October 2, 2015 at 3:06 pm #44183
Well this looks like the gunman was targeting Christians so the war on Christians has started in America.
Also right now there is breaking news, VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY WARNING ‘POSSIBLE ARMED SUSPECT’ NEAR CAMPUSOctober 2, 2015 at 4:11 pm #44184
Gun free = Victim rich
When will this idiots realize that gun free zones are nothing more than a way to give those with a strong desire to kill large numbers of people a bunch of walking targets? I hope some of these places get sued and shut down because of it.
I did read that a college professor was taking his boss to court over the gun free zone thing. That will probably settle out of court so that a ruling isn’t made.
http://ageofdecadence.comOctober 2, 2015 at 4:48 pm #44187
“When will this idiots realize that gun free zones are nothing more than a way to give those with a strong desire to kill large numbers of people a bunch of walking targets” Sledjockey
Well of course they realize it, that’s why gun free zones exist. How else would/could you create a situation that could be used to hammer the public about a Civil Right. Obviously they don’t care about children being killed because you could institutionalize crazy people and keep them off the streets stopping most school shootings. Another proof they don’t care about children is, the left if demanding the death of millions of babies and selling their parts like ghouls. How could they care about a shooting, they don’t.October 2, 2015 at 5:20 pm #44190
This doesn’t pass the smell test…
When I first heard about this, I thought: “They’re being awfully tight-lipped about the shooter – especially since dude is dead. Normally, they’d have his ugly, deranged mug all over the tube by now…”
Which led to me thinking that 1) Dude is not white. If it were a white dude, we’d know everything about him down to his shoe size and what dandruff shampoo he preferred. And 2) He’s probably a Muslim. Being as Muzzies are unofficially a “protected class”, putting out that he was one would invite blowback as well as incite a goodly amount of concern, being as we’ve been importing hundreds of thousands of them over the last few years…
I read where dude self-identified as a “Republican/conservative”. Then he does this? Ehh… no. I’m not a Republican, but I am a conservative. No way someone who self-identified as one would execute Christians via headshots…
I think it’s deliberate misinformation. Have you seen a picture of this guy? Looks like a complete whackjob.
One thing’s for sure – he ain’t no white dude. There’s all sorts of smack flying around the Web about this nutcase – mostly that he’s a Muslim. This, I give a modicum of truth to – who else would screen their victims by asking what religion they were, then execute the Christians?
Of course, our Fearless Leader – probably because he’s likely a Muslim – blows all this crap off and starts beating the anti-gun tom-toms before the bodies are even cold… it’s going to be a confused situation for awhile. Instead of waiting to see how things shake out and what information comes forth due to the inevitable investigation, he goes on the tube and runs his pie-hole in order to generate traction for his toxic political agenda (and ignoring that there have been about 6,000 shootings in Chicagostan over the last couple years, with well over a thousand dead…)…
And Whirl? If you’re reading this, I heard where two cops raced to the scene and charged in to get this bastard before waiting for “the gear” to show up…
Good for them. I’m actually impressed. There’s still some out there with genuine courage. Same as that Army vet that tried to take the creep himself bare-handed and got shot 5 times for his trouble… there’s still good men in the world, despite my cynicism…
The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1October 2, 2015 at 5:35 pm #44191
I was wondering about the response time. I remember back when the Columbine High School shooting occurred, it took the police about 30 minutes to enter the building after they were on site. I was really upset they were so cowardly.October 2, 2015 at 6:31 pm #44194
Malgus, agree my friend that this smells like a Muslim to me.October 2, 2015 at 6:46 pm #44195
Malgus, since columbine the training has been to end the killing not wait for swat when there’s an active shooter.
Hostages, barricades, nothing happening, sure set up and wait.
But when there’s active killing going on, you enter and end the killing.
If that means stepping over victims to get to the bad guy, sorry but the ambulance is coming.
These guys made the right decision, get together, cowboy up and do the job.
The gear as it is, that swat uses takes time to arrive, most cops use and have only what fits in an already packed patrol car. ‘Beat cops’ even less, what they can carry on them.
Odds are our two heroes had little more than their standard belt gear, a vest or carrier of some kind, a carbine and a couple magazines to work with.
Any swat gear like RVs would be 150+ miles away and of little use there.
