Talk:Antidepressant

St. John's Wort is not a drug

St. John's Wort is a common naturopathic remedy and should not be classified as a drug. Only substances controlled by the FDA or other governing agencies should be labelled this way.

Continually referring to herbs and vitamins as drugs only further pushes the idea that these (as of now) relativity inexpensive prescription alternatives should be controlled by governments.

207.199.249.153 06:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wellbutrin (bupropion)

Wellbutrin (buproprion hydrochloride) is an antideppresant that's not related to any of the 3 listed classes of AD's

--MarXidad, 2002-01-17 6:30 AM EST

---

I thought that Welbutrin was a dopamine reuptake inhibitor, and that Serzone inhibited reuptake of both seratonin and norepinephrine.

-arteitle, 2003-05-20

---

Controversy

There's a large body of recent research suggesting anti-depressants either have a very small or non-existent effect, and that anywhere from 75-90% of their efficacy is accounted for by variations on the placebo effect (50-75% from the classic placebo effect itself, and another 15-25% from the unblinding effects that take place in studies that use sugar pills instead of active placebos—which is many of them). Some research even indicates that some of the physiological changes in brain function are mimicked by placebos as well. This is obviously controversial, but I think needs to be at least mentioned. Is anyone familiar with this able to write something up? If not, I'll try to put something in eventually. For reference, some papers on the subject include:

• Enserlink, M. (1999). Psychopharmacology: can the placebo be the cure? Science 284: 238-240
• Even, C. Siobud-Dorocant, E., and Dardennes, R.M. (2000). Critical approach to antidepressant trials: Blindness protection is necessary, feasible and measurable. British Journal of Psychiatry 177(1): 47-51.
• Kirsch, I. & Sapirstein, G. (1998). Listening to Prozac but hearing placebo: a meta-analysis of antidepressant medication. Prevention and Treatment 1, article 2a, posted July 28, 1998. http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume1/pre0010002a.html
• Mayberg, H.S., Silva, J.A., Brannan, S.K., Tekell, J.L., Mahurin, R.K., McGinnis, S., and Jerabek, P.A. (2002). The functional neuroanatomy of the placebo effect. American Journal of Psychiatry 159(5): 728-737.
• Moncrieff, J., Wessely, S., and Hardy, R. (1998). Meta-analysis of trials comparing antidepressants with active placebos. British Journal of Psychiatry 172: 227-231.
• Parker, G., Anderson, I.M., and Haddad, P. (2003). Clinical trials of antidepressant medications are producing meaningless results. British Journal of Psychiatry 183(2): 102-104.

--Delirium 03:14, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

Well, that is all well and good but I think all the antidepressant articles here on wikipedia seem to focus on the negative with little to know discussion of the benefits. And there are many, many, many studies showing the effectiveness of these medications. Most pschiatrists, many of them intelligent competant people have found these meds very effective in treating depression. There needs to be more coverage of this.

protohiro 17:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I do worry that the controversy surrounding antidepressants is in danger of overshadowing what is surely its raison d'etre, which is the wellbeing of depression sufferers. Just a thought. Chris 10:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, that's precisely the controversy---whether antidepressants contribute to the wellbeing of depression sufferers, or fail to do so. --Delirium 21:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. The "controversy" originated with case histories of depressed patients whose condition either did not improve or seriously worsened when they were treated with ADs, and with patients who discontinued ADs and found themselves substantially worse than before they began treatment. Even people like Glenmullen and Healy aren't denying that drug therapy has its uses, they're questioning the absolute faith in drug therapy on the part of psychiatry, precisely BECAUSE of their concern for the well-being of people with depression. The reason most WP articles on this subject contain large amounts of information about the controversy is because the controversy is very real and taken very seriously by anyone who has studied the possible negative effects of antidepressants (or indeed, experienced them). It would be POV to play this down, not to mention it 82.37.58.152 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The placebo effect is important in another way. I once came across an article on the difficulty of conducting genuinely blind clinical trials. Many candidate antidepressants have clear side-effects. Test subjects will feel these and guess (correctly) that they are on the drug and not the control (e.g. a sugar pill). This could increase the placebo effect for these patients and invalidate the trials. Pigkeeper 21:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

isoniazid not mao inhibitor should be iproniazid

This discussion topic was apparently created by 130.126.49.10 way back in 2003, but it doesn't look like it has been discussed or implemented yet. As far as I know, isoniazid has no MAOI or antidepressant efficacy, and iproniazid was the first synthetic MAOI and antidepressant. This is one source which could be cited.

