Michael Moore Interview: Possible GAME CHANGER

tyme said:
Vanya said:
Sigh. Yet another one-size-fits-all, "master-molecule" explanation (and a literal molecule this time... how nice) for actions carried out by complex human beings, each of whom is unique.
Click to expand...
You don't have to believe that a pill is literally taking over someone's mind in order to believe that the pill causes increased violent behavior. You even outlined a plausible scenario.

The drugs didn't cause the killing? The underlying social problems/depression did? There is no single cause. There are a confluence of factors. Getting rid of social outcasts in school is difficult. Stopping over-prescription of psychoactive drugs is relatively easy, if society wants that.
Click to expand...
My whole point was that there is no single cause. We like single causes because they require no thought, and they're emotionally comforting.

Are psychoactive drugs overprescribed? Of course, for the same reason. A "magic pill" is a comforting thing to believe in (hence the across-the-board approximate 30% success rate of placebos for treating almost anything), and it requires no analysis of underlying causation.

Moreover, in a for-profit health care system, resources go to what's profitable, not necessarily what works best. (Compare the funding of neonatal intensive care units, which make money for hospitals, with that of the preventive prenatal care that would decrease the need for that level of medical intervention. There's little or no money to be made by providing preventive care -- it's labor-intensive and requires minimal technology -- so it's relatively unavailable even though it's a much cheaper solution to the problem.)

And as I said, we're a consumer society. If we can buy our way to happiness, or to increased productivity, what's not to like? So these drugs are huge money-makers, and one reason they're overprescribed is that they're so very heavily marketed. (Who, fergodsake, thought it was a good idea to allow TV ads for prescription meds???)

All that said, I doubt that these drugs, in and of themselves, cause basically healthy people to become murderers... The question of suicide, which seems to be a more prevalent side effect, is a harder one to answer. But it's also worth remembering that untreated depression can be terminal -- it's not something to dismiss as not worthy of treatment.

Either you believe that a few mass killings, and some less-spectacular murders and suicides on top of that, are worth it to treat what in millions of cases is mild depression or agitation, or you don't.
Click to expand...
Oh, c'mon -- it's nothing like that simple. Just for starters, there's treatment, and there's effective treatment. Just as prenatal care is an effective way of preventing much of the perinatal disease that lands newborns in intensive care units, so other forms of therapy, which are not profitable for Big Medicine, are effective in treating mental illness -- alone or in combination with drugs. But insurers won't pay for them, which not only makes them unavailable to many people, but drives many practitioners out of business, which drives up the cost. Vicious cycle.

The problem is that we're a society that looks only at short-term, direct costs -- drugs are a cheap (and profitable) way of getting patients to go away. If their overuse (or, more accurately, misuse) leads to adverse consequences down the road, those represent a delayed social cost that's hard to measure, or indeed for most people to get their minds around. We're not set up, certainly as a society, possibly as a species, to look at the long-term social costs of the choices we make.

Examples of the real costs of this short-term thinking are too numerous to mention... :(
 
Back to the OP's point, Moore, may be a pig, lier, these drugs can be wonderful or horrible. I for one would much rather the gun grabbers start fighting over the pros and cons of prozac rather than AR-15's. Wouldn't you?
 
Uhhh. No.

Not if they are going to turn it into a requirement that you and all the members of your household must have periodic mental evaluations to own a weapon. Can you imagine how abusive that could be?
 
Not if they are going to turn it into a requirement that you and all the members of your household must have periodic mental evaluations to own a weapon.
Click to expand...

I must have missed where that was part of the original post. Still can't find it.
 
"The point should be that there needs to be an investigation into this."

There have been MANY investigations into the cause - effect link between certain drugs and violence, suicides, etc.

One of the first big splashes was almost 25 or so years ago when it was found that a man who killed several coworkers at the printing plant in Kentucky where he worked was medicated on Prozac.

Much of that is covered in the book The Power to Harm: Mind, Murder, and Drugs on Trial.
 
Mike Irwin said:

"There have been MANY investigations into the cause - effect link between certain drugs and violence, suicides, etc.

One of the first big splashes was almost 25 or so years ago when it was found that a man who killed several coworkers at the printing plant in Kentucky where he worked was medicated on Prozac.