As to the smell test, having worked rural LE, you don’t have instant anything, identification, and other information especially.
Each department had different information, very common. Especially when it’s gor to filter through many layers to get to each ‘head’ and PIO.
So any information released until the body is identified by the coroner is suspect to inaccuracies.
As to who and what he is/was, until the facts are all in he’s just a little scumbag murderer. Motivation and personality are things to debate for years to come.
For me, he’s nothing but a punk arse bad guy, a cowardly little murderer, a tango, simply put, a terr. A target.
And the reason I carry.
It can happen anywhere.October 2, 2015 at 7:31 pm #44198
We have places in both Alaska and Oregon. I’m in Oregon now it’s a very sad day indeed. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the whole community.October 2, 2015 at 8:18 pm #44203
The Sheriff is highly pro-gun, and has even contacted the White House in the past (or at least directed comments that way) over prior school shootings. After Sandy Hook, I believe it was, he came right out and stated, very publicly, that more gun laws were NOT the answer. His decision not to release the name was simply a personal one. He found out this shooter thought the fame achieved by previous mass murderers was wonderful and desirable. The Sheriff simply didn’t want to glorify him in the media within hours, and ordered his department to keep it quiet. He said he’d let the coroner announce it. Part of his hope was that others might be less inclined to
I had the same thought at first – I wondered if he was Muslim, or black. The fact that he self-identified on one web site as Republican/conservative may or may not have been honest (it was a dating web site), but if there was a motive besides the Sheriff’s stated motive, it certainly wasn’t evident, or the media would have been all over his political leanings. I did note, however, that he is “mixed race,” and have been unable to find out what the other half of the mix was (his father appears to be caucasian, and has an “American” name. I haven’t seen much about the mother yet at all, so there MAY be something there. But so far no evidence of any Muslim connection. He just was against organized religion, according to his on line profile, and was looking for Wiccan or pagan dating matches for non-commitment relationships. He also attended a special needs school prior to college, according to a couple of reports I’ve read, but there was no statement as to what his “special need” was. He clearly was not part of the “in” crowd, however, but there is no known criminal history. This guy appears to be the scariest kind: no indicators that he would convert to mass-murderer status, just that he was somewhat of a social outcast and weird. Yet he had a very large number of weapons, and apparently knew how to use them satisfactorily. He lived with his mother, who called him “Baby.” These guys are the sleepers that may never be spotted before they’re already dead, along with a long string of others immediately preceding them. We can’t (and shouldn’t) lock up everyone that’s simply “weird.” (That said, I REALLY want to know what Mom knew, since they lived together in an apartment. I would be rather surprised if there weren’t things she covered over, not dreaming her son would have become known around the world yesterday.)October 2, 2015 at 9:19 pm #44207
If what you say is correct I would guess that this arsehat was probably on some selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. The “special needs” thing is a dead give away.
Still think the school and president of the school should both be sued over the gun free zone thing and the FDA should outlaw SSRI’s…. My opinion.
http://ageofdecadence.comOctober 2, 2015 at 9:59 pm #44210
SSRIs are not the problem. You’d be shocked at the number of people on SSRIs. In 2011 the CDC reported that more than one in every ten people (11%) over the age of 12 in the US takes antidepressants. Yet the vast majority of them are not out committing violent acts. It’s the underlying disorder that’s a problem. Oh, there may be a tiny fraction of cases where the medication contributes, but remember that we’re dealing with someone that’s already exhibiting frayed ends before ever going on the meds. I have a serious concern about the use of meds in all too many cases, though I have seen lives probably saved because of them.
The meds are being scapegoated for a very, very good reason. By bringing them up every time some crazy kills somebody, there’s much more public outcry to either ban the SSRIs, or take away the guns of anyone on them. Both are illogical to anyone EXCEPT liberal gun grabbers. It’s another means of further limiting the number of people that can own guns – and again, that is a VERY sizable number that could be disqualified if the impostor wearing the Uncle Sam suit gets away with going into everyone’s medical records to screen for those that are on, or have ever used such drugs. I would venture to guess that each of us knows someone who is or has been on such medications – though we would not necessarily know it because most of them don’t want people to know it. And if the gun grabbers had their way, a huge number of people would then be added to the list of those permanently banned form owning a gun. Remember too, that would mean the entire household of a person taking such medication would not be able to own guns, because the person on the meds could not have access to one. It’s just like the Lautenberg Amendment, which retroactively banned gun ownership by anyone EVER convicted of even a misdemeanor domestic violence offence (including a no-contest plea). Suddently that entire household is forever banned, effectively, because the individual in question would potentially have access to any weapon in the house. These gun grabbbers are a whole lot more sneak than almost anyone realizes.