Also, perhaps the article should mention that harmala alkaloids and other naturally occuring MAOIs existed and were used medicinally and spiritually long before the synthesis of iproniazid, although these MAOIs were generally completely impractical for the treatment of depression. Perhaps that belongs on the MAOI page, instead.Fluoborate 04:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

---

First of all, I reordered the classes list to put the drugs in rough chronological order. The MAOIs came first, then the TCAs, etc. Second, I removed the class of "norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor". I did this because, unlike serotonin, norepinephrine does not have a class of drugs that selectively targets its reuptake (at least as far as I know. If I am wrong, please correct me). Instead, there are a number of drugs, such as Venlafexine, Wellbutrin, Mirtazapine, the TCAs, etc, that target norepinephrine as well as either serotonin, dopomaine, or both. So a seperate class doesn't really fit. Thirdly, I removed the drugs given as examples after some of the classes. Having only examples for one or two classes seemed strange, and some of the examples were wrong. Mostly it just seemed like clutter. Defenestration 19:26, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I was wrong. Norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors DO exist, only they are called Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors (NARIs), to avoid the confusion of mixing acronyms with SNRIs, I presume. Two exist, reboxetine and atomoxetine, though neither are approved for treating depression in the US. I added a link for the NARIs, and may getting around to writing up a page for them eventually. Defenestration 21:59, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

where are the related links???

Dysphoric?

To quote from the article: "Certain antidepressants can initially make depression worse, can induce anxiety, or can make a patient aggressive, dysphoric or acutely suicidal." Is what's being alluded to here by use of dysphoric the blanket concept of dysphoria or the concept of gender dysphoria? Antidepressants are often prescribed to transsexuals, especially transwomen, so the latter wouldn't surprise me. Arivia 11:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Dysphoric almost certainly refers to dysphoric mood in this context and definetly does not refer to gender dysphoria. Also while antidepressants would be prescribed to a transexual suffering from Major Depressive Disorder or an anxiety disorder, the suggestion that it is 'often' used to treat transsexualism is categorically wrong. djheart 19:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

How do they work?

Cut from intro:

... antidepressants function generally by interacting with the neurotransmitters (signalling chemicals) in the brain believed to influence mood"

This is unclear. What sort of "interaction" do occurs in the brain, when people take these drugs.

How does this affect mood? And who says so, and why do they only "believe" it? Don't they know for sure?

What sorts of studies have been done on the effectiveness of these medications? How much better are they than placebos? How much better than various kinds of therapy?

Dr. David D. Burns, a practioner of rational-emotive therapy, claims a high success rate. Yet we have no article on his approach. I'm not even sure if its his own approach, or is a common practice. Uncle Ed 15:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It is generally known that antidepressants interfere with neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, dopamine and noradrenaline. It has little to do with belief - this has been confirmed experimentally.

All registered antidepressants have a measurable effect on mood. Some are only marginally better than placebos, while others can cause a significant improvement. Natural counterparts (St John's wort) do appear to have some effectivity but with more side-effects.

Rational-emotive therapy is one of the modalities used in clinical depression, and moderately succesful. It is not just Dr Burns who propagates this approach. Psychotherapy and cognitive therapy should ideally be offered to all patients with depression. JFW | T@lk 03:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Most of the first-line drugs interact with neurotransmitter receptors, not the transmitters themselves (I say most because the MAOIs aren't like that), as described here. Another reason that so much research went into catecholamine presence-increasers was reserpine, the catecholamine-depleting herbal antipsychotic/antihypertensive that was reported to cause depression in long term users and is used in animal models of depression even today. And then there the finding that depressives had lower levels of certain neurotransmitter metabolites in their cerebrospinal fluid compared to the general population (that's not the earliest reference by any means; they've been seeing this since at least 1966.) But there is now evidence that monoamines are not the entire story. That, and the very existence of a drug like tianeptine, the selective serotonin reuptake enhancer. Funny story: tianeptine is classified as a TRICYCLIC antidepressant.--Rmky87 21:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"Antidepressant is a medication"!? Necessarily?

