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

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Munkle, Dec 14, 2012.

  1. Munkle

    Munkle Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Big Pharma's dirty secret. Let's keep the tallk on guns and ammo...


    From article by Dr. Gary G. Kohls, MD, "Batman Shooter and His Psyche Drugs"
    Sat, 08/04/2012

    http://evergreenedigest.org/batman-shooter-and-his-psyche-drugs


    " Batman Shooter James Holmes Was On Hardcore Pharmaceutical Drugs"
    Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/batman-shooter-james-holmes-on-pharmaceutical-drugs/#ixzz2F48nrNhb
     
  2. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh, oh, oh! I know the answer.

    The answer is: Unknowable right now and anybody who puts an MD after their name to justify their wild speculation, has clearly wasted 8-12 years of their life and several thousands of dollars.

    What do I win?
     
  3. Munkle

    Munkle Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    28
    What are your qualifications to judge the speculation as "wild?"
     
  4. ragin cajun

    ragin cajun New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is being on drugs an excuse for murder? does it make the drug company responsible rather than the shooter?
     
  5. Munkle

    Munkle Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    28
    What a silly inference. Of course it is no excuse. Are you saying Big Pharma's knowledge of "adverse reactions" is not culpable? Or that responsibility cannot be shared?
     
  6. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  7. Munkle

    Munkle Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    28
    LOL my first criteria for arguing with someone is that they know the word "substantiation."

     
  8. Munkle

    Munkle Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    28
    We simply need to determine whether there is a positive and statistically significant correlation between these events and the use of psyche meds. That's how you begin to ask questions. Then if it turns out there is something to this, those babies will not have died for nothing. No one is unaffected by this. Stop being a sarcastic jackass and think deeply.
     
  9. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  10. Ctrl

    Ctrl Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    25,745
    Likes Received:
    1,944
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  11. Munkle

    Munkle Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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.
     
  12. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  13. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  14. Marshal

    Marshal New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  15. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This post sums up my major objection pretty well.

     
  16. Zosiasmom

    Zosiasmom New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    18,517
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  17. Munkle

    Munkle Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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.
     
  18. Marshal

    Marshal New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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!!!

     
  19. Munkle

    Munkle Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Flash: Lanza: "Asperbergers and autism." What might they have pumped him up with for mild case of these?
     
  20. Munkle

    Munkle Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    28
    What is an ecological fallacy?
     

Share This Page