[User23]

The claim that you’re attacking was

> The latter, the school boys, are nearly to a one on some kind of psychiatric drug.

This is easily verified with some simple searching[1].

And before you start on the “muh causality” deflection, observe that the verified claim says nothing about causality. We do know however that where there is causality there is correlation. So that is not proof, but it is evidence.

As for your claim about a lack of evidence for psychiatric drugs being associated with homicidal behavior, an RCT showing psychiatric drugs cause homicidal behavior, well that simply isn’t possible due to ethical restrictions. In fact any properly designed study showing a causal relation between some intervention and murder would be flagrantly immoral. Therefore, we're going to have to rely on a preponderance of evidence rather than the highest standards of scientific proof. And the evidence, such as it is, is stronger for the position that there is an association between psychiatric drugs and school boy murderers than that there isn't.

[1] https://thoughtcatalog.com/jeremy-london/2019/09/37-mass-sho...

[manuelabeledo]

> And before you start on the “muh causality” deflection, observe that the verified claim says nothing about causality. We do know however that where there is causality there is correlation. So that is not proof, but it is evidence

This makes no sense whatsoever. Correlation doesn't imply causation, thus correlation by itself cannot be considered evidence of anything.

> And the evidence, such as it is, is stronger for the position that there is an association between psychiatric drugs and school boy murderers than that there isn't.

The website you just linked isn't even evidence of that.

It mentions 37 mass shooters, yes. But it doesn't provide an ounce of testable evidence about whether these people were actually using psychiatric drugs or not, and, for some of them, it cannot even name the supposed drug they were taking. And even if all of that was true, of over 1,000 personal-cause mass shootings since 1990, 37 is a drop in the bucket.

By the way, you have also lied by saying:

> As for your claim about a lack of evidence for psychiatric drugs being associated with homicidal behavior, an RCT showing psychiatric drugs cause homicidal behavior, well that simply isn’t possible due to ethical restrictions.

It took me a couple minutes to find a legitimate paper about this topic [0], something you could have done yourself if you weren't so set in dialectic buffoonery and intellectual dishonesty.

Let me know if my sources aren't up to your "standards", since you prefer to get your quotes from popular magazines. Perhaps you should try People next time.

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33595428/

[User23]

> This makes no sense whatsoever. Correlation doesn't imply causation, thus correlation by itself cannot be considered evidence of anything.

Correlation is evidence that there may be causation and thus further investigation to find it might be fruitful. A lack of correlation is evidence that there is not causation. This isn't hard and it makes perfect sense.

> But it doesn't provide an ounce of testable evidence about whether these people were actually using psychiatric drugs or not

HIPPA forbids any such data collection for small cohorts. There aren't going to be medical sources, newspaper and similar accounts are the best we can get on whether or not a murderer in the relatively small class of school boy shooters is on psychiatric medications.

> It took me a couple minutes to find a legitimate paper about this topic [0]

I’m well aware that most mass shooters are just run of the mill thugs without any especial psychiatric pathology other than low sympathy for their victims, which isn’t something that we treat pharmaceutically.

Sadly, you have lost the thread. That includes the urban career criminals, who we are are very specifically not discussing. The topic is school boy murderers.

> something you could have done yourself if you weren't so set in dialectic buffoonery and intellectual dishonesty.

You're telling on yourself buddy.

> Let me know if my sources aren't up to your "standards", since you prefer to get your quotes from popular magazines. Perhaps you should try People next time.

Snark is one of the best indicators of an insecure midwit. Anyhow thanks for proving my point that you're discussing this entirely in bad faith. You may go now.