New Fax Campaign

Why The MOTHERS Act Should Not Be Passed

Please go to  http://www.box.net/shared/810kj0b8g7 and  print a PDF that you can fax to the Senate: http://www.box.net/shared/4qx33jhgen

Here is the text of the fax if you want to format your own letter:

WHY THE MOTHERS ACT SHOULD NOT BE PASSED

On the surface, The MOTHERS Act (S. 324) reflects its sponsors’ compassion for mothers suffering from postpartum depression and psychosis. But when one looks closely at the important sections of the legislation, it is clear that this costly and sweeping mental health legislation not only fails the mothers of America, it’s intended to inflate the balance sheets of Big Pharma.

• The bill omits language clearly stating there will be an evaluation of the large amount of data available on the known risks of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications currently being prescribed to pregnant women and nursing mothers (including birth defects, heart defects, spontaneous abortions, and infant deaths). See May 9, 2009 Vogue article, “Pregnant Pause: With a flurry of recent reports challenging the safety of antidepressant drugs for unborn babies, doctors and concerned mothers-to-be are rethinking the guidelines” by Alexis Jetter at http://www.box.net/shared/deulxo16fp
• The bill defines ‘postpartum condition’ as only ‘postpartum depression (PPD) or postpartum psychosis.’ The danger is that per these DSM-extracted terms to label women with mental disorders, this is only psychological, not physiological conditions which will be checked for, ruling out discovery of any real physical causes, such as hormonal imbalances or vitamin and mineral deficiencies, and neglecting the treatments thereof. This relates to the issue of “screening tools” in development cited in the bill. Are these merely psychological questionnaires, and who is developing them? Are they pharmaceutically funded?
• The bill cites various “entities” that will be eligible for grants and for participating in research and/or development of screening methods and/or treatments and delivery. Who or what are these “entities?” Are they pharmaceutically funded? Do they have conflicts of interest? There are ongoing investigations of various “non-profit” organizations who heavily promote or conduct screening. For example, Screening for Mental Health, Inc., and its sub-organization Signs of Suicide, who heavily promote and conduct mental health screening, received $4,985,925 from pharmaceutical companies prior to 2008. The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) receives 56% of its funding from pharmaceutical companies. Ten leading psychiatric researchers (many from prominent universities) have been exposed in the last year for failing to disclose millions of dollars in pharmaceutical payments – yet this bill contains no provisions for full disclosure of conflicts of interest for any “entity” receiving federal taxpayer funded grants.
• Given that the Senate Finance Committee recently exposed the financial conflicts of interest of the top ten psychiatric researchers in the U.S., it is no small issue that The MOTHERS Act provides no research guidelines for public disclosure.
• Under The MOTHERS Act’s current language, research will be conducted without peer review – no checks and balances, no one to validate the integrity of the research which then will be used to determine a woman’s mental health status.
• Simultaneously, without allowing any checks and balances whatsoever on the research, it promotes a national “public education” campaign to include Public Service Announcements and television and radio advertisements, essentially giving Pharma an opportunity for free, federally-funded advertising.

SUMMARY: Without a fully completed, published, and publicly disclosed investigation of the dangers of current methods of treatment (drugs), efficacy of non-drug treatments, and discovery and disclosure of the causes for these conditions, clearly defined and available for review by the medical/scientific community and consumers, there should be no endorsement of a national educational or advertising campaign. There must be no new or massive utilization or promotion of any “screening tools” without first disclosing the researchers, entities, and methods used to develop these “screening tools.”

Therefore, as a concerned citizen and voter, I urge you to vote “NO” on The MOTHERS Act (S. 324).

Sincerely,                                                                                  Address:

Stress Testing The MOTHERS Act

by Kelly Patricia O’Meara

May 7, 2009

It seems these days that everything is a test. Yes, the powers that be have decided that taxpayer benevolence now is contingent upon passing a stress test. But much to the dismay of those being tested, the results may reveal, for example, that the nation’s financial wizards and auto giants are actually bankrupt midgets and unworthy of America’s support.

Given that officialdom has embraced the stress test as a barometer of future viability and success and a determinant for public financing, it seems reasonable to request that other important issues that very personally impact the health and welfare of the American people be subjected to similar stress tests. There is none more deserving of stress testing than the proposed MOTHERS Act.

On the surface, the MOTHERS Act reflects its sponsors overwhelming compassion and empathy for women suffering from alleged mental health disorders resulting from childbirth – often referred to as Postpartum Depression. But when one conducts a brief stress test on important sections of the legislation, taxpayers may find that this costly and sweeping mental health legislation actually fails women of America, but goes a long way in inflating the balance sheets of one of the most lucrative industries in the nation – big Pharma.

For instance, the MOTHERS Act legislation that currently is pending in the U.S. Senate states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services may “make grants to eligible entities…” to deliver essential services to individuals with a postpartum condition. What the legislation doesn’t delineate is who and what entities may receive these grants. Are these “entities” funded by pharmaceutical companies? Lawmakers have not specified what constitutes an “entity” so it will be impossible to know if there are conflicts of interest between those who develop the screening tools and conduct research and the pharmaceutical companies who most certainly will benefit financially from the increased diagnosing.

