Thread: What are the bets the CT shooter was on psyche meds? - Dr. Gary G. Kohls, M.D.

Originally Posted by FactChecker

So, your impression of how statistics work is that if there is a correlation between event A and event B, then every instance of event A results from event B?

Because otherwise, you're just tilting at windmills here.

Your ignorance of statistics is abysmal, and this is not high level. Correlation is different from causality. Once positive and statistically significant correlation is determined, the search for causal mechanism can commence. Usually where there's smoke there's fire.

In science you rarely say "every" instance of event A results from event B. You are attempting to construct a paper tiger which you can then knock down. That is already transparent to everyone.

Originally Posted by Ctrl

Fact Checker is probably my favorite poster. It will be fun to disagree with him for once.

"Family friends" speak of a history of mental illness. Mother is a teacher, in an affluent area. He is clearly... completely broken. I would speculate, without an MD in front of my name but also knowing the percentages of these mass shootings of people on pharmaceuticals, (or at least prescribed)... as well as I expect that they were on meds (and usually gone off them) to curb the symptoms of their disorders. I believe a discussion is warranted on this from that perspective as far as improving goes...


However the statistical likelihood, IMO, is that he was on meds. Speculative as it is, is not a logical err any more than ANY speculation is concerned, and the worlds economy is based in speculation... this is not out of the realm of reason to do so.

Out of similar respect for you, I will elaborate on my objections, as I find you to be one of the few lucid and rational posters on the forum.

Undeniably there is a possibility that he has a history of mental illness. However, the objections I raised here are different. The primary one of which is against armchair psychiatry, and charlatans. The question posed is what are the odds that the shooter was on drug meds. I pointed out the following problems with the question (though not as elaborately, obviously :P):

1) Nobody discussed here has conducted a clinical evaluation of the subject, and thus it is unknowable whether he was even mentally ill.
2) It's rather common for post-hoc rationalizations to be made by those who knew them. The shooter's (or other such mass murderer) actions from the past are then viewed through the lens of the actions he eventually takes. (i.e. "Oh, I knew that McVeigh guy was unstable.")
3) There is no method for establishing whether, even if he were mentally ill, that he was taking anything to treat it.
a)Even if he were diagnosed, most people who are diagnosed don't take their medication.
b) Most people who are mentally ill, go undiagnosed. It is estimated that 1/3 of the population is mentally ill, and only about 1 in 5 of all Americans are diagnosed.
4) The argument takes the form of pseudoscientific armchair quakery, in that he presents no actual evidence, but instead relies upon (as we established earlier), unknowable odds.

In actuality, it is very probably that he was mentally ill. However, it relegates itself to the point of nonsense to suggest that he was acting based on the change in body chemistry that we don't know he was experiencing, associated with withdrawal from a medicine that we don't know he was taking, for a mental disorder that we don't know he had, based on the comments of a doctor who has never examined him. You must, as Rehnquist said, "pile inference upon inference", in order to make the case.

It's far more a push against the armchair psychology of, "Well, obviously he was crazy", that comes from people with no qualifications or means to determine such.

I think we're going to have to find something else to disagree on, as I believe we're actually in agreement here. It'll happen one of these days, though.

Originally Posted by Munkle

Your ignorance of statistics is abysmal, and this is not high level. Correlation is different from causality. Once positive and statistically significant correlation is determined, the search for causal mechanism can commence. Usually where there's smoke there's fire.

In science you rarely say "every" instance of event A results from event B. You are attempting to construct a paper tiger which you can then knock down. That is already transparent to everyone.

You understand that I was asking you if that was what you said, right? The point being that it was wrong, and that if you did, you must be corrected? The fact is that you started off from a fallacy, and I was attempting to lead you there. Since you were incapable of following, let me be more blunt:

The original post is a hasty generalization, and even if it weren't, your argument would be an ecological fallacy.

We may never know, because the US Police are in collusion with the Corporate industry, and release of crime statistics in relation to Pharmeceutical usage is not allowed because it would tarnish the reputation of the Pharmeceutical industry and that is slander in the legal books.

The police WILL however release the criminal's name, because he is a natural person and second class citizen, not the first class group of "people" corporations like the evil US Pharmeceutical industry.

What is also bad, is the effects on the brain from STOPPING the drugs immediately. If he was NOT taking the medication at the time the doctors will argue the real problem was he was NOT taking the drugs, when in reality the drug's affect on the body includes (BY INTELLIGENT COUNTRIES) the effects that the drug causes on the body when it is STOPPED taking.

It is nearly impossible for the US to think rationally as a system. It is VERY corrupted by corporate influence.

This post sums up my major objection pretty well.

Adam Lanza’s mental health won’t be known. Not ever. There’s a lot of things we’d like him answer for–unclaimed Christmas presents and crying families and six year olds with cameras on them and reporters in their faces. We’d like to know why he did it. We want to know what was going on in that mind. There’s no explanation that will put this into perspective. Because, what kind of perspective could it be to understand what would drive you to kill children?

But I’m asking you–begging you, really, to not decide that Lanza had a mental illness. I’m asking you not to make “being a good person” the standard for mentally healthy.

Do not try to rationalize this away with mental illness. Stop talking about how it could have been schizophrenia, stop saying he had to have mental health issues. You do not know.

You do not know his state of mind. When you decide to armchair quarterback him, to stamp him with an “obvious” diagnosis, do you know what you are saying?

Here is a terrible thing. The only thing that could possibly cause someone to do such a terrible, tragic thing is to have This Disorder. Because only people with This Disorder could be so dangerous/awful/scary.

Originally Posted by FactChecker

Well, the fact that it is unsubstantiated would be the first reason I'd consider it wild speculation.
Also because they don't have any access to his medical history.
Also because even if they did, that wouldn't tell them if he had it in his body.

But please, tell me how a random person who has never met the shooter, doesn't have his medical history, and doesn't know what was and wasn't in his system, is qualified to state what he was or was not taking. I mean, it's not possible that he's just some schmuck pushing his agenda and hoping people will buy it because it fits their preconceived notions. Absolutely impossible.

Don't worry. I'll wait.

Hey, there are a few other threads you can also apply cynicism to, FC. They include all of the threads whereupon they believe the shooter was actually a phantom and a gun randomly started firing on its own.

Originally Posted by Marshal

We may never know, because the US Police are in collusion with the Corporate industry, and release of crime statistics in relation to Pharmeceutical usage is not allowed because it would tarnish the reputation of the Pharmeceutical industry and that is slander in the legal books.

The police WILL however release the criminal's name, because he is a natural person and second class citizen, not the first class group of "people" corporations like the evil US Pharmeceutical industry.

What is also bad, is the effects on the brain from STOPPING the drugs immediately. If he was NOT taking the medication at the time the doctors will argue the real problem was he was NOT taking the drugs, when in reality the drug's affect on the body includes (BY INTELLIGENT COUNTRIES) the effects that the drug causes on the body when it is STOPPED taking.

It is nearly impossible for the US to think rationally as a system. It is VERY corrupted by corporate influence.

I have already read in other forums on this issue guys stepping forward and saying they lost feelings of empathy and connection after starting on head meds, and being less surprised than most at the violence. Dr. Kohl's compilation of violent episodes linked with psyche meds should be front page news. What is interesting is his statement that while individual meds side effects are studied, they never study the effects of COMBINATIONS of them.

Originally Posted by Munkle

I have already read in other forums on this issue guys stepping forward and saying they lost feelings of empathy and connection after starting on head meds, and being less surprised than most at the violence. Dr. Kohl's compilation of violent episodes linked with psyche meds should be front page news. What is interesting is his statement that while individual meds side effects are studied, they never study the effects of COMBINATIONS of them.

How can the United States, in its quest for self greatness and glory, allow the evil US Pharmeceutical industry to exploit and promote PSYCHOTROPIC BRAIN ALTERING MEDICATION to its GENERAL POPULATION??

GOD GIVE THEM SHAME!!!

Originally Posted by Marshal

How can the United States, in its quest for self greatness and glory, allow the evil US Pharmeceutical industry to exploit and promote PSYCHOTROPIC BRAIN ALTERING MEDICATION to its GENERAL POPULATION??

GOD GIVE THEM SHAME!!!

Flash: Lanza: "Asperbergers and autism." What might they have pumped him up with for mild case of these?

Originally Posted by FactChecker

You understand that I was asking you if that was what you said, right? The point being that it was wrong, and that if you did, you must be corrected? The fact is that you started off from a fallacy, and I was attempting to lead you there. Since you were incapable of following, let me be more blunt:

The original post is a hasty generalization, and even if it weren't, your argument would be an ecological fallacy.

What is an ecological fallacy?