SSRIs and mass shootings: A link we can't afford to dismiss



There’s no link between antidepressant use and mass shootings, at least not according to a new study published in the journal Psychiatry Research.

Certainly good news for the pharmaceutical industry — but does one study really mean case closed?

The FDA’s own adverse event reporting system shows a consistent link between SSRIs and violence among adults.

It’s a controversial topic that has only become more so in recent years, especially now that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the secretary of health and human services under President Trump.

Deplorable questions?

Kennedy has long maintained that antidepressants are causing mass shootings. In an interview with Elon Musk in 2023, for example, Kennedy said, “Prior to the introduction of Prozac [a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor], we had none of these events [mass shootings].”

In his confirmation hearings in February, he told the Senate that the link “should be studied, along with other possible culprits.”

He was asked to clarify his views about antidepressants and mass shootings by his Democrat interrogators, because they were intended to be discrediting just by being uttered aloud — just like his views on water fluoridation, vaccination, and the origins of COVID-19. A whole basket of deplorable ideas.

In short, we’re talking about yet another partisan political issue, even though, surely, we can all agree that mass shootings are terrible and we need to do everything we can to stop them.

Guns, not drugs?

And that includes, obviously, understanding what motivates the shooters.

The new study looked at over 800 mass-shooting incidents that took place between 1990 and 2023. The researchers used publicly available data — news reports, court records, and police statements — to see whether the perpetrators had any history of antidepressant or psychotropic drug use and whether there was a link between suicidality and mass shootings. Previous research had suggested there was such a link.

The researchers found evidence of lifetime antidepressant use in just 34 out of 852 cases and evidence of psychotropic drug use more broadly in 56 cases — just 6.6%. There was no unusual association between suicidality and mass shootings either. Suicide attempts were slightly more common among those with a history of medication use, but the difference was not statistically meaningful.

Population-level data also indicated that antidepressant use among mass shooters was lower than among the general public. If antidepressants were causing mass shootings, we’d expect levels of antidepressant use to be higher, not lower.

QED — or so the researchers believe.

“The vast majority of mass shootings have nothing to do with mental illness,” Ragy R. Girgis, one of the study authors, told medical news website PsyPost.

“The primary modifiable population-level risk factor for mass shootings is firearm availability.”

Prevent people from getting their hands on guns, prevent mass shootings. It’s that simple.

Or is it?

RELATED: Groomed for violence? The dark world of furries and transgenderism in America's classrooms

Blaze Media illustration

Premature conclusions

There’s a glaring problem: The data simply isn't good enough to allow any kind of firm conclusion to be reached. The writers at "PsyPost" do at least acknowledge there’s a serious problem, although it doesn’t stop them from trumpeting “new study finds no evidence” in their headline.

Here’s what "PsyPost" says about the reliability of the evidence on offer.

Data were collected from publicly available sources, such as news articles and online records. This approach may miss cases where medication use was not reported or was kept confidential. The study also could not determine whether medications were being taken as prescribed during the attack or whether the person had recently stopped taking them.

Data is often kept confidential, even in the most high-profile cases. Take the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. At the time of the massacre, which claimed the lives of 14 people and left another 20 wounded, it was widely reported that Harris had been on the powerful new SSRI Luvox, generic name fluvoxamine. The New York Times claimed Harris had been rejected by Marine recruiters just five days before the attack for taking the drug.

There were suggestions that he had tried to go cold turkey as a result and that this might have affected his actions on that dreadful, bloody day. The Times noted that “patients taking Luvox are warned that if combined with other drugs, including alcohol, the drug can cause extreme agitation progressing to delirium, coma and death. The package also carries a warning about suicide.”

While officials said neither shooter had drugs or alcohol in his system at time of death, the coroner refused to say whether they had been tested for antidepressants, including Luvox.

And so we still don’t know, 26 years later, whether antidepressants played a role in the Columbine killings.

