Just some food for thought...

[Clementine]

I've been seeing a lot of the network news shows talking about football injuries, especially head injuries, and suggesting that there is a strong link between that and the number of violent acts, including murder and suicide, committed by past players.

Yet, there is no discussion on the fact that many of the shooters in the mass killings were on anti-depressant drugs, which all have the potential for serious side effects, including violent behavior. Even the Chantix drug to help smokers quit can have dangerous side effects that affect a person's mood and behavior.

While the media focuses on video games and vilifying gun owners and advocates of the right to bear arms, they don't mention the state of mind of the violent offenders and what might have caused them to act that way. People who have a tendency toward violence, whether due to mental illness or side effects, pose a threat to the public. The Colorado shooter was also adept at making bombs and could have easily taken out everyone in the theater. Or he could have blocked the rear entrance and set a fire in the lobby, trapping everyone. I only bring that up to acknowledge the various options besides a gun. If a person is sick and determined, no good will come of it and there are worse things than guns should someone seek to murder. And once they decided to kill, they will do it by any means necessary.

While there are many factors and no two cases are exactly alike, prescription drugs seem to be a common link in many cases. Another thing that school shooters have in common is the feeling of being shunned by the school. Many were suspended at the time they attacked. Many had been bullied. We need to spot potential trouble before it happens. Attacking any problem at the root is always the wise choice.

The big pharmacies, even under strict government control, don't consistently put out safe drugs. There have been countless times when I've seen commercials for the latest and greatest medication, only to have them stop and shortly after were replaced by ads from lawyers asking people to join a class action lawsuit. My aunt was on 13 different medications. When she would develope new symptoms, she was always diagnosed with having another ailment, despite the fact that her symptoms were listed on several of her current meds as side effects.

Pharmacies sometimes seem to "own" doctors and hospitals. The offices are always full of items advertising for certain companies and sometimes, companies even supply them with expensive equipment. Strings are always attached. Many are loyal to certain companies and will always push their drugs. I, personally, don't believe most people really need all the meds they are on. If drugs actually made people better, the companies wouldn't sell as many. Now, the claim is that the drugs merely help them maintain health, which is true with some, such as blood pressure meds or heart pills. I think many are just the more expensive route for the insurance companies rather than the best choice for the patient.

I know people who are on meds for high cholesterol for life. Seems to me that the thing to do would be to change your diet, but instead, people are happy taking a pill and continuing their same eating habits. Of course, that would not keep big pharms going if people took more control over their own health. These days, there is a pill for everything and they have replaced self-discipline and breaking habits. Kids diagnosed with ADHD are given drugs and the parents are given money for a disabled child. A lifetime solution to what may have been a temporary problem, if handled correctly. I think many cases are simply the result of a bad diet and lack of discipline on part of the parents.

I think there are too many people taking too many prescription drugs and we keep learning the hard way that many of them have disastrous side effects.

There are so many things that affect peoples' attitudes. Constant exposure to violent movies and video games, lack of discipline, mental illness and too many pills add up to some mixed up individuals. Add bullying, abusive parents and other issues and you might have the recipe for a killer.

Treating the symptoms might only compound the problem. It's like pretending that the side effects are illnesses and treating them, only to cause more side effects.

What a vicious cycle with no end in sight.

 

[blackhawk]

That has been a question that has been ignored a great deal everyone is quick to jump on the weapon used but no one seems very interested in finding out what sent them down the road they went and how to prevent other's from going down the same road.

 

[Clementine]

That has been a question that has been ignored a great deal everyone is quick to jump on the weapon used but no one seems very interested in finding out what sent them down the road they went and how to prevent other's from going down the same road.

That needs to be the issue being discussed first, yet I hear little about why some people snap. We will never be able to tackle the problem until we put our focus where it needs to be. Identifying potential dangers isn't rocket science, as the signs are present. It's a matter of recognizing them and taking action before we have needless tragedies. We will never stop them all, but we could do far better than we are now.

As it is, they are coming up with fake solutions that affect law abiding citizens and will not stop any future attacks. Either they are ignorant, or are just using this to advance another agenda.

