I decided to re-publish this article here as its the best I’ve found on the subject. Please note it is NOT my article and remains the property of “Edgy Truth”: https://www.facebook.com/edgytruth/about/

The reason I have posted it here is that this article was originally published on a site that no longer seems to be accessible, and is blocked by many services. I suppose at some time in the past their site may have been hacked, but considering the subject matter and the high quality of the article I found it suspicious that it is blocked. Even the archived version of it through the following link is blocked by some ISP’s, like my mobile phone provider for example.


Article follow below this line. Thank you !

Media contributions to mass shootings
-Antidepressants often used by mass killers
-Media ‘mental health’ disposition benefits pharmaceutical companies
-Pharma’s advertising contribution to news agencies could influence disposition

A rise in mass shootings is something our generation has had to endure. The rise in mass shootings has left little in the way of understanding. We’ve never been able to reason out why anyone would commit such a heinous crime. Many of these shootings end with the shooter killing themselves and often times that proves to have been the initial strategy by the shooter.

But what causes someone to decide that their last response to their world of anxiety, depression and gloom is to take out as many innocent lives as possible, followed potentially by taking their own life? Many believe it is more than one factor contributing to these events. In Muschert (2007) Research in school shootings – Sociology Compass 1, you can find some wonderful reasonings which point out several variables. But I want to discuss two from a layman’s perspective.

The first factor which I believe contributes to mass shootings is media coverage. Assuming it is a contributing factor which inspires copy cat crimes, it delves into a murky, complicated area. The media has free speech, so who would we be to ask them to not cover the events? The fact is, people watch the news. People watching the news are voting on what content they appreciate most. And the fact is, mass / school shootings get a lot of votes.

Mass shooters likely know and understand that a mass shooting yields them some power in a world that they feel has stripped them of power. They want your attention, they want your powerlessness. It isn’t absurd to think that a challenged individual, whether it be mentally or otherwise, would consider this option due to its sought after coverage. Mass shooters cripple more than those shot, they cripple the nation, and sometimes the entire world, via the media’s over-sensationalism. Anders Breivik, the Norway shooter detailed inside the aforementioned linked story, was taking steroids. He was also taking ephedrine. He mixed those with caffeine. You don’t have to be a medical researcher to know that such a mix is a cocktail for personal destruction. But it is hardly mentioned in the news. The media wants to paint the picture of a crazy killer, probably because it sells more copies.

I’m not here to say Breivik wasn’t a “crazy killer.” I’m merely suggesting that what potentially made him a “crazy killer” was hidden in the shadows. Mind altering substances must have played some role, no? So why isn’t it talked about more? Patrick Purdy (1989 Cleveland school shooting) and Jeff Weise (2005 Red Lake high school shootings) were taking antidepressants (Prozac).

via antidepressantsfacts.com: His grandmother, Shelda Lussier, 54, said he saw a mental-health professional at Red Lake Hospital on Feb. 21, the same day his prescription was refilled for 60 milligrams a day of Prozac, which he had been taking since last summer, The Washington Post reported.

Studies have linked Prozac and similar antidepressants to a greater risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior in kids. In October, the Food and Drug Administration revised the drugs’ packaging to warn health professionals that they should closely monitor young patients when an antidepressant is prescribed or the dose is changed.

John Hinkley took antidepressants at the time he shot Kennedy.

And there are others.

1998. 15 year old Kip Kinkel murders his parents and two of his classmates. He injured over two dozen more. He went on a shooting spree at his school. For one year prior, he’d been taking Prozac.

According to Hicks’s notes, Faith thought that Kip’s behavior had been better, but felt he had also become quite cynical. Dr. Hicks discussed the use of anti-depressants and recommended Kip try a course of treatment with Prozac. He wrote: “Kip reports eating is like a chore. He complains that food doesn’t taste good. He often feels bored and irritable. He feels tired upon awakening most mornings. He reports there is nothing to which he is looking forward. He denies suicidal ideation, intent or plan of action.” Hicks forwarded these notes to the Kinkel family physician with a recommendation that Kip be put on Prozac for depression. The physician concurred, and four days later Kip began taking 20 milligrams of Prozac per day.

The 2008 shooting in Finland by Matti Saari, whereas he shot and killed ten students on a college campus and then eventually himself.

via SavonSanomat.fi: Kauhajoki school killer Matti Saari ate depression with an SSRI drug that is not recommended for use in the United States under 18 years old.

