The Link Between Psychiatric Drugs and Violence

One of psychiatry’s most obvious vulnerabilities is the fact that various so-called antidepressant drugs induce homicidal and suicidal feelings and actions in some people, especially late adolescents and young adults.  This fact is not in dispute, but psychiatry routinely downplays the risk, and insists that the benefits of these drugs outweigh any risks of actual violence that might exist.

There are two research studies that indicate a link between SSRI’s and violence, but both studies have limitations that make it difficult to draw firm conclusions.  The studies are:

Moore, TJ, Glenmullen, J, and Furberg, CD (2010) Prescription Drugs Associated with Reports of Violence Towards Others.  This study, which was published in December 2010 in PLOS One, concluded:

“Acts of violence towards others are a genuine and serious adverse drug event associated with a relatively small group of drugs. Varenicline [a quit-smoking aid], which increases the availability of dopamine, and antidepressants with serotonergic effects were the most strongly and consistently implicated drugs. Prospective studies to evaluate systematically this side effect are needed to establish the incidence, confirm differences among drugs and identify additional common features.” [Emphasis added]

Molero, Y, Lichtenstein, P, Zetterqvist, J, Hellner Gumpert, C, Fazel, S, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Violent Crime: A Cohort Study( 2015).  This study was published in September 2015 in PLOS One, and found:

“…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%).” [HR is Hazard Ratio]

In addition, there is also an enormous and growing body of anecdotal evidence (e.g. AntiDepAware) that these drugs are implicated in a great many acts of violence and suicide, particularly those in which individuals kill strangers and then take their own lives.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Amazingly, psychiatry has consistently failed to conduct a comprehensive, prospective, formal research study on this matter, even though the need for such a study has been glaringly evident for almost 20 years.  It is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that psychiatry’s refusal to engage this question is motivated by a desire to suppress information, and to avoid the anti-psychiatry publicity that such a study will almost surely entail.

In this regard, it is noteworthy that in December 2012, shortly after the Sandy Hook shootings, a petition to order such a study was removed, with no explanation, from the White House petition site “We the People”, even though it was well on the way to obtaining the requisite number of signatures in the allotted timeframe.

Not only has pharma-psychiatry failed to conduct a formal study on this matter, they have also shamelessly and callously used these tragic incidents to further their own drug-pushing ends.  With each fresh incident, there are cries from  eminent psychiatrists and from various psychiatric bodies for more screenings, more “mental health treatment”, including enforced “treatment”.  These calls are heard even in cases where it is open knowledge that the perpetrator had been receiving psychiatric “treatment”, and had been taking psychiatric drugs.

Psychiatry’s self-serving exploitation of these incidents is not random or incidental, but is part of a tawdry marketing campaign outlined at a 1999 NAMI conference by DJ Jaffe, founder of Mental Illness, and a founding member of the Treatment Advocacy Center.  Here are some quotes from his address as reported by MadNation:

“Laws change for a single reason, in reaction to highly publicized incidents of violence.”

“The media is gonna report on violence no matter what we want, and we have to… turn it to our advantage.”

And another quote from DJ Jaffe’s article “How to reduce both violence and stigma”, Newsletter of Staten Island AMI (SIAMI), December 1994:

“In addition, from a marketing perspective, it may be necessary to capitalize on the fear of violence to get the law [outpatient commitment legislation] passed.”

That psychiatry would pick up this theme and persistently seek to exculpate themselves, by stigmatizing their clients in this way, is a sad though unsurprising reflection.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It is obvious that when this particular domino falls, it will be a major blow to psychiatry’s credibility, which is why they and their pharma allies have invested so much energy and resources into trying to keep the facts of this matter well under wraps.  And in this endeavor, their tentacles are spread far and wide.  Remember what Connecticut Assistant Attorney General, Patrick B. Kwanashie, said on August 22, 2013, during a freedom of information hearing on the Sandy Hook shooting.  In response to AbleChild’s request, he stated that releasing this information [about the psychiatric treatment of the shooter, Adam Lanza] could “… cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications.”  Why is the state of Connecticut so invested in young people continuing to take psychiatric drugs in the face of such strong indications of their implication in these horrendous incidents?  Why should the promotion of pharma-psychiatry’s deceptions become a part of a state government’s agenda?  Of course, the question is rhetorical.  Pharma distributes a great deal of largesse to politicians, and pharma always gets value for money spent.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

But the good news is that the petition to investigate the psychiatric drugs-violence link is back on We the People.  It went up on October 6, 2015, and has garnered 610 signatures as of today.  The goal is 100,000 signatures by November 5, 2015.  I strongly encourage all my American readers to add their signatures to this petition today.  And – if you feel comfortable doing so – please ask your friends/family/acquaintances to do the same.

Also, please consider writing to your political representatives, asking them to support this initiative.

There is an urgent need to investigate this matter thoroughly and transparently.  The one thing that venality and corruption cannot survive is the spotlight of truth.


  • Cledwyn Pus Poetics

    “In addition, from a marketing perspective, it may be necessary to capitalize on the fear of violence to get the law passed.

    That psychiatry would pick up this theme and persistently seek to exculpate themselves, by stigmatizing their clients in this way, is a sad though unsurprising reflection.”

    Said well.

    Allen Frances posted an article recently which he concluded with the words;-

    “It is also promising that the media are picking up the story, although unfortunately this occurs mostly when someone with a mental illness commits or becomes victim of a violent act. This is unfairly stigmatizing – most of the mentally ill are never violent and most violence is not committed by the mentally ill. But if this is the only way to call attention to the plight of the severely ill and to get funding for adequate services, perhaps the trade-off is worth it.”

    Well, there you have it, from an expert in the art of psychiatric casuistry. The ends render permissible just about any means with these people. Not only is it in the interests of the patient to be subjected to incursions into that erstwhile sanctum sanctorum, the human body, but also, his interests are best served by making everyone fear and hate him.

    I now know why it is that Voltaire once said, “men will always be mad, and those who think they can cure them are the maddest of all.”

    Let’s reinforce the stigma of the people we shoehorn into procrustean psychiatric categories like “schizophrenia” by cynically and opportunistically exploiting mass hysteria, that will help.

    Coming back to DJ Jaffe, that peddler of pernicious porkies, he has a background in advertising, from which his career in the “behavioral health” industry is something of a logical progression, the former having inculcated the almost complete disdain for truth a career in the latter presupposes. The tongues of him and his friend, E Fuller Torrey, that pulpit-pounding fanatic and all-round Goebbelsian rabble-rouser, have strayed so far from the truth, they no longer recognize the porkies they pluck out of thin air (yet like spiders entangled in their own webs, they end up falling prey to the web of deceit spun for the ensnarement of others, for when men habitually practice deception, they end up deceiving themselves, and accordingly become impossible to reason with, as is the case with many criminals, for a lie only has to be repeated a few times before, through some strange auto-suggestive process, we become convinced of it ourselves).

    I categorically reject the notion that it is humane to subject dangerous or criminal “mental patients” to forced “treatment” in all of its varieties, and a fortiori the people upon whose flesh these jays imitating peacocks have designs because they (understandably) seek to escape from an existence which from its commencement to its conclusion seems calculated to drive any man of feeling and intelligence absolutely nuts.

    The prime movers of the whole sordid endeavor we call involuntary psychiatry are not compassion and humanitarianism, but fear and fanaticism. Watching this gallery of grotesques known as the “advocates for the seriously mentally ill” strut about the stage of society is like watching bad theater; full of bad acting, people laying claim to sentiments they do not feel and motives that do not move them; the most insipid dialogue imaginable; and redeemed only by the fact that in the end everyone dies in it, whereupon the curtain is brought-down on this execrable trash, this obscene production that oversteps the limits of good taste. Two thumbs down from me.

    To call the torture to which these people are subjected is a travesty upon words.

    They say they just want to help. I disrespectfully disagree; you are fanatics, dangerous fanatics.

    Nevertheless, speaking frankly like this is streng verboten, for we have to extend to these fanatical quacks a respect in words that they do not show in deeds, for no virtues are so firmly enjoined upon us as those which promote the interests of the vices of the powerful, for the politeness they stipulate peremptorily as a condition of dialogue either makes impossible the utterance of truths which are inconsistent with the etiquette of social discourse, or an offense thereagainst can be invoked as an excuse to shut down discussion, by means of which it can be kept within safe limits, that is, safe to the interests of the vices and abuses to which men become quite attached and in furtherance whereof they mobilize the full force of their cunning.

    Szasz once compared involuntary psychiatry to slavery, and he was right, mutatis mutandis, for both turn other people into instruments of the will of someone else and treat them as means and not ends in themselves

    This can be seen in the coercive prohibition of suicide, where the will of the individual is subordinated to that of others, and his own suffering short-shrifted both by relatives and professionals who make a living from it. Before you come into this world, you are viewed (by those who author your existence) as a means to the end of others (almost any discussion of the issue of childbirth, in the arena of political debate or by potential parents, always centers on the interests of some individual or of society, or some aspect thereof, such as the economy, sometimes because of this selfishness whereof I speak, or sometimes simply because it has become to taboo to question the notion that life is always a gift), and if you try to leave it, no more consideration will be given to you than when you first came into it, for you are chattel.

  • Towards a new poetics of pus

    That should, “to call the torture to which these people are subjected TREATMENT…”

  • cledwyn

    That shouldn’t be “to taboo”, obviously.

  • Cledwyn rat-rouser bulbs

    Some people object to the cynical and misanthropic flavoring of my views of humanity, so I thought I would mount a defense of misanthropes, and correct any popular misconceptions.

    One thing that should be borne in mind, and this has relevance regarding the unfailing politeness of practitioners of psychiatric violence, is that, between a man’s words and deeds (and the motivational springs thereof), there is rarely a simple one-to-one correspondence, and more often than not no correspondence at all, the distance therebetween being so immeasurably great sometimes that comedy has long since seized upon it.

    Language, as Voltaire said, is the dress of our thought, and our amour-propre blinds us anyway to our perfections, as La Rochefoucauld pointed out in one of his maxims (both of whom would have been outlawed in our own age for their blasphemies against the secular faith of Panglossianism).

    This lack of correspondence whereof I speak few men conceive of, either lacking the x-ray vision that allows some to penetrate beneath the skin of humanity and sound its depths, and to discern the canker at the core of consciousness, or because there is no virtue that leads the noses of men off the scent of our vices (just as in the shadow of its opposite, all our virtues disappear in the eyes of others) like politeness, the politeness that in point of fact is often not a virtue, but a smokescreen for the machinations of men, affording easy entry into the good graces of others; or it is a kind of reaction formation against what Cioran described as the impropriety of our depths which, along with the fact that people are not very good actors, can account for its more exaggerated manifestations (for reactive politeness, that is, the politeness that is a reaction against the impoliteness of our depths – as opposed to that which is merely a ruse or, much more rarely, proceeds spontaneously from the human heart – protests too much, so to speak).

    As I’ve already said, a man’s tongue is apt to lay claim to various virtues by which his vices escape detection, hence why it largely is that a man’s actual virtues stand in inverse proportion to his vices, which general principle holds good in the case of the self-proclaimed lovers of humanity, I would say, though insofar as is understood by that some purely abstract generality, then no doubt this is often true; but real human beings themselves?

    A man’s love of people in abstracto often takes on the form of torturing and killing them in concreto, whereas people who mouth misanthropic sentiments rarely act upon them. The world is full of people who claim to love everyone and love no one but themselves (if they even love themselves, in which case they have achieved the admirable feat of loving everyone and nobody), such is the discrepancy between our words and our feelings and deeds, the failure to grasp such things being one of the things so infuriating about the species.