What about electroshock and deep brain stimulation? -fnielsen 16:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

These are not antidepressants. These are treatment methods. Varnav 18:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

They are antidepressants in the literal meaning. They aren't antidepressant drugs though, obviously, which is to what this article alludes. 148.177.129.213 13:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no proof, that antidepressante curing depressions. It is more so, that they remove symptoms of depression or shorten the time of this disease. --Fackel 21:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Antidepressants ause deppresion.Darth Anzeruthi (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Structured

I have restructured the article to have a more natural flow. The references apparatus is still a mess; I think select studies should be cited using Wikipedia:Footnote3 according to academic format. JFW | T@lk 23:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes in controversy & efficacy

I moved the controversy efficacy section back up under mechanism of action. I know this may seem out of order. I did this because I think these drugs are too often considered to be amazing and mostly a positive treatment. So I wanted some questioning about that assumption to be right there near the top of the article. If that is unacceptable, and it MUST be moved then so be it.

I also added back the references because people should be able to access some of the studies question this treatment. The drug companies spend billions hyping themselves and never admitting to any wrong doing or problems - ever. So I think in this public forum, there should be some voice that allows for a different message - especially a message punctuated by researchers doing risky research. Tshann (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you could have discussed this first over here? JFW | T@lk 08:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the pile of references:

• Hollon SD, DeRubeis RJ, Shelton RC, Weiss B (2002), The emperor's new drugs: effect size and moderation effects. Prevention & Treatment 5:Article 28. Available at: journals.apa.org/ prevention/volume5/toc-jul15-02.html.
• Jacobson NS, Roberts LJ, Berns SB, McGlinchey JB (1999), Methods for defining and determining the clinical significance of treatment effects: description, application, and alternatives. J Consult Clin Psychol 67(3):300-307.
• Kirsch I, Sapirstein G (1998), Listening to Prozac but hearing placebo: a meta analysis of antidepressant medication. Prevention & Treatment 1: Article 0002a. Available at: journals.apa.org/prevention/volume-1/toc-jun26-98.html. Accessed Aug. 2, 2002.
• Kirsch I, Scoboria A, Moore TJ (2002b), Antidepressants and placebos: secrets, revelations, and unanswered questions. Prevention & Treat-ment 5:Article 33. Available at: www.journals. apa.org/prevention/volume5/toc-jul15-02.html. Accessed Aug. 2.
• Klein DF (1998), Listening to meta-analysis but hearing bias. Prevention & Treatment 1:Article 0006c. Available at: www.journals.apa.org/prevention/volume 1/toc-jun26-98.html. Accessed Aug. 2, 2002.
• Thase ME (2002), Antidepressant effects: the suit may be small, but the fabric is real. Prevention & Treatment 5:Article 32. Available at: journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/toc-jul15-02.html. Accessed Aug. 2.
• Walach H, Maidhof C (1999), Is the placebo effect dependent on time? A meta-analysis. In: How Expectancies Shape Experience, Kirsch I, ed. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, pp321-332.
• Moncrieff, J., Wessely, S., and Hardy, R. (1998). Meta-analysis of trials comparing antidepressants with active placebos. British Journal of Psychiatry 172: 227-231.
• Parker, G., Anderson, I.M., and Haddad, P. (2003). Clinical trials of antidepressant medications are producing meaningless results. British Journal of Psychiatry 183(2): 102-104. * Enserlink, M. (1999). Psychopharmacology: can the placebo be the cure? Science 284: 238-240

