creepy....

[PostmodernProphet]

so a friend of my daughter was over last night, and his roommate had just gotten back from visiting his cousin in Illinois......she lived in an apartment and a few weeks ago the neighbor upstairs was making a lot of noise and her daughter couldn't sleep so she went up and complained.....he was pretty nice about it and apologized......last week it happened again, at 3 am it sounded like someone was dropping the furniture against the floor....she went and knocked on his door.....the noise stopped but he wouldn't come to the door.....

later that day her apartment complex was swarming with police.....the reason?.....the guy upstairs had walked into a college lecture hall and opened fire on everyone......

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. I can guarantee that man was taken by the devil.
2. Tricked.
3. Happens all the time, and always has.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[truthmatters]

Wow the Flip Wilson defense "the devil made me do it".


Life is a little more complex than that.

There has been a rash of these types of attacks and they are related to the drugs they put these people on for pshyc reasons. They flip out big time when they go off meds. You can thank the drug companies for these types of attacks. The drugs they are pushing to the pshyc people are causing these reactions. Mild mannered kids all of the sudden what to blow everyone away.

[Monkeybone]

Wow the Flip Wilson defense "the devil made me do it".


Life is a little more complex than that.

There has been a rash of these types of attacks and they are related to the drugs they put these people on for pshyc reasons. They flip out big time when they go off meds. You can thank the drug companies for these types of attacks. The drugs they are pushing to the pshyc people are causing these reactions. Mild mannered kids all of the sudden what to blow everyone away.

maybe. but most of the cases are when the person has gone off of the meds, then they flip out. you wanna sue the drug companies for making the person stop taking the pills? oh wait..they didn't. the person themselves did it.

and to take "the person themselves did it" is true in the manner that the devil can't make you do anything. it is sad that whatever was going on in this guys gave him this idea.

[truthmatters]

I never said a thing about sueing now did I?

This is about saving lives.

If the brain chemistry is so altered by the drug that when the person fails to take them they will become a killing spree monster than maybe we should not leave it up to people with mental problems to take them or not?

Maybe they should have to use other drugs for their treatment huh?


The drug companies should fess up and stop selling these particuar meds.

[Hugh Lincoln]

so a friend of my daughter was over last night, and his roommate had just gotten back from visiting his cousin in Illinois......she lived in an apartment and a few weeks ago the neighbor upstairs was making a lot of noise and her daughter couldn't sleep so she went up and complained.....he was pretty nice about it and apologized......last week it happened again, at 3 am it sounded like someone was dropping the furniture against the floor....she went and knocked on his door.....the noise stopped but he wouldn't come to the door.....

later that day her apartment complex was swarming with police.....the reason?.....the guy upstairs had walked into a college lecture hall and opened fire on everyone......

Quite a connection to a tragedy...

[Monkeybone]

how do you know that they wouldn't have just gone a killing spree earlier if they hadn't taken the meds? this is like any other kinda meds, it helps some, some it doesn't. so for the few that stop it on their own, the drugs should be called-back and just screw the ppl that it helps?

or ppl on this kinda drug, should they be required to have a visit every week with blood test to make sure that they haven't stopped taking these meds that keep them from becoming a psychopathic killer?

didn't mean that you wanted to sue the companies. just an overall you

[truthmatters]

how do you know that they wouldn't have just gone a killing spree earlier if they hadn't taken the meds? this is like any other kinda meds, it helps some, some it doesn't. so for the few that stop it on their own, the drugs should be called-back and just screw the ppl that it helps?

or ppl on this kinda drug, should they be required to have a visit every week with blood test to make sure that they haven't stopped taking these meds that keep them from becoming a psychopathic killer?

didn't mean that you wanted to sue the companies. just an overall you


MonkeyB, these incidents are happening at an alarming rate. There are a slew of new meds on the market. I really wish someone would compare all the incidents to see which meds each person was taking and wether there is a direct correlation. The drug companies are not going to do it are they?

[Monkeybone]

no, it would mean loss of money for them.

but i do agree that this 'trend' is becoming way to common.

[truthmatters]

Think about it , they have all been mousy guys no one would fear , had a history of non violent metal illness , stop taking their meds and then a couple of weeks later they go Rambo on the asses of strangers.