 

[blackhawk]

That has been a question that has been ignored a great deal everyone is quick to jump on the weapon used but no one seems very interested in finding out what sent them down the road they went and how to prevent other's from going down the same road.

That needs to be the issue being discussed first, yet I hear little about why some people snap. We will never be able to tackle the problem until we put our focus where it needs to be. Identifying potential dangers isn't rocket science, as the signs are present. It's a matter of recognizing them and taking action before we have needless tragedies. We will never stop them all, but we could do far better than we are now.

As it is, they are coming up with fake solutions that affect law abiding citizens and will not stop any future attacks. Either they are ignorant, or are just using this to advance another agenda.

Going after the guns is the easy target pardon the pun that will always have some degree of popular support to deal with the mental issues involved you would have to be able to legally have a person involuntarily committed that is a very slippery slope no one especially politicians won't to deal with.

 

[Clementine]

That has been a question that has been ignored a great deal everyone is quick to jump on the weapon used but no one seems very interested in finding out what sent them down the road they went and how to prevent other's from going down the same road.

That needs to be the issue being discussed first, yet I hear little about why some people snap. We will never be able to tackle the problem until we put our focus where it needs to be. Identifying potential dangers isn't rocket science, as the signs are present. It's a matter of recognizing them and taking action before we have needless tragedies. We will never stop them all, but we could do far better than we are now.

As it is, they are coming up with fake solutions that affect law abiding citizens and will not stop any future attacks. Either they are ignorant, or are just using this to advance another agenda.

Going after the guns is the easy target pardon the pun that will always have some degree of popular support to deal with the mental issues involved you would have to be able to legally have a person involuntarily committed that is a very slippery slope no one especially politicians won't to deal with.

It takes the signature of two people to have a person committed temporarily for an evaluation. That would be a start, but we need to educate the public to what the signs are and encourage people to take action if they are concerned about the mental well-being of someone or if they see signs of irrational behavior or talk of threats or killing.

 

[blackhawk]

That needs to be the issue being discussed first, yet I hear little about why some people snap. We will never be able to tackle the problem until we put our focus where it needs to be. Identifying potential dangers isn't rocket science, as the signs are present. It's a matter of recognizing them and taking action before we have needless tragedies. We will never stop them all, but we could do far better than we are now.

As it is, they are coming up with fake solutions that affect law abiding citizens and will not stop any future attacks. Either they are ignorant, or are just using this to advance another agenda.

Going after the guns is the easy target pardon the pun that will always have some degree of popular support to deal with the mental issues involved you would have to be able to legally have a person involuntarily committed that is a very slippery slope no one especially politicians won't to deal with.

It takes the signature of two people to have a person committed temporarily for an evaluation. That would be a start, but we need to educate the public to what the signs are and encourage people to take action if they are concerned about the mental well-being of someone or if they see signs of irrational behavior or talk of threats or killing.

One of the things I remember hearing was the mother of the Newton shooter was concerned about his behavior and was trying to get him committed or at least to see someone but he refused and there was no way for her to force the issue.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Going after the guns is the easy target pardon the pun that will always have some degree of popular support to deal with the mental issues involved you would have to be able to legally have a person involuntarily committed that is a very slippery slope no one especially politicians won't to deal with.

It takes the signature of two people to have a person committed temporarily for an evaluation. That would be a start, but we need to educate the public to what the signs are and encourage people to take action if they are concerned about the mental well-being of someone or if they see signs of irrational behavior or talk of threats or killing.

One of the things I remember hearing was the mother of the Newton shooter was concerned about his behavior and was trying to get him committed or at least to see someone but he refused and there was no way for her to force the issue.

I've heard the same, but i'll wait for all the evidence to be presented after the investigation is complete.

But, if it is true, then she shares a big responsibilty by keeping her weapons readily available, and not locked away or removed from the home altogether, if she knew just how whacked he was.

We don't have all the evidence presented, the investigation is still going on...For all we know, she may have had those weapons locked away, and the only way he may have been able to get hold of them to commit his deed, was by killing her first.

Whatever the invesigation ultimately reveals, this kid was going to kill by whatever means necessary.......guns or no guns.

One thing is for sure.....we are now seeing this nations worst generation coming of age.