SSRIs are widely used in Finland in adolescents.

The link is direct, clear and a justified topic of conversation. When someone assaults someone at a bar, we almost always ask, with immediacy, if drinking was involved. Why? Because it could be a factor in the behavior. Which begs the question: Why is it hardly ever a conversation? The media is the fuel to the fire. The aftermath of mass shootings is a slaughter of every possible headline known to man. It is the main attraction. But instead of discussing the link between pharmaceuticals and the mass shooters, the media covets the pharmaceutical companies as the solution?

Don’t think I’m right? One of the most pervasive lines in media after a mass shooting tragedy is “we need to have a discussion about mental health in this country.” Such a line implies that generalized, unaltered mental health is the fuel behind the tragedy. Hey, it may be, but let me ask some questions….

First, which came first, the delusions of death and murder and suicide, or the SSRI pill? Pharmaceutical companies will argue that the person taking the pill previously had an issue, so the argument that their pills are linked to these tragedies is pure fallacy.

Second, mass shootings, in what might be the most absurd case of spin ever, are now starting to act as marketing platforms for pharmaceuticals. When we say “we need to have a discussion about mental health in this country,” we are saying we need help with mental health. This country leans on pharmaceutical companies for that solution. SSRI’s are some of the most widely prescribed pills in the world.

So yes, it is highly possible that what helps fuel mass shootings is also quickly becoming what helps increase their sales. And that’s just insane. If media outlets can keep pushing the mental health spin, it will inevitably lead back to Big Pharma’s pockets. But allows us to go further down the rabbit hole. If Big Pharma can use the media’s “let’s have a discussion about mental health” push to increase sales, could they encourage the push? Check out what Robert F Kennedy Jr. said about Big Pharma’s relationships with news networks.

I ate breakfast last week with the president of a network news division and he told me that during non-election years, 70% of the advertising revenues for his news division come from pharmaceutical ads. And if you go on TV any night and watch the network news, you’ll see they become just a vehicle for selling pharmaceuticals. He also told me that he would fire a host who brought onto his station a guest who lost him a pharmaceutical account,Kennedy said.

With that said, why would be be a far-fetched assumption to consider that Pharmaceutical companies are tragically encouraging the media’s spin on the coverage itself? I know this may not be a popular synopsis over a very delicate and sensitive arena (mass killings), but at this website, we simply have to consider the question.

How much research is even being done to discover any connections between antidepressants and mass killings? Or moreover, what kind of studies are being performed. Here’s one:

(via psychiatryonline.org) We chose a different strategy to examine this controversial topic. We reviewed all murder-suicides that took place in New York City from 1990 through 1998 using data collected from the files of New York City’s chief medical examiner. Blood from murderers who committed suicide is routinely tested for drugs, including antidepressants. There were 127 murder-suicides over the 9-year period. Three of the murderers (2.4%) were taking antidepressants according to results of toxicological testing. A 46-year-old woman who killed her son and then herself with injections of heroin was taking amitriptyline. A 48-year-old man who set fire to rags and paper in a closet and lay on his two young sons and his young daughter was taking amitriptyline. A 77-year-old man who killed his spouse and then himself with a gun was taking sertraline.

The findings in our study lend no support to the position that the use of SSRIs is associated with violence or suicide. The fact that only 2.4% of these persons were taking antidepressants at the time they killed family members and then themselves is less than one would expect in the general population, given that SSRIs were widely prescribed in the 1990s (5). These data do not support an association between the use of SSRIs and violence or suicide. There is no evidence suggesting that clinicians should hesitate in prescribing SSRIs, which have been shown to be safe and effective, for fear of violent and/or suicidal consequences.

Taking every simple murder / suicide is the core error in this study. No one is suggesting that a basic crime that’s been around for the ages wouldn’t support both sides of the matter, the suggestion is that the recent growth of mass killings is influenced by taking SSRI pills. That’s completely different. We are talking about killers who commonly seem disillusioned and paranoid for no good reason, going into a mall and shooting people without motive, later being found to have been taking SSRI’s. You can’t lump in heroin using parents killing their children, that’s vastly different.

My hope is that more people begin to see the connection between media spin and Pharmaceutical revenue. Between man and chemical.

End republished article (see top).

Spread the love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *