My point is that the relationship cannot be assumed
Yeah, but 100% - or even nearly 100% - correlation certainly is enough to warrant further study.
"Every one of these mass shooters was drinking water. And this hey don't show in the media. YET EVERY SINGLE CASE THESE PEOPLE WERE ON FLUIDS. "
Is a 100% correlation between consuming fluids and going on a murderous rampage also enough to warrant further study?
Disproportionate representation would be the key phrase I think.......
Yes, that is my point. A clear correlation is by itself certainly insufficient cause for spending your limited time researching something.
To be certain, I don't think it's the meds. They may have played a role in some cases, they are certainly powerful mind-altering substances but ultimately, this kind of thing has been going on for a long time, certainly since before meds became so wantonly prescribed. It definitely should receive some kind of scrutiny.
I'm with you up to there ...... but then I am disappoint:
But who benefits from fewer drugs prescribed to kids except for a few peasants? Certainly not doctors, teachers, pharma companies, lobbyists or politicians.
Why do you think this is true?
I can think of plenty of ways doctors could profit from
not prescribing drugs - parents would be at their wits end and might try any treatment regardless of it's efficacy. Lobbyists and politicians can make just as much money when trying to change laws as when trying to maintain them. And pharmaceutical companies don't make most of their money from anti-psychotics, so I doubt it would bother them at all.