Tshann, I agree there should be a section on this subject, but citing a long list of references is completely off-balance. Please select one or two solid studies or commentaries from this list, but do not flood the article just because these articles are mildly "critical of antidepressants". There's a lot of Kirsch work - are you sure the initial list was not an attempt at Vanity? JFW | T@lk 08:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Jfdwolff, I'm confused. Why is citing a long list of references off-balance? I think when you look at the overall size of this article on antidepressants - the bulk of it suggests that antidepressants are an application of scientific medicine. I think it is WAY to unbalanced in favor of that assumption. When reading through the articles on those links I've pasted in, it is quite clear that much of the reality of antidepressants is not much more than industry hype. The bulk of this article is about theory and opinion, but what about prove of efficacy. Medicine is suppossed to be able to show efficacy, otherwise theories are simply theories. Sure that is my opinion, but I think citing those studies is critical in balancing out the overhype that antidepressants get. In addition, the bottom of the article has little or no reference to the contoversy about antidepressants. As for Vanity in citing the articles, again I'm confused. I looked at the concept of vanity from the standpoint of Wikipedia. It suggests that authors are using an article to promote themselves in some way. I fail to see how citing some controversial antidepressant links/studies has anything to do with me, my image, or my gain. I'm sure you had more than a passing reason to use that term, so please explain yourself. ThanksTshann 16:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Novel antidepressants?

I'm asking on here because I think this article has more visibility... What precisely is a novel antidepressant? Specifically, would the ones in List of antidepressants#Others all be considered novel antidepressants? --Galaxiaad 15:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Historically, it seemed to be a catch-all for anything that wasn't categorised as an MAOI, a TCA or an SSRI. I think I remember at one point the tetracyclics might've been included in that category. Chris 15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Artice title

change to anti-depressant? looks better

Copyright violation

Either this article is copied from [1] or vice versa. 163.1.162.20 13:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

2

Coverage and Structure

I feel the need to describe a few possible changes to this article, partly drawing together comments made by various people above which don't seem to have been acted on:

1) 'Antidepressant' doesn't necessarily mean a medication, or even treatment. This usage occurs in the titles of scientific articles:

• Antidepressant effects of light therapy combined with sleep deprivation are influenced by a functional polymorphism within the promoter of the serotonin transporter gene (2003)

• The Efficacy of Exercise as a Long-term Antidepressant in Elderly Subjects (2003)

• Does Semen Have Antidepressant Properties? (2002)

• and manuals e.g. "Seasonal affective disorder and the use of light as an antidepressant." from NIMH, 1988.

• or phrases like e.g. "Negative ions are a natural anti-depressant."

Perhaps this page could include a section on non-medication usage, or are separate pages needed..

2) The layout seems quite unclear to me. I think the intro could be reworded and extended to cover the basics and range of issues more. I think there could be a subsection on efficacy/effectiveness, describing the assertions and counter-assertions and main related studies & reviews (perhaps divided according to type med or disorder) rather than just a controversy section. What rationale is there for listing things like St John's Wort towards the end as 'Alternative' and not in the main section listing types of antidepressants. I think adverse effects would be a better subheading than side-effects and more consistent with the wikipedia page on that topic. Various random-seeming subheadings towards the end..

3) Does seem to need a footnote-type reference section, there being a lot of unsourced strong or informal claims, like "The main classes of antidepressants have similar efficacy", "Although these drugs are clearly effective in treating depression", "a successful antidepressant trial involves at least 50% of the test subjects on the drug responding to the medication", "It is generally not a good idea to take antidepressants without a prescription", "Use of antidepressants should be monitored by a psychiatrist, but..."

Don't mean to seem critical but didn't want to start over-editing without mention here.

EverSince 22:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the intro to try and frame the above points (+ avoid the copyright issue if there is one). I forgot to sign in first. EverSince 23:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten and expanded the history section. I'm planning to reorganise the various sections below it some time soon, if there's no reply I'll take it as no objection (in advance at least) to the idea. I'll also make all the references inline. EverSince 18:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

List of classes & members

There's a box listing all the classes & members (ATC N06A box) and below that a near-duplicate list of classes. The ATC box is authoratative but dense and yet doesn't list notable trade names etc. I'm thinking this could go at the end of the article as a reference, to be used as the source for a more simple list of classes up-front (i.e. the one that's there).