Much of that is covered in the book The Power to Harm: Mind, Murder, and Drugs on Trial. "



Yes, of course youre right. There have been many studies and lots of testimony on this.

Here's the experience of an ex Pharma rep. Thankfully, she had the personal experience as an insider, to protect herself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFbs8s3VI6M


BTW - I'm just another citizen supporter of the US Constitution and the 2A. I dont work for the firearms or ammunition industries and have no experience with them other than as a hunter & shooter using their products.
 
Vanya, going back to your depressive example, what if human/primate evolution specifically selected for people to get depressed when they felt enough social pressure so that they wouldn't get violent? Early tribes probably didn't like it when someone went berserk with a club, so they exiled them, from the tribe and from the gene pool. If that selected for depressive behavior and lack of focus under stress, and if that's what's seen in adolescents in modern society, and we're trying to counter that with medication, then these rare but vivid and horrific events should be no surprise.
Click to expand...

Tyme while I completely reject your premise, for the sake of discussion I'll play. I have two grandchildren with autism that would have not have done well in your pre-human scenario. With medication, education, and counselling I expect them to be fully functioning members of society, giving back far more than they take. Modern medicine has done much to improve our quality, and length of life. Some would argue that living as long as many of us do puts a burden on the rest of society, and maybe the Eskimo people were right in their handling of older folks. We can second guess all we want about the consequences of medical treatment of all kinds, and we certainly should examine the long term effects psychotropic drugs. What we should not do, in my opinion, is allow our desire to do something/anything to stop aberrant to behavior to set a course that will have unexpected and unwanted consequences.
 
Last edited:
Wow.

Someone had a reaction to a drug.

That's never happened before.

You are aware that aspirin, a drug that has been widely used since the 1890s, also causes severe reactions in some people?

There are a couple of very telling points about this video...

The woman says she took a NEW drug -- Zoloft. That means that the book was still being written on it. Common.

The woman says that she was prescribed these medications without a washout period.

That was typical back then, because the SSRI drugs were new and NO ONE at that time knew that a washout period was recommended.

In other words, the book was still being written.

I find her "testimony" to be very... disingenuous because she, as a former drug company rep, KNOWS that when a new drug is brought to market, and in this case an entirely new class of drugs, that the book continues to be written literally for YEARS on its uses, its drawbacks, its potential flaws, etc.

Here's something very interesting...

Right around the same time as this woman, I also went on Zoloft for severe clinical depression.

A quite heavy regime, actually, at one point 400 mg a day, and at no point less than 100 mg a day, for nearly 3 years.

What were MY side effects from this drug?

Well, the biggest one (and possibly one that is quite troubling to some) is that I didn't kill myself.

What were my other side effects?

Occasional diarreha and dry mouth.

Nothing like what the woman in the tape is describing.

Of one thing I'm absolutely certain, thought.

Had I not been prescribed Zoloft, or one of the other SSRIs, I would be dead.


So, ultimately, what do we have here.

We have one individual bitching and crusading because she had an adverse reaction to the drug she was prescribed.

Is that REALLY ground shaking? Should that really come as a surprise to a former pharmaceutical representative?

Based on her experience, she apparently thinks that the entire class of drugs should be eliminated.

Well I, for one, (and I know that I'm not the only one) don't agree with her or her personal crusade.

Know how many drugs would be available to treat illnesses if the requirement was that there be NO side effects of any kind?

There wouldn't be any.

Aspirin? Gone. People can die from it.

Tylenol? Gone. Can cause liver failure in some people.

Opiates? Gone. Potential for abuse, addiction, and death.

Antibiotics? Gone. Potential for serious allergic reactions and death.

Welcome back to the stone ages.

The sad truth is that people have absolutely unrealistic expectations about drugs. They want newer, better drugs that will prolong their lives without costing anything and that won't cause any side effects.

They want these drugs brought to market lickety split because they want their old lifestyle back.

And when they have a bad reaction to the new wonder drug that they were oh so willing to take because they want modern medicine to make them whole again, they get mad and demand that the drug companies make them whole with lots of cash payouts.

Am I saying that the drug industry is spotless?

No.

There are huge profits to be made from many of the drugs.

But are we even remotely realistic about what these companies can, and should, be doing for us?

Don't make me laugh.
 