Blaming SSRIs for these mass murders makes just as much sense as blaming guns for the mass murders. It’s not the object, it’s the mind of the person holding (or ingesting) the object. The VAST majority of SSRI users are about as worthy of concern as are the vast majority of legal gun owners. It’s yet another Alinsky-esque tactic to redefine reality to suit their agenda. Don’t buy into it.
Oh – and don’t forget the huge payouts lawyers are looking for when they can latch on to one of these SSRI law suits against the drug companies. I’m NO fan of Big Pharma, but their deep pockets are the targets of big payouts when one of these shootings occurs. “Sue the deep pocketed drug companies, and get all the money you’re entitled to!”, according to the attorney ads on TV. Again, don’t buy into it.October 3, 2015 at 2:57 am #44214
Hate to break the bad news to you re: SSRI’s, but the Swedes recently released a study about SSRI’s.
From Swedish national registers we extracted information on 856,493 individuals who were prescribed SSRIs, and subsequent violent crimes during 2006 through 2009. We used stratified Cox regression analyses to compare the rate of violent crime while individuals were prescribed these medications with the rate in the same individuals while not receiving medication. Adjustments were made for other psychotropic medications. Information on all medications was extracted from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register, with complete national data on all dispensed medications. Information on violent crime convictions was extracted from the Swedish national crime register. Using within-individual models, there was an overall association between SSRIs and violent crime convictions (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.19, 95% CI 1.08–1.32, p < 0.001, absolute risk = 1.0%). With age stratification, there was a significant association between SSRIs and violent crime convictions for individuals aged 15 to 24 y (HR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.19–1.73, p < 0.001, absolute risk = 3.0%). However, there were no significant associations in those aged 25–34 y (HR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.95–1.52, p = 0.125, absolute risk = 1.6%), in those aged 35–44 y (HR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.83–1.35, p = 0.666, absolute risk = 1.2%), or in those aged 45 y or older (HR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.84–1.35, p = 0.594, absolute risk = 0.3%).
The short version is: about 3% of the young people, that is, age 15-24, who were prescribed these drugs had a violent crime conviction that appears to be linked to them taking the drug — a rate approximately double that of the next age cohort and double that of someone not consuming the drug at all.
There was no statistical increase, however, in older patients.
Even though the report says “The increased risk we found in young people needs validation in other studies.”, this pretty much clinches it for me. Which means yeah, I DO blame SSRI’s…
Don’t know if the creep in Oregon was on SSRI’s or not, but it would not surprise me if he was, given his past learning problems, disciplinary problems, home issues and very likely racial identity issues. SSRI’s are the most widely prescribed medication on the planet at the moment, so it seems likely he was probably on them as well…
Doesn’t excuse what he did – he was a creep and had it in him to shoot down a bunch of people anyways. But I do think SSRI’s – if he was on them – exacerbated the problem. Given enough people in a sample, and dick with their brain chemistry enough, you’re going to find a significant percentage who go off their axle when they take that crap… I don’t see hardly any mass shootings by younger people prior to doctors handing out SSRI’s like they were Skittles, usually on the advice of some school worker who has beans for experience in mental health… “Your kid has ADD/ADHD”… Oh? What psychology/psychiatry qualifications do YOU have, Mrs. Dickenson? Where did you graduate medical school? Oh, you’re a teaching assistant? How quaint.
Used to be, a kid was just “fidgety”. Now he or she has some “mental health” issue and we dope our kids to the gills with this SSRI junk, then everyone acts shocked when little Timmy mows down a dozen of his classmates with a stolen handgun….
The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1October 3, 2015 at 5:28 am #44215
Malgus, with all due respect (and I’ve developed a considerable amount of that for you in my relatively short time here), I can only say, “Wow! Where to start?” I apologize up front to you and the group for the length of this response, but given what you posted, I think it’s necessary. I’ve at least broken it into two posts, as explained at the bottom (and in the 2nd post).