Mandatory screenings

Thankfully, there are now some attempts to provide answers. Unsurprisingly, they’re coming from Republican politicians and red states.

Tennessee has become the first state in the U.S. to introduce mandatory screening for psychotropic drugs in mass killings, defined as incidents in which four or more people are killed. In every mass killing that takes place in Tennessee, a detailed toxicology report will be produced and made available to the public. Investigators will study drug interactions in the killer’s body — because drugs have different effects when used in combination, a fact that is poorly understood — and they’ll also consult with providers of mental health services if the killer was receiving treatment.

Here’s something we do know for sure. A clear, well-established link exists between SSRIs and all forms of violent behavior. A huge Swedish study from 2020 that looked at 250,000 people revealed a significant association between SSRI use and violent crime, especially among 15- to 24-year-olds and 25- to 35-year-olds. The study also showed that risk of violence remained elevated up to 12 weeks after discontinuation of the drugs. The FDA’s own adverse event reporting system shows a consistent link between SSRIs and violence among adults.

A tall order

Instead of dismissing the possibility of a link between antidepressant use and mass shootings, we actually need to do some proper research. Gather data and interpret it objectively — meaning dispassionately, without imposing an ideological agenda that fixes the conclusions in advance.

I know that’s a tall order, given how emotional a subject mass murder is — especially mass murder of children — and how unwilling we all are to talk across the growing political divide, but that’s the scientific ideal, and that’s the only way we’re ever going to get to the truth.

As every first-year history undergraduate knows — and I was one, once upon a time — absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Let’s not get twisted. Lives are at stake.

Catholic School Shooting Shows It’s Deadly To Medicalize Moral Disorders

Cluster B personality disorder — pathological narcissism — is what’s ailing American society from top to bottom.

FDA blasts 'politically motivated' criticism over review of SSRI health risks during pregnancy



The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is pushing back against criticism from medical establishmentarians over the agency's willingness to take a closer look at the health risks posed by antidepressants, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, during pregnancy.

Various health organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, accused FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, his agency, and the participants in an expert panel discussion that Makary hosted last month of disseminating "inaccurate" information and of making "outlandish" claims.

'Adolescents exposed to SSRIs in utero exhibited higher anxiety and depression symptoms than unexposed adolescents.'

An FDA spokesperson defended the agency's discussions with experts on the topic, suggesting to Blaze News that the critiques of the agency's expert advisory process were "politically driven."

Dr. Jay Gingrich, professor of developmental psychology at the Columbia University Medical Center, noted during the July 21 panel discussion that while expectant mothers suffering depression have long been prescribed SSRIs, it was not until recently that any substantial research was undertaken to determine whether these drugs improved outcomes in the mothers' offspring.

JAMA Medical News confirmed that no randomized clinical trials have been undertaken, due partly to ethical concerns. Despite the absence of such trial data, 6%-8% of pregnant women are reportedly prescribed SSRIs in the United States.

After observing in rodent trials that the mice born of female mice exposed to SSRIs exhibited "stark changes in behavior" and "changes in the brain," Gingrich explored with Finnish researchers whether SSRI exposure in the womb was similarly consequential for human children and found that it was.

RELATED: 'It's immoral': RFK Jr. axes Biden vax reporting requirement, targets doctors' 'hidden incentives'

Farrukh Saeed/Getty Images

A study co-authored by Gingrich and published earlier this year in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Communications provided further confirmation of negative impacts, revealing that "adolescents exposed to SSRIs in utero exhibited higher anxiety and depression symptoms than unexposed adolescents and also had greater activation of the amygdala and other limbic structures when processing fearful faces."

The study concluded that "SSRIs are a common therapeutic strategy in perinatal maternal emotional disorders, however the present cross-species data and prior studies on single species indicate that we need more mechanistic understanding of how pharmacological factors like SSRIs impact early brain development and later result in maladaptive behaviors."

'The public needs better information, and the FDA must strengthen the warnings.'

