***NATIONAL RALLY 11/2/19 POOFA RESPONSE***

[ett]

So Newsweek runs a story on a gun rights rally and shows a video of something in TX?

If mainstream media can not tell the difference between a shooting range in Kentucky and Syria. Do you expect them to know the difference between D.C. and TX ??

[caelum]

Would you allow that the same chemical concoction could be both a "common, widely used, first-line drug with tremendous success" *and* in certain cases a contributing factor in putting someone over the edge?

The more widely a product is used, the more likely that a side-effect that occurs in even a fractional percentage of its users can become apparent - especially when the result is characterized by a desire to act out against others in as large a group as they think then can find.

A few points:
1) A big factor in medicine is benefit-risk analysis on a population level. Meta-analysis studies seek to show if a medical action, like prescribing a drug or screening for a disease, is worth it relative to its risk/cost. For instance, it is actually recommended that women (of average risk) DON'T perform personal SELF-breast exams for masses, because on a population level, this leads to women finding benign fibrocystic changes more often, them becoming worried, then undergoing increased anxiety and a battery of unnecessary tests, all to find it most likely benign, statistically speaking. Another example is flu vaccinations. It is estimated that 1 in 1 million people vaccinated for the flu develop Guillan-Barre, a disease where basically your immune system attacks your peripheral nerves (generally self-limiting disease where most patients recover in a few weeks). In meta-analysis, this is weighed against influenza mortality (79,000 Americans estimated killed by influenza in the 2017-2018 flu season), as well as the 17 in 1 million risk of developing Guillan-Barre from influenza infection. With this (and many other factors not mentioned), it is concluded that the benefits of administering the influenza shot are greater than the risks. For an example with medications: in a tiny fraction of the population with certain genetic mutations, a subset of surgical anesthetics can trigger malignant hyperthermia, basically where the body spikes its temperature/metabolism to dangerous levels in response to the medications. This tiny risk is weighed against the massive benefit of patients (patients being anesthesitized during surgery), so anesthesia is performed. TO CONCLUDE: yes, administering a drug at high rates does of course increase the subsequent rates that side effects would be seen (that's just probability), but meta-analysis seeks to weigh out if something is "worth it" or not. This leads to point 2...

2) The benefit-risk analysis of SSRIs. In adults, SSRIs have a clear benefit for having a protective effect against suicidality. An analysis of research here (https://www.nationalelfservice.net/m...d-suicidality/) accounts for several research papers which show this in adults over 25, there is a clear benefit. "But what about in adults 18-24?" you might ask. One study analyzing just such a topic (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2674796/) concludes that the benefits of SSRIs in this 18-24 age bracket (the age bracket "of concern" when looking at many mass shooters) outweighs the risk of paradoxical suicidality (the "black box" warning I mentioned in my prior post) (I should note that this "black box" warning is for SUICIDALITY, not HOMICIDALITY as Prince was implying) AND the HIGH risk of untreated depression. TO CONCLUDE: This is why SSRIs are prescribed- they are effective, and protect against suicidality.