There is a definate pattern.

[Monkeybone]

Think about it , they have all been mousy guys no one would fear , had a history of non violent metal illness , stop taking their meds and then a couple of weeks later they go Rambo on the asses of strangers.

There is a definate pattern.

understandable. but at the same time it may not be the drug. with all of them happening, they may have been watching TV and gone "there's a way to go out so someone will notice and remember me"

[truthmatters]

If it were TV then I think we would be seeing many more of these.

There was a texas tower incident years ago that was BIG news and we did not have repeted incidents.

These new drugs CHANGE a persons brain chemistry. That is how they help them. They also make the person feel like a Zomby. The act of going off them may cause a brain chemistry reaction that would have never happend if the person had never taken them. We take drugs off the market for a number of reason and saving lives sure seems like a good reason to me?

[Monkeybone]

understandable. but throwing in that savings lives arguement, then we should ban cigs and booze. i think that they have probably killed more in the last year than a shooter.

so instead of trying to help someone with these drugs then how do you help them? if someone gets diagnosed with some sort of psychopathy just lock them up? have a specail community for them, so that way if they do snap, then hey! it was atleast with other ones that might have snapped.

[gabosaurus]

Tom Cruise says all of you are wrong...

[truthmatters]

understandable. but throwing in that savings lives arguement, then we should ban cigs and booze. i think that they have probably killed more in the last year than a shooter.

so instead of trying to help someone with these drugs then how do you help them? if someone gets diagnosed with some sort of psychopathy just lock them up? have a specail community for them, so that way if they do snap, then hey! it was atleast with other ones that might have snapped.

This is nothing like the cig thing.

They can be treated with other drugs which dont cause these reactions.

[Monkeybone]

This is nothing like the cig thing.

They can be treated with other drugs which dont cause these reactions.

i didn't say this is like the cig thing. i said if you are saying ban them for the good idea of saving lives is like that.

yes they can. but what if these drugs are better? and have they released what drugs these ppl were on? i don't remember seeiung any names or that it was being stated that they were on "new or experimental" drugs. these ppl snapped cuz there was something wrong inside of their heads, or for some reason causing others pain and suffering seemed like a good idea.

[Nukeman]

This is nothing like the cig thing.

They can be treated with other drugs which dont cause these reactions.Hell TM your always for bigger and better government!!! Why don't we just STOP all the phsycotropic drugs, get these lunatics out of society, and place htem where they deserve to be back in the asylums and guarded homes.

You do want full gov't involvement dont you? This is the BEST way to protect innocent lives!!! Some people just CAN'T fit into normal society and I think the government should step in and protect all of us by REMOVING these undesirables, dont you agree TM, after all you are the one always calling for MORE, MORE, AND MORE government involvement to PROTECT all of us defenseless people!!!!

What better way to make sure they are taking their drugs than to lock them up and isolate them from decent society!!! If we start early we may be able to catch them when they are young, I bet if we start with all the hyperactive ADD kids and than move on to the moody teenagers we could fill up those places with a slew of undesireables, just soo the rest of us can sleep easy at night knowing the government is taking appropriate steps to insure our safety and protection. After all no one should ever have to have PERSONAL RESPOSIBILITY should they.......:poke:


"ok my sarcasm is off"

[truthmatters]

i didn't say this is like the cig thing. i said if you are saying ban them for the good idea of saving lives is like that.

yes they can. but what if these drugs are better? and have they released what drugs these ppl were on? i don't remember seeiung any names or that it was being stated that they were on "new or experimental" drugs. these ppl snapped cuz there was something wrong inside of their heads, or for some reason causing others pain and suffering seemed like a good idea.


They are not experimental. The pharmasuetical companys have tested them and found them save enough to sell and the FDA has looked at their studies and agreed.

Now maybe someone needs to review these studies huh?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Crawford


Hmmmmmm

[Nukeman]

They are not experimental. The pharmasuetical companys have tested them and found them save enough to sell and the FDA has looked at their studies and agreed.

Now maybe someone needs to review these studies huh?Do you honostly think the FDA takes the study put forth by the Pharnacuiticle companies. You are more dense than I ever gave you credit for. The studies are PAID for by the drug manufacturers but they are RUN by the FDA. It takes YEARS before a new drug makes it to market.... The drugs yor using today were developed back in the 80's and 90's and are just now completing final testing.

Ohhh wait in TM's world we just come up with a new drug and tell the government it works OK so we can give it out right, and the government says sure why not, no need to PROVE your testing to us WE believe you.... IDIOT!!!!!!:slap:

[Kathianne]

Do you honostly think the FDA takes the study put forth by the Pharnacuiticle companies. You are more dense than I ever gave you credit for. The studies are PAID for by the drug manufacturers but they are RUN by the FDA. It takes YEARS before a new drug makes it to market.... The drugs yor using today were developed back in the 80's and 90's and are just now completing final testing.

Ohhh wait in TM's world we just come up with a new drug and tell the government it works OK so we can give it out right, and the government says sure why not, no need to PROVE your testing to us WE believe you.... IDIOT!!!!!!:slap:

and if national health care sets in, those drugs for less popular uses will not be forthcoming.

[Monkeybone]

i never said that they were experimental. you need to learn how to read the whole post and not just skim for words that pop out to you ( atleast i am guessing that is how you read, especially based on when your own sources contradict what you post).

all this talk about the pharamacutical compainies and the money they want. TM and her movies merging with reality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fugitive_%281993_film%29

[truthmatters]

Do you honostly think the FDA takes the study put forth by the Pharnacuiticle companies. You are more dense than I ever gave you credit for. The studies are PAID for by the drug manufacturers but they are RUN by the FDA. It takes YEARS before a new drug makes it to market.... The drugs yor using today were developed back in the 80's and 90's and are just now completing final testing.

Ohhh wait in TM's world we just come up with a new drug and tell the government it works OK so we can give it out right, and the government says sure why not, no need to PROVE your testing to us WE believe you.... IDIOT!!!!!!:slap:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA#Approval_to_market_a_new_drug
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/10/18.php



Ill wait for you appology








When you appoint people like this toi head the FDA you get this type of problem.

Lester Mills Crawford (born March 13, 1938) is a former Commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Crawford resigned from the FDA in September, 2005 - just two months after his approval by the Senate. On October 17, 2006, he pleaded guilty "to conflict of interest and false reporting of information about stocks he owned in food, beverage and medical device companies he was in charge of regulating."[

[Nukeman]

http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/10/18.phpFrom your own sight!!!! did you read it. The feds are already calling for better and longer but that doesn't mean that they are lax presently. You are once again "perceiving" what YOU think is the truth. Didn't you just post this about perception vs reality...



Now, the FDA is considering whether such longer-term studies, which can take two to three years altogether for depression patients, should be required before a drug goes on the market. The agency has long been moving toward such a requirement, Dr. Laughren said. But the limited data available during last year's debate over possible risks of antidepressants to young patients, which centered on short-term trials, helped to spark action on the issue, Dr. Laughren said.

You forget or don't know to begin with that it is immposible to test every type of person out ther for a new drug. What is done is the people who are MOST likely to recieve the drug are tested and than the physicians and phsychiatrist start to dispense for OTHER conditions once it is approved. When a problem arises the manufacture will revisit the studies and redo what needs to be done. YOU can not plan for every contingency. Every person is different and react to drugs differently do you understand that little concept........

NICE 3 YEAR OLD FIND BY THE WAY!!!!!!!!

[Nukeman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA#Approval_to_market_a_new_drug
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/10/18.php



Ill wait for you appology








When you appoint people like this toi head the FDA you get this type of problem.

Lester Mills Crawford (born March 13, 1938) is a former Commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Crawford resigned from the FDA in September, 2005 - just two months after his approval by the Senate. On October 17, 2006, he pleaded guilty "to conflict of interest and false reporting of information about stocks he owned in food, beverage and medical device companies he was in charge of regulating."[

WAHT THE FUCK FOR YOU MORON. FROM YOUR OWN SIGHT


[edit] New prescription drugs
New drugs receive extensive scrutiny before FDA approval and some continuing surveillance after marketing. The following sections outline the basic elements of the regulatory program.


[edit] Approval for testing in humans
To test a new drug experimentally in humans, a sponsor must first file Investigational New Drug Application (IND). The sponsor must show it has learned enough about the drug from animal and laboratory studies to give the drug safely to healthy volunteers. An IND is automatically approved unless the FDA objects. After an initial IND filing, a sponsor must submit annual reports, scientific reports about every study conducted and reports of adverse events.[7]


[edit] Approval to market a new drug
A New Drug Application (NDA) is request for approval to market a new drug for a specific indication or medical use. The first pivotal hurdle for approval is the legal requirement for "substantial" evidence of efficacy demonstrated through controlled clinical trials. [8] This standard lies at the heart of the regulatory program for drugs. It means that the clinical experience of doctors, the opinion of experts, or testimonials from patients, even if they have experienced a miraculous recovery, have no weight in this process. The second critical requirement is that the sponsor must prove the drug is safe "by all scientific means applicable." [8]This places the burden on the sponsor to conduct whatever tests may be needed to establish the safety of the drug product.
However, prescription drugs are not completely safe. The legal requirements for safety and efficacy have been interpreted as requiring scientific evidence that the benefits of a drug outweigh the risks and that adequate instructions exist for its safe use. Many approved medications for serious illnesses (i.e. cancer) have severe and even life-threatening side effects.

The results of the testing program are codified in an FDA-approved public document that is called the product label, package insert or Full Prescribing Information. [9]The prescribing information is widely available on the web, from the FDA, [10]drug manufacturers, and frequently inserted into drug packages.The main purpose of a drug label is to provide doctors with adequate information and directions for the safe use of the drug.


[edit] Chemistry and manufacturing
The FDA initial review of an NDA also includes a chemical assessment of the drug molecule. The sponsor must demonstrate a capacity to manufacture and package the drug at the specified potency without contamination or impurities and the with specified chemical characteristics (such as dissolution).


[edit] Advertising and promotion
The FDA reviews and regulates prescription drug advertising and promotion. (Other kinds of advertising, including for over-the- counter drugs, are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission). The drug advertising regulation[11] contains two key requirements. Under most circumstances, a company may only advertise a drug for the specific indication or medical use for which it was approved. Also, an advertisement must contain "fair balance" between the benefits and risks of a drug.


[edit] Post market safety surveillance
After approval of an NDA, the sponsor must review and report to the FDA every patient adverse drug experience of which it learns. Unexpected serious and fatal adverse drug events must be reported within 15 days; other events on a quarterly basis. [12] The FDA also receives directly adverse drug event reports through its MedWatch program.[13] These reports are called '"spontaneous reports" because reporting by consumers and health professionals is voluntary. While this remains the primary tool of postmarket safety surveillance, FDA requirements for postmarketing risk management are increasing. As a condition of approval, a sponsor may be required to conduct additional clinical trials, called Phase IV trials. In some cases the FDA is requiring risk management plans for some drugs that may provide for other kinds of studies, restrictions, or safety surveillance activities.



What the hell else do you want them to do for you???????? What can they do for you??????? FUCKING IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!

[truthmatters]

Who Does The Testing??????????

They canned the new testing requirements
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Business/2005/10/26/fda_changes_drug_testing_policy/8160/



"The studies are PAID for by the drug manufacturers but they are RUN by the FDA"


You were wrong huh?

[Nukeman]

Who Does The Testing??????????

The testing is "performed" (payed for) by the drug companies, but heres the part you need UNDERSTAND it is all REVIEWED and checked by the FDA. They have the final say if its yaa or nay. Do you comprehend that. Yes the leg work is done by the company in question but the OVERSIGHT is by the FDA..... It takes YEARS to get a new drug to market. Every I has to be dotted and every T has to be crossed. So many drugs NEVER make it out of the experimental stage due to problems in the animal testing, but to hear you every drug offered is automaticly approved without any testing at all....

These are not just mom and pop stands coming up with new drugs you moron. these are large companies that their whole lively hood is these drugs. Have you ever been to one of these companies and seen how they do their work or are you just talking out your ass again as usual.

[Nukeman]

Who Does The Testing??????????

They canned the new testing requirements
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Business/2005/10/26/fda_changes_drug_testing_policy/8160/



"The studies are PAID for by the drug manufacturers but they are RUN by the FDA"


You were wrong huh?If you run the oversight you ultimatley run the show dont yaa think.... If you have the final say you run the show dont yaa think......