    The love of humanity? A reaction formation against the hatred thereof; and when it is sincere? A cult of bully worship.

    What can certainly be said of the man who expresses misanthropic sentiments is that he is usually sincere, and that if he isn’t, it is not with an eye to deceiving others and profiting therefrom, and sincerity – though it doesn’t figure very highly in society’s contemporary scale of virtues, and never will, for it cannot so easily be pressed into the service of our vices, and is actually probably more opposed to them than any other virtue – is a virtue that should be more highly valued than it is.

    You can at least be assured that when a man mouths such sentiments of despair and disdain regarding his own species, he is not trying to deceive you, and that his willingness to be so open indicates an honesty rarely encountered amongst men, whereas is it not true that the most lofty sentiments and expressions of unconditional concern and love are regularly found in the mouths of scoundrels, torturers, tyrants, and mountebanks, from whose ranks so many lovers of humanity and other generalities have been enlisted?

    Men are forever the dupe of appearances. Give me a man who makes a frank avowal of contempt for humanity over one who declares his love for it, to whose avowals their deeds usually stand in opposition. The former you can usually trust; the latter, rarely.

    Illustrative of the unreliability of words employed self-referentially is the following example. Thomas Szasz was quite disdainful in writing about mental patients, yet no-one argued more vehemently than he for the rights of patients, whereas their oppressors, no matter how much they abuse and kill their victims, never tire of making avowals of love for them. If the words of Inquisitors were anything to go by, then you would have assumed they were very concerned for the souls of the heretics they burned.

    People castigate Nietszche for his supposed lack of pity and compassion inferred, from his writings, yet this was the man who broke down at the sight of a horse being lashed by its owner.

    Words are often nothing to go by, and high-minded words are very often accessories to evil deeds. Just as look at psychiatry.

    Yet even leaving aside this all too often adversarial relationship between words on the one hand, and deeds, feelings and motivations on the other, what is so wrong with misanthropy, even when it is sincerely felt? To draw up a comprehensive charge sheet of the crimes of the species would require the leveling of every forest on the planet.

    Yet the human race always has in its favor that it is only itself it has to answer to, and not some higher authority, in whose judgement we would have no say, and who would not be swayed by the defenses wherewith the species acquits itself when arraigned before some tribunal of its own making (as is the case with optimists, and other assorted idolators of a future, that promises only more of the same, and white-washers of Creation’s crowning scandal, man, all of whom put man on trial only so that they may acquit him and affirm his existence), the trial of which will always be a miscarriage of justice, for men are as ill-disposed to think of their own species impartially as the individual is of himself, and for the same reason, that is, because favorable self-judgements feel better, whence in part the love of humanity.

    Epictetus once said, “if you want to be good, begin by assuming that you are bad.”

    From which can be deduced the corollary; if you want to be bad, begin by assuming that you are good.

    The species, when it evaluates itself, observes the opposite maxim, to wit, that in wanting to be good, we should assume that we already are. It may not make us good, but it will at least make us feel good, and pleasure being the point of orientation towards which most men direct their thoughts, they have little trouble in convincing themselves of the purity of their species, a species that is the cruelest, most rapacious, most conceited, most delusional, most idiotic, and most cunning in the entire cosmos. A better candidate for annihilation could hardly be imagined.

    (I fear that one day men may invent the technology that will allow the species
    to hop from planet to planet, like a vile horde of interplanetary vermin spreading its plague, and take over the whole universe, reproducing to infinity and beyond until, space not being big enough for us, the human race annexes the heavens, plunders its resources, and sets up a housing project there.)

    Only a species that too firmly believes its pretensions to prelapsarian purity could harbor so many scoundrels, for evil flourishes in the shadow of righteousness, something the optimists and apologists for the human race will never understand, who act as if denial of evil will rid the world of it, and castigate and pathologize those of us who don’t.