Dr. Adam Urato, chief of maternal-fetal medicine at MetroWest Medical Center in Massachusetts, told his fellow panelists that he has observed in recent years women increasingly taking antidepressants during pregnancy, in many cases thinking SSRIs "don't affect the baby or cause complications."

"These drugs alter the mom’s brain. Why wouldn't they affect the baby’s?" said Urato. "We can see it on prenatal ultrasound. The ultrasound studies show SSRI-exposed fetuses have different movement and behavior patterns. After birth the newborn babies can have jitteriness, breathing difficulties, and higher rates of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit."

"The public needs better information, and the FDA must strengthen the warnings," Urato underscored. "For example, there's currently no warning regarding preterm birth or preeclampsia. The postpartum hemorrhage warning needs to be strengthened. But perhaps the major shortcoming is that the label doesn't make clear that SSRIs alter fetal brain development."

The concerns raised by Gingrich, Urato, and the other panelists evidently ruffled some feathers at organizations that champion the use of SSRIs during pregnancy.

Steven Fleischman, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, rushed to complain, stating shortly after the conclusion of the panel discussion that it "was alarmingly unbalanced and did not adequately acknowledge the harms of untreated perinatal mood disorders in pregnancy," adding, "Robust evidence has shown that SSRIs are safe in pregnancy and that most do not increase the risk of birth defects.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' current practice guidelines reportedly recommend SSRIs as a first-line pharmacotherapy for mothers between the time of conception and up until a year after the baby's birth.

Fleischman told JAMA Medical News last week that the panel may "incite fear and cause patients to come to false conclusions that could prevent them from getting the treatment they need."

'Commissioner Makary has an interest in ensuring policies reflect the latest gold-standard science and protect public health.'

Marketa Wills, CEO of the American Psychiatric Association, echoed Fleischman in a July 25 letter to Makary, stating, "We are alarmed and concerned by the misinterpretations and unbalanced viewpoints shared by several of the panelists."

"The inaccurate interpretation of data, and the use of opinion, rather than the years of research on antidepressant medications, will exacerbate stigma and deter pregnant individuals from seeking necessary care," wrote Wills.

In addition to stating that "the overall evidence suggests that individuals can and should take SSRIs prior to or during pregnancy, when they are clinically indicated for treatment," Wills claimed that "recent meta-analyses have found no association between prenatal SSRI exposure and overall risk of birth defects."

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine similarly complained, suggesting that the panelists made "unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims."

RELATED: RFK Jr. pulls plug on mRNA jabs because they 'pose more risks than benefits'

Dobrila Vignjevic/Getty Images stock photo

Other groups similarly outraged by the discussion of possible downsides to drugs characterized as safe and effective include Postpartum Support International, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry, and the Massachusetts General Hospital for Women's Mental Health.

An FDA spokesperson told Blaze News, "The claim that the FDA’s expert advisory process is 'one-sided' or politically driven is insulting to the independent scientists, clinicians, and researchers who dedicate their expertise to these panels."

"FDA expert panels are roundtable discussions with independent panels of scientific experts that will review the latest scientific evidence, evaluate potential health risks, explore safer alternatives, and individual experts may offer their recommendations for regulatory action," continued the spokesperson. "This initiative is part of the FDA’s broader efforts to apply rigorous, evidence-based standards to ingredient safety and modernize regulatory oversight, thoroughly considering evolving science and consumer health."

The spokesperson noted that "Commissioner Makary has an interest in ensuring policies reflect the latest gold-standard science and protect public health" and stated that suggesting "his engagement on women’s health signals a desire to manipulate outcomes is politically motivated and undermines the serious work being done to improve care for millions of women."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

RFK's highly anticipated MAHA report paints dark picture of America's health crisis



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released his 68-page MAHA Commission report detailing the dark reality of America's health and how to fix it.