The list of prominent antidepressants doesn't seem to be derived from an objective measure. I'm thinking it could be based on a recent list of the best-selling antidepressants, and matched up with most common trade names and the list of categories. I'll try something like this unless any objections or other suggestions EverSince 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at this, but keeping the ATC box (with an intro) and basing the notable list on 2005 US prescription sales from RxList[2]. Probably missed some in the list - just looked over it and only up to no. 100. Hopefully over time, other drugs that might be rated as notable by other methods, or by sales in other countries or globally, could be added to the list if they have a source. Don't konw whether it should be kept to a top 10 or top 15 or something... EverSince 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam Cleanup

As part of spam cleanup effort, tested all external links, deleted several broken ones, removed spam tag. Cmichael 03:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tolerance and Dependence.

"Most antidepressants, including the SSRIs and tricyclics, are known to produce tolerance (i.e. a patient receiving antidepressant therapy for some years will often have to increase the dose over time, or add other drugs, to receive the same therapeutic effect), and withdrawal (particularly if abrupt) may produce adverse effects, which can range from mild to extremely severe.

Antidepressants do not seem to have all of the same addictive qualities as other substances such as nicotine, caffeine, cocaine, or other stimulants - in other words, while antidepressants may cause dependence and withdrawal they do not seem to cause uncontrollable urges to increase the dose due to euphoria or pleasure, and thus do not meet the strict definition of an addictive substance. However, antidepressants do meet the World Health Organisation definition of "dependency-inducing", and indeed the SSRIs are listed by the organisation as among the most strongly dependency-inducing substances in existence."

I would tend to tell, that these are non-senses; the only antidepressant (by the ATC classification), known to posses a primary addictive potential is amineptine, due to its psychostimulant and euphorigenic effects. While the "antidepressant dependence" is a common urban myth, supported by Scientology and antipsychiatric movements, there is in fact as good as none expert support for these claims. Simple fact, that an abrupt discontinuation of a long-term medication does induce problems, is not a "proof of addictive potential" of a substance; this occurs also with most hearth medications, such as β-blockers, ACE-inhibitors or cardiac glycosides, yet not one expert would mark these medications as "addictive", because of this. Also, the assumption of tolerance towards therapeutic effects seems to be condensed of nothing, some backing would be great if this claim should stay in the article. If an antidepressant works well "on the first hit", it is usually continuing to be effective in same dose range for the time of pharmacotherapy needed. So, I would please someone, preferably the autor of these (as I suppose, utterly unsourced) claims to provide a citation of, preferably multiple, valid, relevant and peer-reviewed studies backing these claims; also I suggest to mark the whole section "Tolerance and Dependence" as unsourced, at last. Thank you in advance.--84.163.87.66 15:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole section: Tolerance and dependance:

"Most antidepressants, including the SSRIs and tricyclics, are known to produce tolerance (i.e. a patient receiving antidepressant therapy for some years will often have to increase the dose over time, or add other drugs, to receive the same therapeutic effect), and withdrawal (particularly if abrupt) may produce adverse effects, which can range from mild to extremely severe.

Antidepressants do not seem to have all of the same addictive qualities as other substances such as nicotine, caffeine, cocaine, or other stimulants - in other words, while antidepressants may cause dependence and withdrawal they do not seem to cause uncontrollable urges to increase the dose due to euphoria or pleasure, and thus do not meet the strict definition of an addictive substance. However, antidepressants do meet the World Health Organisation definition of "dependency-inducing", and indeed the SSRIs are listed by the organisation as among the most strongly dependency-inducing substances in existence.