3) The risks of violence in SSRIs. It is a topic I had not really explored, as, from what I am inferring looking through these articles, it is a contentious issue. "But caelum, why are you complaining if you hadn't heard of this before?" Well, I am speaking up because, to be blunt, Prince's comments on SSRIs weren't exactly delicately nuanced. They were more of a blanket sledgehammer put-down of the drugs on a very general level. As I referenced papers in point 2, they clearly have benefits for many, and are at the frontlines of alleviating the "mental health issue" the gun community always cites, so I felt it necessary to defend them. IN FACT, there are arguments that demonization of SSRIs actually has risks in itself. When the FDA issued the black-box warning in 2004, teen and young adult use of SSRIs dropped 25-30%, and suicide attempt rates then rose by 22% in teens and 34% in young adults (https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/...g-201406207226). I am NOT against exploring the potential risks in medications. In fact, the opposite. If there is a potential issue, it should be analyzed STAT. However, the converse: alarmism and fear-mongering without much nuance is dangerous too, hence me posting now. Without further ado, let's get into this fascinating topic. A big article on this topic was a mass-analysis of over 850,000 individuals prescribed SSRIs by Swedish researchers. They concluded a 43% increased risk of violent crime in those 15-24, with no association with violence in groups older than 24 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4570770/). However, the researchers of the study point out many potential issues that need to be addressed. They found links between SUBtherapeutic doses (low doses) and delinquent behavior, raising the question if it was the LACK of efficacious SSRI treatment that leads to crime (example: patient reports to doctor and reports hostility/aggression, but the doctor does not prescribe an adequate dosage of an SSRI to actually treat). Alcohol/drug use was a cited confounding factor too, which could lead to non-compliance or misuse of their prescribed SSRIs. However, these do not entirely negate the importance of the study. Other research has pointed to low levels of serotonin leading to impulsive behavior. A compound of interest is when serotonin breaks down- 5-HIAA, which is particularly linked to aggression. SSRIs obviously increase the levels of serotonin (countering the aforementioned low serotonin effect), thus why the issue with compliance to their SSRI meds in teens/young adults is so important, as long-term use of SSRIs has been shown to reduce 5-HIAA. It was suggested that due to younger people's increased metabolisms, they could break down SSRIs faster than older people, leading to an increased levels of 5-HIAA from serotonin breakdown. This could be an excellent research opportunity. THIS STUDY PROVIDES A VALUABLE OPENING TO CONDUCT MORE RESEARCH. I am ALL for exploring this potential relationship between SSRIs and violence. This study does NOT conclude that SSRIs cause violence, rather that there is an association, but nonetheless more studies should explore this further to try and iron something down. However, I don't believe we should immediately jump to the alarmist bandwagon and criticize this class of drugs without deeper studies on the issue. There are many, MANY confounding factors that need to be addressed, especially in cases of mass shooters, where it seems non-compliance and numerous other psycho-social factors seem to be at play.

4) Let's not forget the forest from the trees. Mass shootings are a small fraction of gun deaths. Suicides are a far more massive portion, and SSRIs can absolutely play a critical frontline role in helping reduce those numbers. If we demonize SSRIs because of some possible link to mass shootings, we ironically shoot ourselves in the foot by possibly setting back SSRIs helping counter suicides, which is a MUCH GREATER number of gun deaths than mass shootings. The highest risk groups for suicide are middle-aged White and Native American males, so they are older than the aforementioned potential SSRI violence risk. While women attempt suicide more than men, those two groups of men are at highest risk from dying from suicide because they use far more deadly means (firearms, among others). These extremely high-risk demographics can, generally speaking, be difficult to reach out to ("I'm too tough to go to doc!" or "I can't access a doc" and all that). Another counter-point I offer to Prince is that SSRIs should be considered more in middle-aged men, which could lower gun deaths.

[scruff]

Breitbart had a short article with a link to the livecast yesterday.

[JDA58]

PAFOA in the house.. POOFA hats in foreground and the Yinzer flag

http://https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wa...the-gun-lobby/

[abner13]

''California activists'' were there?
JINX!!!


Their efforts haven't exactly taken root and flourished in their home state.

[Walleye Hunter]

PAFOA in the house.. POOFA hats in foreground and the Yinzer flag

http://https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wa...the-gun-lobby/

Scruff gets all the fame. I'm just glad that they didn't have a close-up of me snoozing in my chair.

[scruff]

Scruff gets all the fame. I'm just glad that they didn't have a close-up of me snoozing in my chair.

Haha Yeah, I'm visible for a few seconds in this one too.

[Walleye Hunter]

Haha Yeah, I'm visible for a few seconds in this one too.

What ever happened with your solicitation case, or is that classified information?

[LifeInPa]

PAFOA in the house.. POOFA hats in foreground and the Yinzer flag

http://https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wa...the-gun-lobby/

That was me in the POOFA hat holding that wrinkly ass Gadsden Flag, this article means I am famous now and I am totally going to let it go to my head. ������

Haha Yeah, I'm visible for a few seconds in this one too.

Only a few hundred? Seems like an understatement if you ask me...

[JDA58]

That was me in the POOFA hat holding that wrinkly ass Gadsden Flag, this article means I am famous now and I am totally going to let it go to my head. ������



Only a few hundred? Seems like an understatement if you ask me...

Yeah you might want to get that thing dry cleaned and pressed before the next rally