Kennedy's report highlights root causes of chronic diseases, obesity, autoimmune conditions, and behavior disorders in children. The report points to multiple culprits, including ultra-processed foods, exposure to chemicals like pesticides, and lack of exercise, as well as "overmedicalization." Underlying all of these issues, the report notes that corporate influence in medicine and health care has been one of the driving forces that has led to all of these problems.

"To turn the tide and better protect our children, the United States must act decisively," the report reads. "During this administration, we will begin reversing the childhood chronic disease crisis by confronting its root causes — not just its symptoms. This means pursuing truth, embracing science, and enacting pro-growth policies and innovations to restore children’s health. Today’s children are tomorrow’s workforce, caregivers, and leaders — we can no longer afford to ignore this crisis."

'This strategic realignment will ensure that all Americans — today and in the future — live longer, healthier lives.'

RELATED: 100 days of MAHA: What has Robert F. Kennedy Jr. done so far to make America healthy again?

Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

"After a century of costly and ineffective approaches, the federal government will lead a coordinated transformation of our food, health, and scientific systems," the report reads. "This strategic realignment will ensure that all Americans — today and in the future — live longer, healthier lives, supported by systems that prioritize prevention, well-being, and resilience."

The MAHA Commission, which was established by one of President Donald Trump's executive orders, was tasked with investigating the drivers of America's health epidemic.

The report found that as much as 70% of foods children consume contain ultra-processed ingredients and concluded that scientific funding for pharmaceutical, chemical, and food companies has contributed to rising chronic diseases.

Additionally, the report found that there's been a 1,400% increase in prescriptions for antidepressants in American children from 1987 to 2014, also known as "overmedicalization." The report also questioned the current childhood vaccine protocol and said that vaccines would benefit from a "more rigorous clinical trial" design.

RELATED: HHS scrapping COVID jab recommendations for pregnant moms and kids: Report

Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty Images

To address the many failures that have affected American children's health, the report also put forward a "gold standard" research initiative that includes nutrition trials, drug safety research, and large-scale lifestyle interventions.

"Some of the steps to implement these research initiatives are already underway and others will begin this in the near future," the report reads. "In parallel, the MAHA Commission will immediately begin working on developing the strategy to make our children healthy again — due in August 2025. We invite all of America, especially the private sector and academia, to be part of the solution."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The insane story of how antidepressants stole one woman's childhood



Brooke Siem was 15 years old when her dad died. In the wake of this tragedy, her newly-widowed mother was worried about Brooke’s stoicism. So, she took her daughter to the doctor. That doctor referred her to another doctor, who diagnosed her with an anxiety and depressive disorder and put her on a cocktail of antidepressants.

That’s how Brooke lost 15 years of her life.

She stayed on the meds until she was 30 because that’s what the doctor said she needed to do.

“If the doctor tells you you need insulin because you have diabetes, you don't question it. The doctor told me I was depressed; so, he told me to take an antidepressant. I didn’t question that. Why would I, right?” she tells Allie Beth Stuckey.

But at 30 years old, Brooke found herself more depressed than she’d ever been, struggling with suicidal ideation and lack of emotion — despite the drugs. She realized this meant they were not working.

So, she decided to quit cold turkey at the instruction of her doctor, which she does not recommend. It’s important to properly wean off these drugs at the guidance of an experienced medical professional.

Brooke’s doctor told her she might feel like she had the flu for a few days, but it was no big deal. Instead, Brooke was launched headfirst into a “full-on psychological assault.”

Brooke detailed the severity of her withdrawal on last week’s episode of Relatable, “How Antidepressants Stole Her Childhood.”

Along with violent intrusive thoughts and mood swings, Brooke experienced a variety of physical symptoms:

“All my senses changed; so, I literally started seeing color more vibrantly, and things went from a little softer on the edges to super sharp. I developed really severe noise sensitivity. My skin got something called nodular vasculitis, which is basically an autoimmune response in the blood vessels, and it is because of extreme physical stress on the body.”