Last edited:
Anytime I see Moores name I automatically ignore whatever venue it's coming from. The man is a crazed zealot who wouldn't know the truth if he accidentally found it.
 
Mike Irwin - thank you for relating your own personal experience. It is appreciated.

I got a different take from the ex-pharma reps story than yours.

I didnt find it alarming that she had a bad reaction, any med that can
do good can also potentially do harm. What caught my attention was
the type of reactions she reported and that her doctor seem to discount
what she said. Perhaps I'll have to watch the video again to see if she made broader claims than I caught.

In the context of the discussions we are having on the forum regarding the protection of our 2A rights, this is what I see as relevant. As you have pointed out in earlier posts - there has been studies that would suggest more focus needs to be put on this. (That is, violent and/or suicidal behavior in some people using these drugs.) Especially in light of current discussions of bans or restrictions on semi auto rifles. Regards, - - -

P.S. - I bought "The Power to Harm" after you mentioned it, and am now reading that book.
 
Last edited:
Yes, thank you, Mike, for describing your experience -- and for your utter common sense about drugs/side effects. As I've said before, somewhere in one of these conversations, depression can be terminal. I'm glad that it wasn't, in your case. (We need all the smart, sarcastic people we can get. :p)

Pointshoot said:
What caught my attention was the type of reactions she reported and that her doctor seem to discount what she said.
Click to expand...
This is not unusual. A friend was prescribed Wellbutrin when it was fairly new. She started having wicked headaches, and when she mentioned this to her shrink, he dismissed the notion that they could be a side effect of the drug: "Oh, no, that's not possible, it's not on the list." My friend found another shrink right quick, who started her on a different anti-depressant -- and, funny thing, no more headaches.

And now the list does include "head pain" under common side effects.

It's worth noting, too, that the crusade against anti-depressants has become very big business -- various people, including Dr. Peter Breggin, who is heavily featured in the Michael Moore film, have made fortunes pushing the notion that these drugs are harmful.

It's not unlike what happened with the idea that vaccines cause autism. There are people who made a lot of money by pandering to the fear of this disorder -- and the whole idea grew out of exactly one study that was later shown to have been a deliberate fraud. In the meantime, children are put at risk because they, or their schoolmates, haven't been vaccinated.

Another one that comes to mind is the doctor (I don't recall his name offhand) who made a reputation of sorts, and a great deal of money, by arguing that the HIV virus isn't the cause of AIDS.

A lot of people, unfortunately, get sucked in by these contrarian, anti-science movements. People die as a result. :mad:
 
Vanya - not to argue with you, because we likely are on the same side regarding the 2A.

But I don't think a call to question what may be going on is 'anti science'.

And, I think its a bit of an Ad Hominem personal attack of the person rather than their arguments to say that some people are making money questioning certain medical practices or medications. The pharma companies have likely made a lot more money by selling them. None of that is particularly relevant.

Each situation should be looked at closely on a case by case basis.
 
Last edited:
Questioning things is great -- that's the heart of science, and of all critical thinking. But there's a pattern to the crusades I mentioned (which aren't the only ones of their kind): the crusaders are less interested in evidence than they are in fear-mongering and the attention it gets them. For just one example of this lack of objectivity, note that in the Michael Moore film, Dr. Breggin talks at length about the fact that Eric Harris was on an anti-depressant, but he never mentioned Dylan Klebold at all -- funnily enough, Klebold wasn't taking any such drugs. The term "cherry-picking" comes to mind here, and it's pretty typical of the way these folks argue: use the evidence that supports your position, ignore that which doesn't.

And when the evidence that supports someone's position is fraudulent, as in the case of the vaccines/autism "connection," or even when it's carefully selected and other evidence is ignored, as Dr. Breggin has been doing for years, I think it's reasonable to question the motivations of the people taking that position.

Reread Mike Irwin's post -- he mentioned many of the facts about anti-depressants, and other drugs, that Dr. Breggin and his ilk choose to ignore.

(And, sheesh -- this is America. When did it become an ad hominem attack to mention that someone makes a lot of money doing what he does? I thought we were sposta look up to those people...) ;)
 
An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy of attacking an individual rather than their actual arguments. It is irrelevant to the argument and is used as a tactic to try to denigrate the opponent.