First, you’re breaking no “bad news” to me at all. While I’m retired and no longer reading extensive journal articles such as this one, nothing in this study has me particularly surprised. You quoted the line that says, “The increased risk we found in young people needs validation in other studies.” Yet as part of the same sentence that contained that quote in your response, you concluded, ” this pretty much clinches it for me.”
I don’t mean this as a personal attack, just a statement of what appears to be a pretty solid conclusion. They say, “We don’t have enough information here to call this conclusive,” yet you disregard that and say you’re convinced by their extensive analysis that didn’t convince them. I don’t have an logical argument for that.
I have no way of knowing what your background in statistical analysis is, but I’ll admit that while mine used to be substantially solid, it’s almost completely rusted out with age and disuse. That doesn’t mean, however, that I haven’t retained a small fraction of what I once knew sufficiently well to get an A+ in statistics in graduate school, when very few even got an “A” of any variety in that course from the hated department chairman. I don’t know why I felt very comfortable with that course while others that I considered at least my equals or better intellectually, struggled mightily with it. But that just happened to be the way it was.
So anyway, with that vague, highly rusted knowledge, I did manage to see some things that are important to understand. First, and foremost, is the fact that the ONLY age group for which a level of concern should logically exist, is the 15-24 year age group. Everybody older than that comes in at statistically insignificant probabilities that the results were anything other than pure chance.
Many may not follow all the letters and numbers in that abstract you quoted. I admit I had to reach really far down into aging memory to remember what some of it was saying for certain, such as “CI” (“confidence intervals”). I even pulled out my old copy of my grad school stats text book just to do a quick brush up. But out of all that, one number is very, very important to understand. It’s the “p”robability number – the number that reads “p < 0.001″ or other levels depending on the age range. That particular number (p < 0.001) basically means that the “p”robability of the results being purely by chance is less than 1 in 1000. That’s considered a highly statistically significant result (generally, no study would consider results significant with levels worse than p < 0.05, meaning only a 5 in 100 chance the results were due to random chance). All results for age ranges higher than 24 are considered statistically insignificant in this study.
Translated for any that aren’t familiar with that nomenclature, the probability of the results being due simply to random chance are 1 in 1000 for the 15-24 age group, but the probability increases for the 25-34 age group to a 12½ % chance that the results were simply due to random chance. Then moving into the 35-44 age range, the chance that the results were just random were a full 67% (666 chances out of 1000). And in the “old folks” (45 and up), it was still extremely highly likely that the results were random chance – slightly over 50/50 (59.4% chance).
Therefore, the use of SSRIs – IF they are really a problem – is only a problem for folks under age 24. And just how high a problem does it appear to POSSIBLY be, according to the study? It says the “absolute risk” is still only 3%. So if I’m understanding their use of the term “absolute risk” correctly, they’re still saying that the study INDICATES that 97 out of 100 people in the 15-24 year age range are STILL not going to be affected by SSRIs to an extent that causes them to go out and shoot up a classroom. But there’s even more important information right on the main study page from which you quoted that is of great significance:
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings show an association between SSRIs and violent crime that varies by age group. They cannot, however, prove that taking SSRIs actually causes an increase in violent crime among young people because the analytical approach used does not fully account for time-varying risk factors such as symptom severity or alcohol misuse that might affect an individual’s risk of committing a violent crime (residual confounding). In addition, some people who committed a violent crime might have subsequently taken SSRIs to cope with the anxiety and stress of arrest (reverse causation). The lack of a significant association between SSRIs and violent crime among most people taking SSRIs is reassuring; the association between violent crimes and SSRIs among individuals younger than 25 years is worrying. However, this finding needs confirming in studies with other designs undertaken in other settings. If confirmed, warnings about the increased risk of violent behavior among young people when being treated with SSRIs might be needed. But, note the researchers, it might be inappropriate to restrict the use of SSRIs in this age group because increases in adverse outcomes associated with poorly treated depression, such as suicide, might outweigh the public health benefit accruing from decreases in violence.
Note that very last sentence: even these researchers say it may create more problem than it solves by not giving these meds to that age group. Given the high number of kids taking them, you might actually have a higher rate of suicides if they WEREN’T taking them, making the number of deaths higher for unmedicated suicides than the number of medicated classroom assassinations. Tell me: would you rather have more suicides, or more murders? Is either group of victims any less valuable as human beings than the other?
