CONTINUED FROM LAST POST
I’ll summarize what Denninger said: The expected number of drug recipients who will undergo some sort of manic episode, which includes the subset that will turn into the kind of rage-monsters who do mass shootings is about 0.7%
more that can be charged to the drug than if you did nothing. Other drugs have similar profiles; Paxil is not remarkable in this regard.
Now 0.7% is pretty low. That is, 993 out of a 1000 can get a good outcome, but that other 7 in 1000 can have outcomes from bad to catastrophically bad.
As of 2005, about 27 million people in the US are on some sort of antidepressant carrying these risks. So if 0.7% of 27 million have a manic episode, that is about 189,000 persons a year who have a manic reaction. That’s horrifying. Assume 99% of these are caught by the medical profession who then stop the use of drugs, we are still left with 1890 people who are potential rage monsters capable of shooting up schools, theaters, shopping malls, etc. And we are surprised when we only get 5 of these episodes a year?
We created these rage monsters. We do this even knowing that the risk is materially higher for those under the age of 25 who are consuming these drugs. Again from the GSK Paxil document:
“Glaxo Smith Kline” said:
There has been a long-standing concern, however, that antidepressants may have a role in inducing worsening of depression and the emergence of suicidality in certain patients during the early phases of treatment. Pooled analyses of short-term placebo-controlled trials of antidepressant drugs (SSRIs and others) showed that these drugs increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults (ages 18-24) with major depressive disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Short-term studies did not show an increase in the risk of suicidality with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults beyond age 24;
So something changes around the age of 24-25 with these drugs and their interactions with the human mind. We don’t know what, but we do know that the risk of inducing mania while small is definitely not zero.
Yet we’re not bring that debate to the table. Victims of mass shootings are unable to sue the makers and prescribers of these drugs.
Denninger concludes:
Denninger:
We must have a discussion about this as a society. We might decide that out of the 27 million or more Americans taking these drugs that enough get benefit that we are willing to accept the occasional school or movie theater shooting gallery as the price of prescribing these drugs to those under the age of 24.
If so then we need to be honest about the trade-off we have made as a society and shut the hell up instead of dancing in the blood of dead children to score political points and destroy The Constitution.
But if not, and you can count my vote among the “No” votes in this regard, then we must ban these substances from those under the age of 24 until we understand what’s different among that age group that alters the risk unless and except those persons are under continual professional supervision such as (name removed by moderator)atient hospitalization.
Yeah, I understand this will cut into the profits of the big drug companies and thus is “unacceptable” to many political folks, not to mention that the media won’t even talk about the subject due to the advertising they run on their networks on a daily basis for this drug or that.
But unless we want to keep burying kids we had damned well better have that debate.
Rosslyn wonders why he hasn’t heard about this. It’s part of the gun control agenda to bury this discussion. Hence you won’t find it in the mainstream media. Lost Sheep appears to have bought into this burial. I strongly suggest you read that GSK document and realize that Paxil is not at all unique in this risk. The percentages might be different but most of the psychotropics prescribed to the under 25 set carry that nonzero risk of inducing mania that results in extreme rage.