I dont know the details of Breggin or his work, and feel no need to defend him or attack him. But as far as I have researched, no one has said "if a person takes medication X, they will automatically go out on a rampage". The fact that a particular murderer wasn't on psychiatric drugs doesnt mean such drugs may/may not be a factor in such other such events. I'm sure there have been many murderers in history who weren't on such drugs. Murder existed before they were formulated.
That said, there are 'reports from a friend of Klebold' that he'd been popping Paxil & Zoloft and he urged him to stop. That mention was from a source dated April 2011 when they also stated that Klebold's medical records were sealed. Perhaps you have a more updated source that confirms an official report. I can't imagine why the medical report of a dead murderer would be sealed. Maybe it was released since last April. From what I've seen, Klebold wasn't prescribed these kind of drugs, but that doesn't mean he hadnt taken them. Only an official medical report would confirm or repute this.

IMO one doesnt have to defend the whole field of psychiatry or psychiatric drugs, if questions are asked regarding the potential impact of these drugs in some violent crimes.
 
Last edited:
Pointshoot, please reread my post #10, above, before you decide that I'm "defend[ing] the whole field of psychiatry or psychiatric drugs, if questions are asked regarding the potential impact of these drugs in some violent crimes."

That's what's known as a "straw man" argument: "...a rhetorical technique (also classified as a logical fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

But let's not bicker. I think we are basically on the same side here; all I want to suggest is that Dr. Breggin's position, that treating mental disorders with drugs is always a bad idea, is simplistic and wrong-headed. And make no mistake: that IS Dr. Breggin's position. From his own website:

"Nothing in the field of mental health will do more good and reduce more harm than encouraging withdrawal from psychiatric drugs."

"It’s time for therapists—psychologists, nurses, social workers, family therapists, and counselors—to stop pushing their clients and patients to take psychiatric drugs that cause brain damage, harm the body, and shorten their patients’ lives."

"There is now so much scientific evidence proving that psychiatric drugs damage the brain and overall health and lifespan, that the major concern should be “How to stop taking psychiatric drugs.” "​

It seems to me to be a bad idea to jump on this fallacious bandwagon just because it offers some sort of counter to another quite different set of ideas (regarding gun control) that are just as wrong-headed. At best it's naive, and at worst it's pretty cynical.

Edited to add: The evidence of Eric Harris' being on anti-depressants came from autopsy findings, not from his medical records. Had Klebold also been on these or other drugs, that also would have shown up at autopsy, and I'm quite certain that Dr. Breggin would have mentioned that in his interview with Mr. Moore.
 
Last edited:
once again just about any medications can cause severe side effects.

I fail to see, however, how this woman's communication problem with her doctor is the fault of the drug manufacturer.

my mother recently had a reaction to a thyroid medication she was prescribed, 1 that the endocrinologist said was very unlikely that she could be having. she got very insistent with him regarding the symptoms when he wanted to ignore her, and ended up telling him that not only was she disregarding his advice to remain on the medication, she also told him that he was fired.

my mother is a nurse so she will not put up with any crap from a doctor who does not listen to her. ultimately it is the patience responsibility, not the drug companies', to insure that their doctor knows about any possible side effects that their medication maybe causing.
 
Don't even get me started about these idiots who campaign to end all use of psychiatric drugs. I would like to see someone like Breggin or Tom Cruise ( h is intense training as an actor makes him qualified to comment on such matters apparently) locked in a room with a violent, delusional schizophrenic and see how long it takes them to ask for psychiatric drugs for their charge.
 
Thank you for expressing your opinions.

We probably have more in common than disagreement -

that is, if we are of the opinion that the potential link between the use of certain psychiatric drugs and violent and/or suicidal behavior should be investigated.
IMO that could be a potential game changer, since the current emphasis seems to be on semi auto rifles & gun control.

Its also been pointed out before, that one is more likely to be struck by lightening than find themselves a victim of a mass shooting event. Most gun owners don't go out and do this kind of thing; most people taking such medications don't go out and do this kind of thing either. This whole matter has been agenda driven and fueled by emotionalism.

As for the issues of the effectiveness of psychiatry, psychiatric medication vs. other therapies, 'over' prescribing, etc - those are questions of a much broader scope. Its up to others - especially those directly impacted - to sort those matters out to their own satisfaction.

Regards, - - -
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top