However, amidst all this darkness, she also described how she began to experience little moments of joy — a feeling completely foreign to her for the past 15 years.

“I was also having these moments of, like I said, color; it was like I could finally see color for the first time, and I could laugh at something and feel true joy.”

Brooke is now on a mission to share what happened to her, shed light on the reality of antidepressant withdrawal, and advocate for safe de-prescribing from psychiatric drugs. She detailed her story in her memoir, “May Cause Side Effects.”

To hear Brooke's story, watch the episode below.


Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Elon Musk rails against popular antidepressant, reveals drug he uses when his brain chemistry 'goes super negative'



Elon Musk criticized a popular type of antidepressant, while at the same time revealing what drug he uses when his brain chemistry "goes super negative."

On Friday night, British rapper Zuby wrote on Twitter: "I just saw a TV ad for anti-depression medication and the listed side effects included SUICIDAL THOUGHTS, stroke, heart attacks, and death."

Musk replied to Zuby: "I have serious concerns about SSRIs, as they tend to zombify people."

Musk admitted that he occasionally uses the drug ketamine.

"Occasional use of ketamine is a much better option, in my opinion," Musk tweeted. "I have a prescription for when my brain chemistry sometimes goes super negative."

— (@)

A Wall Street Journal speculated that Musk used ketamine in an article published in June. The article claimed that Silicon Valley entrepreneurs – such as Musk and Google cofounder Sergey Brin – use psychedelics and similar substances such as ketamine, LSD, and psilocybin.

The WSJ reported, "The account of Musk’s drug use comes from people who witnessed him use ketamine and others with direct knowledge of his use."

Ketamine is a "dissociative injected anesthetic (blocks sensory perception) that has been available by prescription in the U.S. since the 1970s for human and veterinary uses," according to Drugs.com.

The site adds, "Prescription ketamine is available in a clear liquid or off-white powder form for intravenous injection or as a nasal spray."

"Ketamine is generally considered safe, including for those who are experiencing suicidal ideation (thoughts or plans for suicide)," wrote Dr. Peter Grinspoon in Harvard Health Publishing – the consumer health education division of Harvard Medical School. "The main side effects are dissociation, intoxication, sedation, high blood pressure, dizziness, headache, blurred vision, anxiety, nausea, and vomiting."

Grinspoon warned against ketamine use by people with a history of schizophrenia, substance use disorder, pregnant women, older adults with symptoms of dementia, and teenagers.

Speaking of people suffering from serious depression, Grinspoon said, "Ketamine can provide help and hope to patients who have not found relief with any other treatments. Given its efficacy in people considering suicide, it is plausible that ketamine may be lifesaving."

A Yale Medicine article on how ketamine could help with depression:

Interestingly, studies from Yale research labs showed that the drug ketamine, which was widely used as anesthesia during surgeries, triggers glutamate production, which, in a complex, cascading series of events, prompts the brain to form new neural connections. This makes the brain more adaptable and able to create new pathways, and gives patients the opportunity to develop more positive thoughts and behaviors. This was an effect that had not been seen before, even with traditional antidepressants.

Musk has previously railed against SSRIs – which stands for Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors.

"SSRI antidepressants are a type of antidepressant that have been shown to increase levels of serotonin within the brain," according to Drugs.com.

Musk said in June, "Depression is overdiagnosed in the US, but for some people it really is a brain chemistry issue. But zombifying people with SSRIs for sure happens way too much. From what I’ve seen with friends, ketamine taken occasionally is a better option."

In 2018, Musk faced scrutiny for smoking marijuana during an appearance on "The Joe Rogan Experience" podcast.

Musk has a net worth of more than $232 billion – making him the richest person in the world, according to Forbes' real-time billionaires list.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How Schools Encourage Kids to Get Medicated | Guest: Dr. Roger McFillin | Ep 822
play icon

How Schools Encourage Kids to Get Medicated | Guest: Dr. Roger McFillin | Ep 822

How Gardening Helped Me Quit My Antidepressant

I started a garden to increase my food security. I didn’t know it would help heal my anxiety and depression.