[truthmatters]

Do you honostly think the FDA takes the study put forth by the Pharnacuiticle companies. You are more dense than I ever gave you credit for. The studies are PAID for by the drug manufacturers but they are RUN by the FDA. It takes YEARS before a new drug makes it to market.... The drugs yor using today were developed back in the 80's and 90's and are just now completing final testing.

Ohhh wait in TM's world we just come up with a new drug and tell the government it works OK so we can give it out right, and the government says sure why not, no need to PROVE your testing to us WE believe you.... IDIOT!!!!!!:slap:

This is what you said to me.

You were wrong and I was right.

The company does the testing and presents their findings to the FDA. The FDA is depending on the company to properly document their study and not to lie in the study. When you have an FDA head who is going to make money from the companies success then you have a real problem huh? That is just what Bush and the Republican party gave us huh?

[Monkeybone]

This is what you said to me.

You were wrong and I was right.

The company does the testing and presents their findings to the FDA. The FDA is depending on the company to properly document their study and not to lie in the study. When you have an FDA head who is going to make money from the companies success then you have a real problem huh? That is just what Bush and the Republican party gave us huh?

just like *deep doom voice* OSHA !!!!! the vast right Bushie wing conspiracy has been brought to light!!! :tinfoil:

[truthmatters]

Here is what you are refusing to realize. This is all about money. This is who buys your government. The corporations who stand to make or lose billions depending on who is in office and who will appoint the people who oversee their businesses.

This is who the current republican party is run by. They care about money and not Americans. These are the results of voting for people who care nothing about people but care about money.

[Mr. P]

This is what you said to me.

You were wrong and I was right.

The company does the testing and presents their findings to the FDA. The FDA is depending on the company to properly document their study and not to lie in the study. When you have an FDA head who is going to make money from the companies success then you have a real problem huh? That is just what Bush and the Republican party gave us huh?

It does take years to get a drug to market, TM, and the FDA dictates the testing process the manufacture must follow, not the manufactures.

[truthmatters]

The FDA does not do the testing the company does it

[Gaffer]

The FDA does not do the testing the company does it

And if a dem is in office the practice will continue. A dem appointee will then get the kick backs instead of a repub.

[Monkeybone]

The FDA does not do the testing the company does it

uh...he didn't say that?


It does take years to get a drug to market, TM, and the FDA dictates the testing process the manufacture must follow, not the manufactures.

you know....dictates....like tell you what to do...sorta how you want the Gov to do for us

[truthmatters]

They set the testing criteria which is not doubt a scientific criteria.

The company then pays for and performs the testing and documantation, then htey submitt it all to the FDA. The FDA then desides wether to allow the drug to market based on the information given them by the company.


Man I wish people would just be fair for a change.

[Said1]

They set the testing criteria which is not doubt a scientific criteria.

Did you mean 'no doubt?"


The company then pays for and performs the testing and documantation, then htey submitt it all to the FDA. The FDA then desides wether to allow the drug to market based on the information given them by the company.

And this takes years, right? Not only that, approved patent applications take even longer.

[truthmatters]

Do you honostly think the FDA takes the study put forth by the Pharnacuiticle companies. You are more dense than I ever gave you credit for. The studies are PAID for by the drug manufacturers but they are RUN by the FDA. It takes YEARS before a new drug makes it to market.... The drugs yor using today were developed back in the 80's and 90's and are just now completing final testing.

Ohhh wait in TM's world we just come up with a new drug and tell the government it works OK so we can give it out right, and the government says sure why not, no need to PROVE your testing to us WE believe you.... IDIOT!!!!!!:slap:



This is what he said to me.

[Said1]

This is what he said to me.

And?

[Monkeybone]

This is what he said to me.

do you even know how to comprehend what you read? i mean seriously. she wasn't going against the years to do it, it was more of a reasurance, with the patents taking long also as a back up.

do you wear a normal bike helmet or do you have to special order one?

[truthmatters]

"The studies are PAID for by the drug manufacturers but they are RUN by the FDA"


No they are run by the companies

[Said1]

do you even know how to comprehend what you read? i mean seriously. she wasn't going against the years to do it, it was more of a reasurance, with the patents taking long also as a back up.

do you wear a normal bike helmet or do you have to special order one?