Furthermore, no research guidelines have been provided for public disclosure. This is no small issue, given that the Senate Finance Committee recently exposed the conflicts of interest of the top ten psychiatric researchers in the U.S. who had received millions of dollars in pharmaceutical funding. Where is the guarantee that the “entities” are not pharmaceutical front-men?

The legislation also allows for the “expansion and intensification of activities” into the research of Postpartum conditions and “evaluation of new treatments.” This is a humdinger. Despite ever-increasing published data and clinical studies challenging the safety of antidepressants and other antipsychotic drugs, there is no guidance provided by lawmakers to mandate that the public be made aware of the avalanche of scientific data that not only questions the efficacy of the drugs available to mothers suffering from these conditions, but also warning of the dangers associated with currently available “treatments.”

The section of the legislation dealing with expanding the research into the causes of Postpartum conditions is wholly void of any guidelines that insure the validity of the research conducted, and provides nothing in the way of public disclosure or peer-review of research before it is launched in education campaigns. In the real world, research is conducted and submitted for peer review. In this instance, it appears that Congress has learned nothing from the ongoing banking debacle and naively believes that the researchers will be on their best behavior – self-policing themselves. This is a dangerous omission in the legislation, especially since the Senate Finance Committee has exposed the serious conflicts of interest that exist between researchers and pharmaceutical companies.

Making matters worse, much of the legislation revolves around funding national education campaigns about Postpartum Depression, including Public Service Announcements and television and radio advertisements. Based on the current language of the legislation, research will be conducted without peer review – no checks and balances; no one to validate the integrity of the research which then will be used to determine a woman’s mental health status. Given that this research will be used to develop questions or tests for screening new mothers for possible mental disorders, one might find it important to know that the research has integrity and has been validated by the scientific community, free of pharmaceutical largesse. Congress apparently didn’t think integrity of the research is important and there are no provisions to protect women from pharmaceutical driven research.

Taxpayers may also expect that such important legislation would make provisions for some kind of oversight; some government entity that could provide feedback on the success or failure of this mental health campaign. One avenue that may help lawmakers’ determine if these new programs are working is the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reports. MedWatch collects information about people who have experienced adverse reactions to drugs overseen by the FDA. With the increased drugging that most certainly will occur with the increase in diagnosing, it seems logical that lawmakers would insert provisions in the legislation to annually review Adverse Event Reports collected by MedWatch, especially those relating to drugs prescribed in the treatment of Postpartum Depression. Unfortunately, because the nation’s lawmakers have provided no provisions for oversight, countless numbers of women may be harmed by the “treatments” but will be none the wiser because no protections were provided in the legislation.

There also is the very basic question of why the government is endorsing this sweeping mental health legislation and sanctioning a national advertising campaign about Postpartum Depression when there is no definitive data about the cause of the condition or that it is an objective confirmable abnormality – the scientific standard for disease. Given that there are so many unknowns in this legislation, it seems irresponsible to go forward without reasonable protections in place.

Congress must insure that all research and screening tests proposed and endorsed by this legislation be disclosed for peer-review and consumer input before implementing any screening tests and approving any research to be used in the national education campaign, including Public Service Announcements and radio and television advertising.

Given the documented risks related to the current modes of treatments, including antidepressant and antipsychotics, which are commonly prescribed for Postpartum Depression and documented to cause birth defects and host of other issues in pregnant and nursing mothers, Congress must include mandatory reviews of published research and clinical data on the drugs prescribed for the treatment of Postpartum Depression.

Finally, Congress must protect the integrity of the research by providing strict guidelines to insure that there are no conflicts of interest between the researcher and the pharmaceutical industry.

Without these safeguards, the MOTHERS Act cannot today, or ever, pass a stress test of viability and mothers and their children certainly will be on the losing end of this mental health campaign. Sometimes it’s in the best interest of the people for Congress NOT to act, and until our lawmakers are confident that all legislative precautions have been taken to insure optimum results, this is one of those times.

About the author:

Kelly Patricia O’Meara is an award-winning investigative journalist who authored more than two dozen articles examining the psychiatric pharmaceutical industry during her tenure at the Washington Times’ Insight Magazine. Her articles resulted in record sales of the issues in which they appeared and among the national and international press that have featured her articles are Fox News, the O’Reilly Factor, CBS News, BBC, ABC’s 20/20 and Hannity and Colmes. She is also the author of Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Sickness and Pushes Pills that Kill. Prior to working as an investigative journalist, O’Meara spent sixteen years on Capitol Hill and was the lead investigator in several Congressional investigations. She holds a B.S. in Political Science from the University of Maryland.

Experimentation in Exchange for Freedom? Dan’s Law

Please take a few moments to read the article, When Drug Trials Go Terribly Wrong by Christopher Lane. I have posted several excerpts. Then, I ask you to please take some time to write to your federal legislator via fax or online to ask them to introduce a bill like Minnesota’s newly-passed Dan’s Law, to protect patients from being forced into clinical trials for experimentation that could lead to death.