 

[Clementine]

Going after the guns is the easy target pardon the pun that will always have some degree of popular support to deal with the mental issues involved you would have to be able to legally have a person involuntarily committed that is a very slippery slope no one especially politicians won't to deal with.

It takes the signature of two people to have a person committed temporarily for an evaluation. That would be a start, but we need to educate the public to what the signs are and encourage people to take action if they are concerned about the mental well-being of someone or if they see signs of irrational behavior or talk of threats or killing.

One of the things I remember hearing was the mother of the Newton shooter was concerned about his behavior and was trying to get him committed or at least to see someone but he refused and there was no way for her to force the issue.

It's possible that the options vary from state to state. One person alone can't commit someone, though if the child is a minor, a parent should be able to talk to the family doctor and find out how to get help for the child. Of course, most people will refuse help if they can, but the people who are aware of an individual with mental illness need to be aggressive.

Of course, laws are meant to protect us all from being committed because some ex wants to get even or something like that, but there needs to be a good system for people to alert the system and have action taken. Those closest to the people are the ones who will see a problem first. That can be parents, friends, teachers or anyone who spends time with the person. It's sad when we hear after the shootings that the shooter was troubled for a long time, anti-social, talked about killing or showed other warning signs that they were both mentally unstable and potentially violent.

There are probably a lot of people right now who are concerned about someone and fear the person is ready to snap. Now is the time to talk to others who know the person and sign papers to have them evaluated. If doctors deem the person may be a danger to themselves or others, they should be able to commit the person.

Of course, congress and the states aren't going to start talking about mentally ill time bombs because no one wants to hear that or think that their own troubled teen might fit the description. And it serves no purpose to politicians to really get to the root of the problem. They need something that supports a specific agenda. All campaigns center around some major crisis that they can blame someone for.

Mental health and the possible role of big Pharms in that doesn't interest them, so they talk about guns. They attempt to make people afraid of gun owners while ignoring the real threats.

 

[waltky]

Gov't. looking into side-effects of Chantix...

FDA reviews psychiatric side effects of Chantix
Apr 25,`14 WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Food and Drug Administration announced Friday it will hold a public meeting in October to review the risks of psychiatric and behavioral side effects with Pfizer's anti-smoking drug Chantix.

The agency said in a federal notice it will convene its panel of psychiatric drug experts to discuss the pill's risks and how to best manage them. Since 2009 Chantix has carried the government's strongest safety warning - a "black box" label - because of links to hostility, agitation, depression and suicidal thoughts. The warning was added after the FDA received dozens of reports of suicide and hundreds of reports of suicidal behavior among patients taking the smoking-cessation drug. At that time, the FDA also required Pfizer to conduct additional studies to determine the extent of the side effects.

A spokeswoman for Pfizer said Friday that the company recently submitted new data to the FDA designed to establish the drug's safety compared with placebo and other anti-smoking therapies. "Pfizer has proposed an update to the Chantix labeling based on these new data, which, we believe, would better reflect the product's safety profile as it pertains to neuropsychiatric symptoms," said Victoria Davis, in a statement.

The New York drugmaker's FDA submission includes data pooled from multiple Pfizer studies along with studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The two federally-funded studies, released in 2011, did not show an increased rate of psychiatric hospitalizations among more than 26,000 Chantix patients when compared with patients using nicotine patches and other smoking cessation treatments. The studies only recorded psychiatric problems that resulted in hospitalization, meaning many issues likely went unreported, according to the authors.

Chantix works by binding to the same spots in the brain that are activated by nicotine when people smoke. The drug, known chemically as varenicline, blocks nicotine from binding to those spots and causes the release of a "feel-good" brain chemical called dopamine.

The FDA first began investigating potential side effects with Chantix in 2007, the year after the twice-a-day pill hit the market. The drug's labeling tells patients to stop taking Chantix immediately if they experience agitation, depressed mood, suicidal thinking and other behavioral changes. Doctors are advised to weigh the drug's risks against its potential benefits in helping patients quit smoking. Chantix had global sales of $648 million last year. That was down about 26 percent from the drug's peak sales of $883 million in 2007, its first full year on the market. Shares of Pfizer Inc. rose 4 cents to close at $30.75 in trading.

AP Newswire | Stars and Stripes