Added Gun Control Irrelevant

[Richy_T]

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. As 100% of the population consume water, one would expect 100% of the mass murderers to consume water. If 10% of the population were on psycho-active meds and 10% of the mass murderers were, there wouldn't be much to consider. If 10% of the population were on meds and say 50% of the mass murderers were, it could, perhaps (probably), be argued that the murderers were more likely to be disturbed and thus more likely to be on meds and that further investigation *might* be warranted. If it's 100% of them...

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. But who benefits from fewer drugs prescribed to kids except for a few peasants? Certainly not doctors, teachers, pharma companies,  lobbyists or politicians.

[1714115590]

1714115590

[1714115590]

1714115590

[organofcorti]

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?

Well it depends when they drank that water...

Good point. It may actually be water withdrawal that caused their psychotic behaviour. However, the clear correlation that also exists between patients with cancer and water consumption implies that water is extremely toxic, so I think it's more likely that water (arther than  than lack of water) caused the behaviour.

Either way I think there's a good case against allowing individuals at risk of psychotic behviour to consume water in any quantities and in any foodstuff, at least until further studies can be completed.

[organofcorti]

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.
 

[myrkul]

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?

Ahh, but there is not a 100% correlation of consuming fluids and going on a rampage. Or else 100% of people who consume fluids would also go on a rampage.

So, nice try, but you should probably try a different angle.

[organofcorti]

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?

Ahh, but there is not a 100% correlation of consuming fluids and going on a rampage. Or else 100% of people who consume fluids would also go on a rampage.

So, nice try, but you should probably try a different angle.

The same can be said of people who take antipsychotic drugs. Not all go on a murderous rampage. By your own logic, that's not a 100% correlation.

[Richy_T]

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.
 

Doctors get quite substantial kickbacks from pharma companies for prescribing drugs. It's shocking how much. Lobbyists have to get their money from somewhere and at the moment, pharma is a big earner. And it doesn't need to be that they make most of their money from anti-psychotics, merely that they make enough to hire lobbyists and politicians.

All I'm really saying is that it could do with some scrutiny.

[myrkul]

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?

Ahh, but there is not a 100% correlation of consuming fluids and going on a rampage. Or else 100% of people who consume fluids would also go on a rampage.

So, nice try, but you should probably try a different angle.

The same can be said of people who take antipsychotic drugs. Not all go on a murderous rampage. By your own logic, that's not a 100% correlation.

True. But it is a hell of a lot stronger correlation than people who were consuming liquids. And of those on anti-psychotics who do not go on a murderous rampage, a higher percentage commit other violent acts as compared to the general population. Now, drawing a causative conclusion from that may be the equivalent of concluding that hospitals cause deaths, since a higher percentage of people who go to hospitals die than in the general population. Still, such a strong correlation warrants at least a second look.

[Monster Tent]

I wonder how many mass murderers smoked weed.