Dan Markingson killed in a clinical trial he was forcibly enrolled in at University of Minnesota

Her son was encouraged to participate in a clinical trial at the University of Minnesota and other campuses comparing Seroquel, Risperdal, and Zyprexa for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophreniform disorder, a loosely defined diagnosis for people suffering from “mood disorders with psychotic features.” The trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca, maker of Seroquel, which put the researchers and university in an obvious conflict of interest. Dan was given 800 mg of the drug.

Over 70% of patients in the trial dropped out. But Dan was strongly dissuaded from doing so and remained in it for five months. He’d been given a directive warning that if he failed to continue in the trial, he would be put in a regional treatment center. His mother did not know about the directive until it was too late.

The Pioneer Press reports: Ms. Weiss “thought that her son, Dan, wasn’t getting better during his six months in the study. [She] sent five letters and made numerous calls to the researchers, complaining that her son … didn’t have the wherewithal to consent to the study and requesting that he be withdrawn.”

But the university “disregarded her letters and calls,” the report continues. “She later filed a lawsuit, accusing Markingson’s psychiatrist and the study’s director, Dr. Stephen Olson, of coercing him to sign up. The lawsuit claimed the university kept Markingson enrolled to preserve its research and to keep payments coming for his participation.

“Do we have to wait until he kills himself or someone else,” she asked three weeks before the suicide, “before anyone does anything?”

…to convey the odds facing Ms. Weiss, in St. Petersburg, Florida, documents are soon to be released indicating that AstraZeneca, maker of Seroquel, was instructing its own drug reps to promote the drug as causing “less suicidal ideation than Risperdal or Zyprexa.” “Less suicide ideation” is not exactly a safety-standard that a reputable drug maker should be asking its staff to repeat.

But the rest of Ms. Weiss’s letter did contain some good news. Her struggle to get the university to admit responsibility for her son’s death, though turned down by one court, got the attention of lawmakers in St. Paul who wanted, with Mary, to make sure that participants in drugs trials in future could withdraw from them with less difficulty if, as Dan did, they began manifesting symptoms before the trial was scheduled to end.

“After four years’ effort,” Mary wrote me, “a bill in Minnesota has passed, effective August 1 this year, prohibiting anyone on a stay of civil commitment from entering a psychiatric clinical study.” Additional wording has strengthed the legislation, ensuring that the principal investigator in the study cannot also be the enrollee’s attending physician. “Next,” she continues, “I want to work to make people understand the danger of what the pharmaceutical companies are attempting to do—indeed are doing—to infiltrate our lives with drugs for whatever may ail us on a particular Tuesday morning.”

The new legislation is called “Dan’s Law,” in honor of Mary’s son, and though it currently contains a small loophole allowing doctors to petition the courts against the ruling, various state representatives as working hard to close that exception and make the legislation watertight.

I join countless colleagues, legislators, and state representatives in saluting Mary Weiss for her tireless advocacy for greater patient safety in drug trials. No one should be obliged to complete a clinical trial when they are manifesting acute side effects. The principal imperative in medicine must always be “Do no harm.”

It’s unconscionable that the doctors in charge of the clinical trial ignored this imperative and dissuaded Dan from withdrawing. The new law in Minnesota hopefully will make sure the same thing never happens again.

Emory Orders Professor Doug Bremner to Remove Their Name from His Blog

Emory University (the same school where Drs. Nemeroff and Stowe work) has ordered psychiatrist, author, and Emory professor Doug Bremner to remove their name from his blog. The blog is titled “Before You Take That Pill,” after his book by the same name – a book which Emory declined to promote with the standard press release they issue for professors who publish, even though the press release was already written!

Do professors at private universities have the right to say whatever they want about anything in their scholarly subject area without being retaliated against? I don’t know. I do know that there is nothing that would prohibit a professor at a public university from speaking about his own topic of academic interest freely. I thought private citizens writing blogs on their own time to promote themselves and their work would be allowed to say whatever they want, even the name of the university where they work. But what do I know? (Are we still in the U.S.A.?)

Here’s a post on Dr. Bremner’s blog explaining more about the situation, a situation that has attracted national attention. And here is a facebook group that you should join to support academic freedom and First Amendment rights.

Money Talks: Profit Before Patient Safety

Grassley Seeks More Info on Conflict of Interest Policies at Medical Schools

June 25, 2009
by Evelyn Pringle

In a June 24, 2009 letter, Senator Chuck Grassley asked 23 medical schools for information about their policies for conflicts of interest and requirements for disclosure of financial relationships between faculty members and the pharmaceutical industry.

“I recently learned from an American Medical Student Association report, AMSA PharmFree Scorecard 2009, that your institution either had “no response” or “declined to submit policies” when asked to supply conflicts of interest policies,” he said in the letter.

Grassley asked the Universities to respond by no later than July 15, 2009.