Because of the length of this response, I’ll
attack(hee hee – just kidding – couldn’t resist) discuss the other part of your response in a separate post in a moment. The bottom line here, particularly if you read the last large block quote from the same study, is that even the researchers weren’t comfortable enough with their own results to draw solid conclusions from it, and they even went further to point out that the alternative to the medications (i.e. no meds) in many cases might cause MORE deaths than the possible violence induced by the meds themselves.
So my conclusion stands firm. If the vast majority of people on SSRIs aren’t even statistically likely to commit more violence than anybody else over age 24, and those between 15 -24 are only slightly more likely to do so, then that leaves a massive number of SSRI users that are simply not the risk, and therefore should not be the “target” of focus. It’s a liberal smokescreen to keep us from looking at the REAL issue. We have a Constitution that says people have the right to carry guns if they so choose. The anti-gunners are looking for any excuse – however invalid it may really be – to restrict the number of people “allowed” to have that freedom to the absolute minimum number short of deleting the 2nd Amendment altogether (and they’d love to do that if they could).
I also reiterate that I am exceptionally concerned about the degree to which SSRIs are passed out, and even more concerned about the horrid lack of proper patient management and education by the people who prescribe them or otherwise work with those patients. It’s the PRACTITIONERS that ought to be looked at more than the drugs themselves. And I say that as a licensed professional within that community!
Stand by for my comments on your completely inappropriate linking of SSRIs and medications for ADD/ADHD, and the discussion you posted around that linking.October 3, 2015 at 6:11 am #44218
Ok, now to the issue of SSRIs, depression, ADD/ADHD, etc. That all needs to be completely unlinked.
SSRIs were originally developed to combat depression, as a replacement for some medications called MAOIs that had some really bad potential side effects on users (not violence, by the way – just their own quick deaths in certain common situations, including the use of common foods). SSRIs have also been used to treat other conditions. But ADD/ADHD is not one of them. They are two entirely different conditions – and totally unrelated, except for the fact that they just happen to involve the brain. But then so do gunshot wounds to the head, strokes, and brain tumors, for example. Otherwise, they don’t belong in the same discussion, which you unfortunately did.
Depression (and many other “mental” conditions) are thought to be based on levels of various neurotransmitter levels available in the brain at various times. SSRIs – which stands for “Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitors” – target mainly ONE of those many neurotransmitters (seratonin). Seratonin is actually found all over the body, including a fair amount in the digestive tract (thus frequent gastrointestinal problems with people taking SSRIs – it messes with the function of the intestines as well as the brain).
ADD/ADHD, however, is thought to actually originate in the frontal lobe of the brain, due to abnormally DEcreased brain activity in that area. So, seemingly contradictory to logic, the use of medications that tend to help ADD/ADHD actually “speeds” up the activity in the frontal lobes of people with that condition – bringing them up to a more normal level of brain activity. What would “speed up” (or act as a stimulant for) a so-called “normal” person, actually brings the FUNCTIONING of a person with ADD/ADHD down to normal level. It’s a bit complicated, but that’s a very basic explanation. If the levels of ADD/ADHD meds are not carefully controlled (and individualized for each patient), you don’t get good results. Yes, those drugs have side effects, but particularly if not used appropriately. And if people NOT suffering from ADD/ADHD use them, they might as well be taking huge amounts of caffeine or even meth. Those drugs used to treat ADD/ADHD are stimulants. They just have an “opposite” or paradoxical effect on the people with true ADD/ADHD.
As for teachers, school social workers, etc., passing them out like candy, THEY CANNOT! Those drugs are carefully controlled substances, and can only be dispensed by a pharmacy not a school, and can only be prescribed by someone licensed to prescribe medications per state laws (normally an MD, but now that has often been delegated down to physicians’ assistants and even nurse practitioners in some cases). I simply will not go into my lengthy diatribe on why SO many of those “licensed” to prescribe those medications really aren’t properly trained or qualified to do so. But there’s a huge case to be made there. Still, the school has to convince a properly licensed medical provider that his or her patient should be prescribed those meds, and it’s professionally required, at least ethically, that the medical professional determine him/herself that the meds are indeed appropriate. A “hyperactive” four year old in pre-K is probably NORMAL – it’s part of being age appropriate! Not fun for parents and teachers, but it’s still normal to be all over the place and not able to pay attention and focus. But teachers want to whack them out so they’re easily “managed.” (DON’T get me started on that discussion, and it isn’t the issue here.)
