are educated on the side effects/risks. At the very least, they should be informed and warned that their symptoms could get worse and not better.