Of the 149 schools asked, 126 provided information to the AMSA. The Scorecard 2009 was released on June 16, 2009. Thirty-five schools, or 23%, received an F. Seventeen got a D, 18 received a C, 36 were graded B, and only 9 schools received an A.

“There’s a lot of skepticism about financial relationships between doctors and drug companies,” Grassley said in a press release. “Disclosure of those ties would help to build confidence that there’s nothing to hide.”

“Requiring disclosure is a common sense reform based on the public dollars and public trust at stake in medical training, medical research and the practice of medicine,” he added.

Grassley has been working to achieve uniform and universal disclosure of the money that pharmaceutical, medical device and biologic companies give to physicians. He has conducted extensive oversight of financial relationships, especially among doctors who conduct research with the $24 billion awarded annually in federal grants by the National Institutes of Health, the press release explains.

Institutions receiving federal money dollars are required to track financial relationships, “but Grassley has found enforcement of those requirements often to be either lax or in violation,” it said.

“Beginning last summer,” Grassley wrote in the letter, “I began releasing information that made the point that universities are not managing their professors’ financial conflicts of interest and that change is needed at the NIH.” He listed a few examples as:

• Chairman of psychiatry at Emory failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments from a pharmaceutical company while researching that same company’s drugs with an NIH grant. The Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS OIG) is now investigating. [That would be Charles Nemeroff].
• Chairman of psychiatry at Stanford received an NIH grant to study a drug, while partially owning a company that was seeking Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of that drug. He was later removed from the grant. [The name here is Alan Schatzberg].
• Three professors at Harvard failed to report almost a million dollars each in outside income while heading up several NIH grants. Harvard plans to release a report and is working to update their conflict of interest policies. [These professors are Joseph Biederman, Timothy Wilens, and Thomas Spencer].
• Host of a show that ran on the National Public Radio (NPR) satellite station received over a million dollars from pharmaceutical companies to give promotional talks. The show had received funding from the NIH and has been cancelled. [That would be Fredrick Goodwin]
• Chair of orthopedic surgery at the University of Wisconsin reported taking more than $20,000 from a company every year, for five years. The actual amount was around $19 million. The University of Wisconsin is revising its rules. [The name here is Thomas Zdeblick].
• Professor at the University of Texas received an NIH grant to study Paxil in kids, while also giving dozens of promotional talks on Paxil. This matter has been referred to Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General. [This professor is Karen Wagner]
• Professor at the University of Washington in St. Louis who was formerly at Walter Reed Army Hospital failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars he had received from a device company to develop their products. [That would be Timothy Kuklo].

“To bring some greater transparency to this issue, Senator Kohl and I introduced the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (Act),” Grassley said in the letter the Universities. “This Act will require drug, medical device, and biologics companies to report publicly any payments that they make to doctors, within certain parameters.”

The latest addition to the Grassley list is Emory University’s Zachary Stowe, for not disclosing money he received from drug makers at the same time that he was conducting federally funded research on the use of antidepressants, such as Paxil, by pregnant and nursing mothers.

Stowe has been the primary investigator of an NIH grant since 2004 to study children delivered by women who may also be taking antidepressants. From 2003 to July of 2008, he was the primary investigator of another grant that looked at fetal exposure to medications consumed by pregnant mothers. In 2008, Stowe was the primary investigator of another NIH grant where the stated purpose was “to stimulate vigorous debate with the emphasis on the reproductive safety of antidepressant medications,” according to a June 2, 2009, letter from Grassley to Emory University.

In 2007 and 2008 alone, Stowe received about a quarter of a million dollars from Paxil-maker, GlaxoSmithKline, mostly for giving promotional talks, the letter shows.

Grassley was especially disturbed by an email between Glaxo employees and a public relations firm Glaxo hired, titled “For your review/Paxil Breast Milk Press Release” which states:

“[P]lease review the attached press release and forward me any comments/edits. As you may know, Dr. Stowe is on board for publicity efforts and NAME REDACTED and I are coordinating time to meet with him next week to arm him with the key messages for this announcement, which is slated for early February. We are sending the release for your review at the same time in efforts to secure distribution on Emory letterhead (as you know, would provide further credibility to data for the media).”

During a 2008 deposition in a birth defects lawsuit against Glaxo, Stowe confirmed that the press release was written by the PR firm and concerned his research on Paxil, and explained that placing the press release on Emory letterhead would make the data more credible to the public, as opposed to Glaxo letter head, Grassley said.

Stories on the internet show the Emory name was apparently used to add credibility to Paxil studies. For instance, citing a February 2, 2000, press release by Emory University School of Medicine, titled “New Study Shows Paxil Not Found in Breast-Fed Infants of Depressed Mothers,” on March 13, 2000, the StorkNet website featured an article with the headline: “Study Results Show Paxil Safe for Use by Breastfeeding Mothers With Depression.”