Lets just say 'yes, a new drug has to go through several processes before it reaches drug stores. In some instances, this can take over a decade. '

I forget the other arguement - something about meds not mental disorders causing random shootings?

[Said1]

"The studies are PAID for by the drug manufacturers but they are RUN by the FDA"


No they are run by the companies


Semantics. Standards are set federally. That is, testing standards are set, federally. The trials a drug must undergo are set federally. I think most of us knew what was meant by that statement. Sadly, I often have to read your posts a number of times to make sense of them. :(

[truthmatters]

So I was called a slurry of names for semantics?

you people are so fair minded.

The companies perform and pay for the tests and he called me several names for saying so.

[Said1]

So I was called a slurry of names for semantics?

you people are so fair minded.

The companies perform and pay for the tests and he called me several names for saying so.

Wow. You're way too emotional. So much so that it affects your ability to concentrate and reason........but not rationalize. You don't think things through, you just react. Your posts remind me of 'fight or flight' blind furry sort of responses. You sound like a crybaby half the time too. And that is more than fair. :)

[truthmatters]

Come on Said!

I was right and you guys know it.

The companies pay for and preform the testing and then the FDA reads it and desides what step to take.

They can order more testing , flat deny it, or approve the drug for use.

The FDA does not do the testing and he was wrong.

man people

[Said1]

Come on Said!

I was right and you guys know it.

The companies pay for and preform the testing and then the FDA reads it and desides what step to take.

They can order more testing , flat deny it, or approve the drug for use.

The FDA does not do the testing and he was wrong.

man people

You're wrong, as usual. He said they run the testing, which they do. Administraion of said tests was not the issue. Man, TM.

[Mr. P]

They set the testing criteria which is not doubt a scientific criteria.

The company then pays for and performs the testing and documantation, then htey submitt it all to the FDA. The FDA then desides wether to allow the drug to market based on the information given them by the company.


Man I wish people would just be fair for a change.

Are you suggesting that a drug company submits study results to the FDA for a new drug without FDA oversight and analysis of that testing? Then bingo-bango- bongo a new drug appears on the shelf?

[Abbey Marie]

Think about it , they have all been mousy guys no one would fear , had a history of non violent metal illness , stop taking their meds and then a couple of weeks later they go Rambo on the asses of strangers.

There is a definate pattern.

Rather than blaming the drugs and the 'evil' drug companies, it's quite likely that the drugs just delayed the inevitable.

[truthmatters]

Rather than blaming the drugs and the 'evil' drug companies, it's quite likely that the drugs just delayed the inevitable.



Your proof?

[Said1]

Your proof?

Where's yours?

[truthmatters]

http://www.fda.gov/cder/handbook/develop.htm

[Said1]

http://www.fda.gov/cder/handbook/develop.htm

And this proves what, exactly?

[truthmatters]

Its an overview of the process.

[Dilloduck]

I really wish someone would----

I wish you would. Oh ya--too much work--might get your hands dirty. I don't think I've ever run into a person who blames other people for problems as much as you. Get off you ass and fix em. I would take a chance on you flipping out on meds before I would deny them to you.

[Said1]

Its an overview of the process.

Proving what?


I'm very familiar with the various stages of federal/national drug approval, in many different countries. Sadly, it's part of my job.

So what exactly about the process is supposed to prove what about what? Discuss.

[truthmatters]

Have you read the thread?

[CockySOB]

Have you read the thread?

Have you posted anything of substance?

[Yurt]

Sorry bout that,

1. I can guarantee that man was taken by the devil.
2. Tricked.
3. Happens all the time, and always has.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

that really is a very simplistic view.

do you agree that God gave us free will and that we have the power to choose?

[truthmatters]

Have you posted anything of substance?


I would call providing all the information I habe provided in this thread far more substancial the anything you have offered here.

[Mr. P]

Wow the Flip Wilson defense "the devil made me do it".


Life is a little more complex than that.

There has been a rash of these types of attacks and they are related to the drugs they put these people on for pshyc reasons. They flip out big time when they go off meds. You can thank the drug companies for these types of attacks. The drugs they are pushing to the pshyc people are causing these reactions. Mild mannered kids all of the sudden what to blow everyone away.