If an SSRI medication is suddenly discontinued, it may produce both somatic and psychological withdrawal symptoms, a phenomenon known as "SSRI discontinuation syndrome" (Tamam & Ozpoyraz, 2002). When the decision is made to stop taking antidepressants it is common practice to "wean" off of them by slowly decreasing the dose over a period of several weeks or months, although often this will reduce the severity of the discontinuation reaction, rather than prevent it. Most cases of discontinuation syndrome last between one and four weeks, though there are examples of patients (especially those who have used the drugs for longer periods of time, or at a higher dose) experiencing adverse effects such as impaired concentration, poor short-term memory, elevated anxiety and sexual dysfunction, for months or even years after discontinuation.[citation needed]

It is generally not a good idea to take antidepressants without a prescription. The selection of an antidepressant and dosage suitable for a certain case and a certain person is a lengthy and complicated process, requiring the knowledge of a professional. Certain antidepressants can initially make depression worse, can induce anxiety, or can make a patient aggressive, dysphoric or acutely suicidal. In certain cases, an antidepressant can induce a switch from depression to mania or hypomania, can accelerate and shorten a manic cycle (i.e. promote a rapid-cycling pattern), or can induce the development of psychosis (or just the re-activation of latent psychosis) in a patient with depression who wasn't psychotic before the antidepressant."

Is unsourced. Some parts of this section (the first two paragraphs?) are been suggested to be possibly violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOR; I think it would be good to review this section by users expert in fields of medicine, psychiatry or pharmacology and to reassess its current form and contents, possibly backed up by relevant verifiable sources.--Spiperon 08:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That section is pretty badly written, but SSRI discontinuation syndrome is well-documented. Tolerance (often called "Prozac poop-out") is less so, but there are a lot of anecdotal reports by patients and psychiatrists.[3] [4] I found only a couple papers on PubMed [5] [6] but I'm not all that experienced at searching for journal articles. And in response to the first poster, "discontinuation of a long-term medication [causing] problems" is the definition of dependence. "Addiction" is a flimsier concept, but if people coming off of SSRIs feel worse (the physical symptoms especially are harder to deny) than they did before they took them, then they induce dependence. I think most of the anti-SSRI stuff (especially by non-professionals) is sensationalistic and not very useful (and has made a mess of related Wikipedia articles), but I have experienced the brain zaps firsthand even after tapering off sertraline. So I also don't think it's helpful to insinuate that anyone who talks about SSRIs having tolerance and dependence effects is influenced by Scientology propaganda. I'll try and work on this more later, and you could ask for more comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology or Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine. --Galaxiaad 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsensical Sentence in "Antidepressant" article

In the "Antidepressant" article, the following sentence is illogical: "It is also reported that, despite unequivocal evidence of a significant difference in efficacy between older and newer antidepressants, clinicians perceive the newer drugs, including SSRIs and SNRIs, to be more effective than the older drugs (tricyclics and MAOIs).[26"

IT IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE INTENTION HERE WAS TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO DEFINITE EVIDENCE OF A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN EFFICACY BETWEEN OLDER AND NEWER ANTIDEPRESSANTS, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE SENTENCE, AS IT STANDS, SAYS.

(ELAINE BLUME; dcdweller@yahoo.com)

70.18.243.200 15:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Clean up tag

How can I help with clean up? --9urges 15:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Link to Violent Tendencies

Although you can find links to this blog from other wiki pages like the Columbine Massacre page, there's nothing here actually discussing possible links between antidepressant use and homocidal tendencies. Suicidal tendencies are mentioned, but not murder sprees, as occured in Columbine, the more recent VA tech school massacre and quite a number of news stories (I actually went looking for this information after a news story today mentioning yet another inter-family murder/rape/attemtped-murder episode where the teen involved was on anti-depression medication of some sort).

It would be interesting to see what percentage of random, "brutal" attacks are coming from people who are on anti-depressant medication, if such a statistic can be found.

I seperated this query from "Controvery", since Controversy is discussing whether anti-depressants work. I'm more interested in the psychological costs, regardless of if they work or not. --TheCynic 17:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

They cause deppresion

Anitdepresants cause deppresion and lead to viiolent behavior. The shooter in ther mall in nebraska use them.Darth Anzeruthi (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)