The story included the following paragraph with Emory specifically mentioned and Stowe’s comments:

“Due to the increased occurrence of mood and anxiety disorders during child-bearing years, it is imperative that we continue to research and make treatment options such as Paxil available for mothers who want the opportunity and benefit of breastfeeding their children,” said study leader Dr. Zachary N. Stowe, director of Emory University School of Medicine’s Pregnancy and Postpartum Mood Disorders Program.

“This study provides compelling data that Paxil is a viable treatment option for mothers who would like to continue breastfeeding.”

In the deposition, Stowe said he had been on Glaxo’s speaker’s bureau since 1999 and claimed that on top of his $232,000 Emory salary, he earned an additional 20 – 30% more doing work for drug companies.

On June 10, 2009, on the “Carlat Psychiatry Blog,” Dr Daniel Carlat noted that, “Stowe appears to have been deceptive during a recent deposition, when he claimed that on top of his $232,000 Emory salary, he earned an additional 20 – 30% more doing work for pharmaceutical companies.”

If he made $154,400 from GSK alone in 2007, “by my calculation this is already 66% more salary than he got from Emory,” Carlat said. “And Stowe did work for lots of other companies as well.”

Here is his disclosure from a Medscape CME gig he did in March 2007: “he has received grants for clinical research, grants for educational activities, and has served as an advisor or consultant to GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth, and Pfizer. … he has served as an advisor or consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb. … he has served on the speaker’s bureau for GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly.”

“Who knows how much money he was also getting from Wyeth, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Eli Lilly?” Carlat wrote. “He may very well have doubled his Emory salary, or more.”

“Furthermore,” he explained, “the $154,400 disclosed by GSK does not include all the cash they paid Stowe through laundered CME money.”

“For example, here is a CME program Stowe did for Medscape that was funded by GSK,” Carlat said, and wrote:

“The program is entitled “Long-term health risks of antiepileptic drugs in women” and is essentially a commercial for using Lamictal in pregnant women with bipolar disorder.”

“In it, Stowe begins by saying nasty things about Lamictal’s competitors, Depakote and Tegretol, and then minimizes a large study showing that Lamictal causes cleft palate.”

“I’m sure he got paid a lot for this, and that he did plenty of other similar CME programs that are scattered somewhere throughout the internet.”

“The bottom line is that Stowe has run into the same ethical problem as his boss Dr. Nemeroff-he was taking public NIH money to conduct research, while at the same time giving dozens of promotional talks for a company that stood to benefit from the results of that research,” Carlat pointed out.

On June 10, 2009, the Wall Street Journal health blog reported that, “Emory University has disciplined a prominent psychiatrist who was being paid by an antidepressant maker at the same time he was conducting federal research about the use of such drugs in pregnant women.”

The university said its medical school dean issued a letter of reprimand on April 30 to psychiatrist Zachary Stowe related to his “external relationships,” the WSJ wrote.

Emory has reprimanded Stowe, “who was instructed to immediately eliminate conflicts related to current federal grants,” the health blog noted.

Also, “the National Institute of Mental Health said it is reviewing Stowe’s activities, prompted by a letter from a U.S. Senate committee that said Stowe received $253,700 in 2007 and 2008 for “essentially promotional talks” for the drug maker GlaxoSmithKline,” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on June 11, 2009.

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/blog/grassley-seeks-more-info-on-conflict-of-interest-policies-at-medical-schools.html

Take the BLUE PILL DOOCE….Please oh please, take the blue pill…

IT’S TRUE! ZOLOFT DOES EVERYTHING!!!

UPDATE: July 1, 2009

It appears that Heather Armstrong is eating her doctor approved blue pill and perhaps even the zoloftian, “breastfeeding friendly”, light blue pill…

But hey…she’s happy and free…

“So he made a minor tweak to my meds and asked me to come back and see him in two weeks, and I am not even kidding, I felt better that night. In fact, better does not do what I was feeling justice. I felt free.”

I’m glad Heather feels free on her meds.  I was court ordered to take my toxic cocktail and it felt like slavery to me.

“So what about breastfeeding? That’s what you’re all wondering, I know, and this is what I’m going to say: he thinks that what I’m taking is perfectly safe to take while breastfeeding. He’s prescribed it before to women who are breastfeeding and everything has been perfectly fine. No, I’m not going to talk about what I’m taking because one, it’s no one’s business, and two, I don’t care that you think I’m poisoning my baby. I also think that anyone going through this needs to consult their own doctor and make an informed, personal decision about their individual situation. And then go on and live a better, happier life.”

Since I was the only person on Heathers blog who mentioned antidepressants being toxic in the comment section of her Freebirth post.  And since I shared links to articles that proved this was the case, I can only presume that she is responding to what I wrote when she says that she does not care what I think.

That’s cool, I also do not care that she thinks I’m “stupid” for being into Freebirth.  But she may want to pause for a sec and think about how her daughter will feel about her casually taking toxic poison every day while she is pregnant and nursing, and she may want to consider how her husband might feel about her eating her big bowl of prozac flakes with zoloft milk every morning while nursing her daughter, especially when true healing is to be found at the local Whole Foods market.