Have you read the thread?

I have and you have not yet proven your first lame ass accusation in bold above, post #3 I think.

[truthmatters]

I have supplied links to the process , laws , laws abandoned , Bush appointed FDA head who resigned and was prosicuted for conflict of interest concerning drug cos.

What have you provided except personal insults?

[Said1]

Have you read the thread?

Now you're in generic answer mode.

If you want the truth, I was asking for your proof contridicting Abbey's claim. Given that you missed that, I thought I would be fair and accept what you posted. What you posted and it's relevance to this thread isn't clear, to me. This is the third time in this thread I've asked you to clarify. So again, what did that pretty little chart and all it's arrows prove in relation to this thread?

I have already stated you are arguing semantics with the guy who called you names. Meaning that 'they run' testing isn't the best choice of words, but most knew what he meant. If you are unclear, he means they control the method of testing and interpret the results as they see fit (for starters). So yes, the FDA, Health Canada, KFDA and many other federal Food and Drug organizations/agencies do control testing, to the point of who can be tested and under what circumstances. No one is arguing who administers testing.


Now what is your point?

[truthmatters]

Rather than blaming the drugs and the 'evil' drug companies, it's quite likely that the drugs just delayed the inevitable.

If you look back through the thread you will see the answers. I dont know how many times Im allowed to repost the links.

[truthmatters]

The studies are PAID for by the drug manufacturers but they are RUN by the FDA


That is what he said.

They do not run the tests.

[CockySOB]

If you look back through the thread you will see the answers. I dont know how many times Im allowed to repost the links.

I think the issue here is that most people prefer the poster to not only post links to substantiate their claims or assertions, but also to actually take the time to formulate and post said assertions. You have not yet done so in any coherent, let alone cogent, form. Should any of my students present an argument in the manner you have, I'd be laying into them just as much for their laziness.

Try stating your propositions clearly, and then lead us down the path of logic to reach the conclusion you have reached. That is what we term a "proof" provided you can use proper logic to move from step to step in your process and that we are able to arrive at the same conclusion you seem to have reached. Personally, I'm not holding my breath.

[Said1]

If you look back through the thread you will see the answers. I dont know how many times Im allowed to repost the links.

I don't recall any proof. You posted something subsantial from a recognized medical journal linking random shootings to inadequet testing of psycho meds? Are these same drugs used in other countries?

[Mr. P]

The studies are PAID for by the drug manufacturers but they are RUN by the FDA


That is what he said.

They do not run the tests.

Right they don't. Neither the FDA or the drugs companies run the study. Doctors, researchers and research hospitals do, WITH THE OVERSIGHT of the FDA.

[Said1]

The studies are PAID for by the drug manufacturers but they are RUN by the FDA


That is what he said.

They do not run the tests.

I know what he wrote. Why are you reposting this. I replied to it as well.

[truthmatters]

http://holology.com/shooting.html

There may be a connection


http://h11.protectedsite.net/index.cfm/6421/7749


http://www.behavior.org/journals_BAD/V11n4/digest_V11n4_medication.cfm



http://member.melbpc.org.au/~grjallen/8myths.htm

[Said1]

http://holology.com/shooting.html

There may be a connection

What kind of med were they taking?

[Yurt]

I have supplied links to the process , laws , laws abandoned , Bush appointed FDA head who resigned and was prosicuted for conflict of interest concerning drug cos.

What have you provided except personal insults?

not this "proof"

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/DES/D780~Jack-Daniel-s-Black-Label-Posters.jpg

get some real proof

[Kathianne]

I'll go for a moderator to cut this, as it speaks to the topic in frightful ways. It's about Illinois, one of the two most restrictive states already, regarding 2nd amendment rights, that now is looking at how to tighten a law that would already be more restrictive than had been.

The same Illinois that had the campus shooting last week.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080218/ap_on_re_us/niu_shooting_gun_law


Illinois' new gun law under scrutiny

By MICHAEL TARM, Associated Press WriterMon Feb 18, 4:35 PM ET

Illinois lawmakers moved swiftly after last year's massacre at Virginia Tech to make it harder for anyone with a history of mental illness to buy guns, fortifying what were already some of the nation's toughest weapons laws.