So the entire addition of other meds and conditions unrelated to SSRIs, depression, etc., simply should not have been part of your discussion. One has zero to do with the other, including when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. And it should be further understood that the school to which the Oregon murderer went instead of public high school, was reportedly for learning disabilities and those with autism (a too-broad term for appropriate use in the general public anyway). Oh, how that discussion needs to be totally left out of the picture (with only slight exceptions, and only then by those highly qualified to treat and therefore comment on autism). The general public simply has no clue what autism really is, but the media has made it sound like autistic people should be feared! Yes, a small handful of them can be violent – in certain circumstances. And they can be difficult to manage in school, even by those well trained to do so. And they don’t get along socially very well. But they should not be feared, any more than any other kid. They’re just “different” from the center of the mass under the “normal curve,” and people get uncomfortable around “different.” SSRIs are not even appropriate for autism, MAYBE unless depression is also a factor. But there may be other factors when, if worked on non-chemically, could lessen or eliminate depression in an autistic person anyway.
So my bottom line on the rest of your post is to simply ask that you de-link any discussion of SSRIs from ADHD/ADD, and the medications used to treat that condition. And please also keep “autism” out of that particular mix. Is there possibly a SEPARATE discussion to be had there? Of course. The same would be true with a whole lot of other conditions described in the DSM (now up to version 5) – the big thick book of all the so-called “mental disorders.” Oh – and be aware that the world is essentially “governed” in that field by only a few hundred people that get together and determine what should go into each successive revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, hence the initials DSM5 (and DSM-IV, DSM-III, etc, in earlier years). Just think of it – only a few hundred (not even approaching 1000) determined that homosexuality was once a mental disorder, but now isn’t. And they decided that there are no longer “neurotics” – those went out with DSM-III, as I recall. Multiple Personality Disorders turned into Dissociative Identity Disorders, “psychopaths” ceased to exist, and we ended up with “anti-social personality disorders as a replacement, and whatever they’re all called now in the new DSM5 (they quit using Roman numerals with this new revision for some “important” reason or other). There are new disorders added every few years with each successive edition, and others that are eliminated altogether. It’s almost hilarious, except that it deals with real human beings, turns real people into caricatures in the minds of most people, by the use of labels – defined by the privileged several hundred.
So again, with all due respect, please be careful about discussing things that really have no business being lumped together.
And of equal importance I think here, especially, is to NOT get distracted by those “weeds” the liberals want us to focus on. Some of them aren’t even real – they’re Astroturf weeds! The real issue is, at least for those of us in the “States,” the 2nd Amendment. We need to keep tightly focused on the fact that the gun grabbers are looking for every means of limiting the number of people that are deemed “qualified” to own weapons (which also restricts the ownership by their family members, because the “unqualified” person can’t even have access). The gun grabbers want to convince the public that large chunks of the population should be disqualified from owning guns, and medical diagnoses and use of certain medications are a really prime target for the anti-gunners to aim at. Get the public fired up to where they buy into it, and the anti-gunners win. THAT is the biggest issue, not the small percentage of people that apparently may be put at a slightly higher risk of acting out violently if taking SSRIs. Again, the risks of NOT prescribing them (and they ARE over prescribed, in my opinion) may well outweigh their use. Adding in spurious discussions of such things as autism, ADD/ADHD, etc., as if they’re part of the whole thing, and treatable with the same meds (they aren’t), is just a marvelous part of the smokescreen.
Peace.October 3, 2015 at 2:17 pm #44220
“It’s the underlying disorder that’s a problem” GS,
I absolutely agree with your assessment. Having been exposed on a personal level with individuals that modern medicine will not fix. That fact is there are individuals that have personality disorders medicine will not significantly alter their behavior in a positive manner. The other problem is treated patients stop taking their medication. The mental health system is woefully inadequate when it comes to dealing with anyone having pervasive mental heath issues. When this people turn violent it is not the drug that altered their behaviors and made them violent. They are unstable people taking ineffective medications.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.