“Sorry hunny, I know you can’t put two thoughts together in order to solve that math problem and you started menstruating when you were five, and now as a sixteen year old you are growing a beard… but it was just so important that I not be panicked when you were a newborn, and dammit, only stupid people ignore doctors advice and go looking for alternatives to drugs.”

Hey, to each her own.

“I’ve been on the new meds for over five days, and I haven’t had a panic attack once. I feel like a regular person who has an infant and can handle it, and during my pregnancy that was exactly what I was aiming for. Turns out I needed a little help, a tiny adjustment, but here I am and I am loving it. I love what it has done to my relationship with Leta, what it has helped me see and appreciate in Jon, and I love that I can barely stand to be away from that baby for a minute. Jon has been watching Marlo so that I could write this, and a little bit ago he came rushing downstairs with this kicking, yelling, hungry bundle in his arms, and it was like I hadn’t seen her in years. And that yelling… that raucous, staccato, one-too-many-beers yelling… it didn’t make me cringe, it made me laugh.”

As the fake ad for Zoloft says “Zoloft does EVERYTHING!” (I’m only guessing that Heathers doc put her on Zoloft because it is considered the safest to take while nursing.)

Everyone should watch Amy Philos Zoloft movie to hear her story about that nasty drug…

Pills, Pills, Pills…

ANTIDEPRESSANTS - pills, pills, and pills

“Perfectly Safe”, according to Heather’s doctor…

Please Mommies, Heather Armstrong is NO EXPERT on drug use during pregnancy and breastfeeding.  (Neither am I, I only consider myself an expert on my own body and brain.) And it sounds like her doctor has drunk the big pharma koolaid when it comes to nursing moms eating this crap.

Peter Breggin MD is an expert psychiatrist who has written the definitive books on Psychiatric Medications.

Please take the time to research, pray, and thoughtfully explore alternatives to drug therapies when making the choice whether to eat antidepressants during pregnancy and lactation.

No amount of symptom relief from panic/depression/anxiety will help you overcome the guilt and horrifying feelings you will experience when you realize that your child has been permanently brain damaged by these toxic medications.  Alternatives do work!  And the biggest lie of all is that only drug therapies can be used when a Mother is in the throes of postpartum emotional illness.

Jenny Hatch

My Pregnancy and Birth Journal!

ORIGINAL POST (June 14th, 2009)

I’ve been a vocal supporter of home birth for many years.

As a childbirth educator I felt it was my job to tell pregnant women the truth, even if what I said was uncomfortable and painful for them to hear.

A few months ago I read a blog post by Heather Armstrong AKA Dooce.  Heather is considered an expert on post partum depression and motherhood.  She is also a liberal ex-mormon – sort of the anti-Jenny Hatch.  She regularly stands against just about everything that is important to me.

I found that she was an articulate, smutty, sometimes funny but mean spirited blogger.  And that those who tended to comment on her blog also used tons of profanity and were hostile to my LDS religion.

I was intrigued by the amount of conversation going on about Antidepressants.  It felt like her readers were asking her drug consultation questions as if she was some sort of a medication guru.  I was extremely dismayed to read that she was pregnant with her second child and had been taking anti depressants during her pregnancy.

But as with all of my personal judgements around issues with pregnancy etc al…I did not feel the need to contact her personally and let her know how deadly and damaging her choice would prove to be to her unborn daughter.

I get annoyed when others write me emails telling me how I am a bad mother for giving birth at home, and  I am a very live and let live person.

When she wrote a vitriolic post about Freebirth on friday, I read through the comment section and decided to jump in the pool, as I usually do when unassisted childbirth is being discussed in the blogosphere.

My comment is found at the bottom of page one.  And I wrote quite a bit on page two.

I defended freebirth and shared some links about orgasmic birth.

In the post and the comments we were called stupid, crazy,  and some of the language was extremely insulting to our home birth community.

My inner childbirth educator decided to share the facts about antidepressant use in pregnancy and how it is a BAD thing for the baby and then linked to several sites where readers could learn more.   Heather has a loyal following of dedicated commenters and many became indignant that I would heckle her for her lifestyle the same way that she had judged me and my friends in the home birth community.

I said:

“Heather has chosen to be a shill for Big Pharma by loudly proclaiming her addiction to Prozac and her use of this dangerous drug during pregnancy….do I care? Sure, I feel bad for her unborn daughter, and any potential heart problems she may have, but does that mean I am going to go on a campaign to convince or tell her I won’t tolerate her lifestyle? No.”

I summed up the conversation by explaining to those reading that we all make choices every day that impact the health of our kids.  Some choose to give birth medically and use drugs for all that ails them, and we who give birth at home have decided that the medical people don’t have a whole lot to offer our children.

But ultimately I said that we should all live and let live.