Tom Cruise interview from nearly 20 years ago sparks new debate about antidepressants and Scientology



An interview with Tom Cruise from nearly 20 years ago has resurfaced and sparked a new debate about antidepressants and Scientology.

A 2005 interview between Cruise and Matt Lauer – the then-host of the "Today" show – has recently gone viral. In the interview, the topic of actress Brooke Shields taking antidepressants to deal with postpartum depression was broached.

Cruise declared, "I think [Shields] is a wonderful and talented woman, and I want to see her do well. And I know that psychiatry is a pseudoscience."

Lauer advocated for Shields – who said she "considered swallowing a bottle of pills or jumping out the window at the lowest point of her depression following the birth of her daughter, Rowan Francis, in 2003," according to "Today." Shields said she overcame her suicidal thoughts after being prescribed the antidepressant Paxil.

Cruise rebutted, "Here we are today, where I talk out against drugs and psychiatric abuses of electroshocking people against their will; of drugging children without them not knowing the effects of these drugs."

Cruise asked Lauer, "Do you know what Adderall is? Do you know Ritalin? Do you know now that Ritalin is a street drug?"

Lauer admitted that there are abuses of prescription drugs.

“Here's the problem, you don’t know the history of psychiatry. I do," Cruise proclaimed.

"All it does is mask the problem," Cruise said of the use of antidepressants. "That’s what it does. That’s all it does. You’re not getting to the reason why. There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance."

"I'm saying drugs aren't the answer," the action star said. "These drugs are very dangerous – they're mind-altering, antipsychotic drugs. And there are ways in doing it without that, so we don't end up in a brave new world."

Cruise calls Lauer "glib," and says the talk show host "doesn't even know was Ritalin is."

Cruise then challenges Lauer to find out more about Ritalin to educate his viewers.

The video went viral on Twitter last week, racking up more than 3.2 million views.

\u201c#BasedTomCruise\u201d
— Brett R. Smith (@Brett R. Smith) 1658429760

The Tom Cruise interview about antidepressants garnered much attention last week after a new study questioned whether antidepressants actually help people with depression.

Researchers from University College London released a study last week that concluded that there is "no clear evidence" that serotonin levels or serotonin activity is responsible for depression.

"The popularity of the 'chemical imbalance' theory of depression has coincided with a huge increase in the use of antidepressants," said professor Joanna Moncrieff, the study’s lead author. "Prescriptions for antidepressants have risen dramatically since the 1990s, with one in six adults in England and two percent of teenagers now being prescribed an antidepressant in a given year."

"Our view is that patients should not be told that depression is caused by low serotonin or by a chemical imbalance, and they should not be led to believe that antidepressants work by targeting these unproven abnormalities," Moncrieff noted.

Many online commentators praised Cruise for cautioning against antidepressants 17 years ago.

Podcast host Michael Knowles remarked, "This interview has aged like a fine wine."

Conservative commentator Matt Walsh said, "Tom Cruise has been mocked ruthlessly for this for the past 20 years and yet everything he said was 100 percent undeniably true."

Journalist Sharyl Attkisson added, "Not all that long ago, people were allowed to say these things in America without getting censored or canceled. Today? Not so much. Still, this file tape survives."

However, other online commentators argued that Cruise's position against antidepressants and psychiatry is the same stance as Scientology.

Podcast host Erick Erickson tweeted, "There’s no reason to normalize Tom Cruise’s statements on psychiatry because he is saying what you think. Cruise’s position comes from Scientology, which very much should not be given credit or normalized."

Former staff member of the Church of Scientology Aaron Smith-Levin explained, "Tom Cruise isn’t making the point you think he’s making. Behind his statement that psychiatric drugs only mask the problem lies his belief that ONLY Scientology can fix the 'real' problem. I.e., the reactive mind and Body Thetans."