    It is this righteousness and complacency that is the most infuriating thing of all. If the Last Judgement ever happens, all the assorted fiends of the world will cry out in unison against the heavens. “Is there no justice?”, the gangster will cry out, as he bashes someone’s brains out. “What could we have possibly have done to deserve this?”, the torturer will be heard to say, for every man sees himself as a Job mercilessly persecuted forces by men and the heavens alike, every man sees the stations of his existential journey as so many via crucis, all the more so the more guilty we are.

    So conceited are men, they think themselves predestined for eternal bliss.

    Not possible. The idea of the afterlife is too hideous to even contemplate. It would be little more than a celestial parody of life on earth, full of people with designs on God’s throne, and everywhere men driving each other nuts and making things worse than they would otherwise be, no doubt on the pretext of making things better. God would no doubt kill himself, assuming we hadn’t already killed him to make way for the accession to the throne of some gangster, some megalomaniacal hoodlum.

    It would be terrible to see. A doomsday chaos without a doomsday. Paradise would become indistinguishable from the Inferno, for wherever there are people, there is hell…..

    If there really was an afterlife, then death really would an evil.

  • Cledwyn Pus Poetics

    The love of humanity? The hope that the other 7 billion people out there aren’t as bad as the ones that we’ve met. The hatred of humanity? The knowledge that they are.

    In all seriousness, not everyone’s bad, for as Chamfort said, the devil can’t be everywhere at once.

    The insights into humanity certain experiences impart etch themselves so deeply in the human psyche that only through the complete erasure of memory – that faithful preservative of our traumas, those convulsions of consciousness, and the toll they and the grim epiphanies they afford exact upon us – can one’s faith in humanity be restored, assuming, that is, that one is capable of proceeding from the premises of our experience therewith to the proper conclusion, which is that there are so few men to be trusted in this world, you might as well not bother trusting any of them.

    One of the great scandals of human nature is that men are seemingly incapable of resisting the temptation to abuse the advantages vouchsafed by Nature, Fortune, Society and Circumstance, for which reason it is that many Christians frames their quadruple blessing as a curse.

    This can clearly be seen in the case of the abuse of strength and numbers. Not so much in the case of beauty, which Nature gives to the woman for the same reason it gives the web to spider, poison to the snake. Like a revolver, beauty kills, only, unlike a revolver, it leaves no trace behind. There is often a kind of disguised sadism, conscious or otherwise, at work in the woman who tantalizes the male with her beauty, luring him siren-like to his own demise, like Hermes Psychopompos guiding souls to the underworld, with the sweet music interwoven from the separate threads (like co-conspirators in a murderous scheme) of a woman’s person, and from which the web that entangles human hearts is formed, which beauty the female, when conscious of this effect, wields like a slave-master a whip over his subject, relishing every cruel lashing dished out and exulting in the intoxication such power affords.

    And it is this enjoyment of power that makes the abuse of the advantages that confer it so tempting, hence why men are so easily corrupted.

    Just in case anyone accuse me of sexism, no, I am not sexist, my hatred makes no such discriminations, recognizing as it does that men are just as bad, only the weapons we wield over others often differ, though beauty in a man is just as readily abused.

  • all too easy

    His fourth point reads, “Create a federal definition of serious mental illness, and require that the vast majority of mental-health funding go to it. Due to mission creep and the tendency to diagnose normal reactions of people as a mental “health” issue, government agencies now claim that 40 percent or more of Americans have a mental ‘health’ issue. Worst, most mental “health” funding currently goes to this group of the highest functioning. But only 5 to 9 percent of Americans have a serious mental illness. That’s where we should be spending our money — on the 5 to 9 percent who are most likely to become violent and need help, not the worried well. There is more than enough money in the mental-health system to prevent Newtown-type incidents, provided it is spent on people who are truly ill, not the worried-well. I wrote on this for a mass market on Huffington Post, but a much more scholarly paper was written by Howard H. Goldman and Gerald N. Grob. With the fiscal cliff approaching, prioritizing the most seriously mentally ill for services is more important than ever.”

    Read more at:

    Sad indeed that the blind enjoy blinding the not too bright as they do on this twisted website