Before Dooce locked the thread to more comments, a few more readers were talking about anti-depressants andthe tone was this almost pleading tone in the comments…”Dooce, take the blue pill, please oh please, take the blue pill….Dooce tell me I’m on the right meds, tell me I’m doing the right thing.  Tell me the reality Jenny Hatch has just described does not exist….help me to know that the drugs I am eating every day are not deforming and killing my child…”

The emotion was real, and Heather did not respond, perhaps because she is at the hospital right now birthing her second child.

All I know is that I completely agree with Peter Breggin and his wife Ginger who in July of 2007 at the Huffington Post made the case that PREGNANT WOMAN SHOULD NEVER TAKE ANTI DEPRESSANT DRUGS.

They summed up their excellent post with these words:

“No one can or should blame the parents. But when the mother has been taking an SSRI antidepressant, increasing her risk by 240%, we must hold responsible the doctor who prescribed it, the drug company who manufactured and falsely promoted it, and the medical establishment that covers up and minimizes the drastic hazards associated with these toxic chemicals, including risks to adults, children and the unborn.”

I don’t judge ignorant women who eat antidepressants while pregnant, but I do have a sense of wanting to smack them upside the head and scream “how dare you judge me and my mothering choices when you are killing your child every single day with the toxic POISON you are eating! Wake up woman!”

I would like to challenge Heather Anderson to take the red pill and find out how far down the rabbit hole goes in terms of the truth of the coverup surrounding pregnant women taking antidepressants.

The media largely trashed Tom Cruise when he suggested alternatives to drug therapy to a mentally challenged Brooke Shields.  And millions of women daily dope and numb themselves with chemicals designed by thieves who have made billions from the mental challenges of birth traumetized women.   And here we are a couple of years later and come to find out in the Wall Street Journal this week that the very scientist charged with conducting the government research on antidepressants for pregnant mothers is getting paid hand over fist by the drug company that makes the drugs.

“In a letter earlier this month to Emory, Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) said he learned the school had informed the NIH last summer that Dr. Stowe had financial conflicts of interest. The senator said records he obtained from GlaxoSmithKline PLC, the maker of the antidepressant Paxil, indicated Dr. Stowe was paid $154,400 by the drug company in 2007 and $99,300 during the first 10 months of 2008. The totals included payments for at least 95 promotional talks on behalf of the company. A Glaxo spokesman was unavailable for immediate comment.”

Parents, it is time to wake up and throw the shackles of medicine off our backs!

I wonder about Heather….and how this next postpartum will go for her and her child.  See, it’s not just about the mother and her feelings.  It is about the health and well being of the baby too.  And if the baby is born without a frontal lobe, or has a heart defect or painful drug withdrawal for days in the NICU, I think a Self Righteous, know it all blogging Mom perhaps needs to accept just a bit of responsibility for her choice to eat deadly toxins and live as a psychiatric slave.

I wonder if she will take the blue pill  – go back to bed, wake up, and continue with psychiatric care for her emotional issues.  I wonder if she will continue to be a loud voice for drugs, gleeful in her mania, confident that none are as funny, wise, and all knowing as she in her “all is well in ZION” psychedelic high, and I wonder if she and her readers will continue to judge, hate, and mock us homebirthers and psychiatric survivors for our choice to live free.

Time will tell.

Jenny Hatch

The Paul Hatch Family in 2002 7 months pregnant with Ben

Blue Pill/Red Pill reference from the Movie: The Matrix

To end on a funny note: (Well, funny if you have not experienced these side effects)

I was sexually dysfunctional taking Prozac.  Very very sad place to be when you are newly married…

Jenny Hatch

Coalition Grows To 53 Groups

http://www.uniteforlife.org/content/view/38/2/

Read our updates on our Coalition and some news about the other side.

Note: we will be using the BREATH blog (the official blog of momsandmeds.com/MADNAP) and the UNITE website and Yahoo group for updates temporarily so that our fax campaign regarding The MOTHERS Act’s flawed and dangerous legislative language will remain at the top of this blog.

As of 6-5 The Coalition totals 53 groups, including the latest, Parent Guidance Center, AAPS,  The Mother Magazine, The Coalition for the Abolition of ElectroShock in Texas, ASPIRE, Beyond Meds and The Network Against Coercive Psychiatry.

I love the mission statement of AAPS:

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
A Voice for Private Physicians Since 1943
“Omnia pro aegroto”

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a non-partisan professional association of physicians in all types of practices and specialties across the country.

Since 1943, AAPS has been dedicated to the highest ethical standards of the Oath of Hippocrates and to preserving the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship and the practice of private medicine.

Our motto, “omnia pro aegroto” means “all for the patient.”

Read our “Principles of Medical Ethics”
Read our “Patients Bill of Rights”

Also, here are some interesting quotes from the Network Against Coercive Psychiatry:

The Network is emerging at an historical juncture that constitutes a time of potential danger as well as opportunity. The danger lies in the continued expansion of psychiatric power and of the merger of the “mental health” system with the American government.