But the new measure does not take effect until June. And whether it would have prevented last week's bloodbath at Northern Illinois University is far from clear.

Steven Kazmierczak, the 27-year-old grad student who bought an arsenal of guns in recent months and used them to kill five people and commit suicide, had been on medication and was said to have spent time in a psychiatric center as a teen in the late 1990s.

But state Sen. Dan Kotowski, a sponsor of the law that will require more detailed reporting to state officials about those who have received mental health treatment, said the sketchy information about Kazmierczak's medical history makes it impossible to know if he would have fallen under the law.

"This law is more comprehensive than most," the Democrat said Monday. "But everything needs to be evaluated and reviewed to address the problem so that something like this never happens again. This is the promise we have to make." Is he implying that when the legislature gets done with this, we have a 'guarantee' that no longer will this be able to happen?

The measure, when it takes effect, will require health professionals to inform state authorities about patients who display violent, suicidal or threatening behavior. Right now, such information is reported to state officials only on people who have been institutionalized, not on those who receive only outpatient treatment.

Illinois adopted the law last June, and the governor signed it in August.

Virginia lawmakers, meanwhile, still are considering a package of bills to reform that state's mental health system in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, including one that would make it easier to have people involuntarily committed.

The proposals are attempts to reform a mental health system that came under increased scrutiny since a mentally disturbed student, Seung-Hui Cho, killed 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech in April.

Unlike Cho, Kazmierczak showed few outward signs of trouble. He passed repeated criminal background checks and had a state firearm owner's identification card, which requires applicants to answer a series questions, including whether they have been in a mental hospital in the preceding five years. Authorities say they verify what the applicants put down.

A former employee at a Chicago psychiatric treatment center said last week that Kazmierczak was placed there after high school by his parents. She said he used to cut himself and had resisted taking medications. And Kazmierczak's girlfriend, Jessica Baty, told CNN on Sunday that he had been on an antidepressant but had stopped taking it about three weeks ago because "it made him feel like a zombie."

But even under Illinois' new law, it's not clear whether Kazmierczak said or did anything that would have triggered the reporting requirement and made him ineligible to buy guns.

Some argue the more stringent reporting rules could make it even harder to identify people who might be about to snap.
BINGO!

Gary Slutkin of the Chicago Project for Violence Prevention at the University of Illinois said the rules could have the unintended consequences of discouraging people from seeking help out of fear of being reported. He said that might be especially likely to happen in the case of someone fantasizing about going on a killing spree.

"If you have these ideas, you might be less likely to get help because you know for sure you'll be reported," he said.

Pro-gun forces also expressed skepticism such laws would have done any good in stopping someone like Kazmierczak.

John Boch, like many other gun-rights activists in Illinois, said the answer is for the state to loosen its gun laws, not tighten them, so that students could have been able to shoot back during the NIU attack. Illinois is one of only two states with an outright ban on carrying concealed weapons. Wisconsin is the other.

"This guy at NIU committed murder, for god's sake," Boch said. "What are a few more gun laws going to do to protect human life? There are a lot of laws he violated in killing those kids, but one more law won't make a difference to guys like that."

[AFbombloader]

"The studies are PAID for by the drug manufacturers but they are RUN by the FDA"


No they are run by the companies

Run, as in controlled, or dictated. The standards that the tests are compared to are set by the FDA. So they are in control of the test. I.E. They are running things.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Run

76. to manage or conduct: to run a business; to run one's own life. (replace business with test)


AF:salute:

[AFbombloader]

Come on Said!

I was right and you guys know it.

The companies pay for and preform the testing and then the FDA reads it and desides what step to take.

They can order more testing , flat deny it, or approve the drug for use.

The FDA does not do the testing and he was wrong.

man people

Context! That is where the issue is. You were correct in discribing the process. But wrong in thinking that the companies are in control. Do you honestly think if Merc gave a halfassed study or one that the FDA felt was not done properly they would approve the drug?
These companies have to follow guidelines and regulations. There are many industries that do the same thing. If it is a safety issue they have to have everything in order or the federal government will not approve.

AF:salute:

(no derogatory names or slurs were used in the writing of this post)