The idea of “mental illness” is a misleading and degrading metaphor. “Psychiatric treatments” in mental hospitals are for the most part forms of physical and emotional abuse. Psychiatric “diagnoses” are demeaming labels without any scientific validity. The psychiatric Establishment is pushing dangerous drugs which they euphemistically call “medication.” Treatments in this century have ranged from revolving chairs to lobotomies to electrical assaults on the human brain to neurologically damaging drugs. There has been no revolution in the treatment of individuals who are psychiatrically labeled: it is an unbroken history of barbaric practices, justified by professionals as medical procedures designed to control patients’ ostensible mental diseases.

National Coalition of Organized Women Letter to the Senate

National Coalition of Organized Women

From Laboring Women to Labor Unions, We Move as One

www.ProgressiveConvergence.com

From the desk of the Director:

May 10, 2009

Re: The Mothers Act S.324

As a non-funded social force on behalf of women and children’s health since 1992, we herein render our opinion on S. 324 for the benefit of your consideration.

We strongly recommend that the Senator postpone the vote on the Mothers Act (S. 324) until 2012. As it concerns pregnant women, their fetus and their breastfeeding infants, the SSRIs research promoted by this bill concomitant with the proposed mass vaccination of the entire pregnant population in 2010 with Thimerosal (mercury) containing Swine flu vaccine is, in our considered opinion, deeply imprudent…placing in double jeopardy pregnant mothers who have the sobering responsibility of safely ushering in an entire generation of humanity…a generational wave of new Americans.

Furthermore, there are obtuse generalities in the legislation S. 324 that fail to protect women and their fetuses. We feel that it would be a personal, moral and professional mistake for the Senator to vote this bill into law “as it is” without serious consideration and attention to the devil in the details.

Essentially, this bill’s purpose is to legitimize and expand clinical testing of psychiatric drugs, namely SSRIs, black boxed labeled as “suicidal” (homicidal) as it pertains to pregnant women.

Example of proposed considerations:

• No guidelines have been provided for public disclosure regarding conflict of interest of the grant recipient.

• No proviso for patient information statement (PIS) for pregnant participants in clinical or anecdotal trials.

• For example, here is a relational example of a detail gone wrong in the vaccine program that could be refined for the Mothers Act:

In the case of the CDC’s Vaccine Information Statement (VIS):  Law requires that all recipients of the vaccines be provided with a VIS indicating the risks and benefits of the vaccine.  Unfortunately, (a point to be considered for the Mothers Act) the CDC provides the VIS solely developed by the Administrative Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) which recommends the flu vaccine for all pregnant women. However, in contradiction, the FDA states that the recommendation of the ACIP for pregnant women is not an indication of the FDA. However, this contrasting FDA indication and Manufacturers’ information (see below) is not on the ACIP Vaccine Information Statement that providers are required to give to their pregnant patients, nationwide.

Hence, in the case of the vaccine program (as well as SSRI research as absent in the Mothers Act) pregnant women are devoid of receiving legitimate risk/benefit information.  Additionally, in the case of the vaccine program there is no information for pregnant mothers in the ACIP VIS that the mult-dose flu vaccine contains the highly controversial preservative, Thimerosal (mercury) which, as you know, contrary to the CDC, independent researchers emphatically contend is the primary cause of the Autism, ADHD, ADD epidemic AND the subsequent use of prescription drugs (SSRIs).  Note:  The use of Thimerosal for the 2010 Swine flu vaccination program will be particularly problematic as it is most likely that, according to Sanofi-Pasteur, mass vaccination/multi-dose will contain Thimerosal as a preservative/sterilant.

Example: Manufacturer’s Package Insert (Flu zone: Sanofi Pasteur)

Manufacturers warning not included in the vaccine information statement by ACIP

• Flu zone package insert, http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm

Pregnancy:

• 8.1 Pregnancy Category C: Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with Flu zone vaccine. It is also not known whether Flu zone vaccine can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. Flu zone vaccine should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.

• 8.2 Nursing Mothers It is not known whether Flu zone vaccine is excreted in human milk. Because many drugs are excreted in human milk, caution should be exercised when Flu zone vaccine is administered to a nursing woman.

• 13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility Flu zone vaccine has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility.

Mayo Clinic:

Few medications have been proved safe without question during pregnancy. (Clinical and anecdotal research continues on pregnant women) Here’s an overview, arranged alphabetically by specific type of antidepressant:

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)

Citalopram (Celexa) Associated with a rare but serious newborn lung problem (persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn, or PPHN) when taken during the last half of pregnancy Consider as an option during pregnancy

Fluoxetine (Prozac, Sarafem) Associated with PPHN when taken during the last half of pregnancy Consider as an option during pregnancy

Paroxetine (Paxil) Associated with fetal heart defects when taken during the first three months of pregnancy             Avoid during pregnancy

Sertraline (Zoloft) Associated with PPHN when taken during the last half of pregnancy        Consider as an option during pregnancy

Tricyclic antidpressants

Amitriptyline Suggested risk of limb malformation in early studies, but not confirmed with newer studies             Consider as an option during pregnancy

Nortriptyline (Pamelor) Suggested risk of limb malformation in early studies, but not confirmed with newer studies             Consider as an option during pregnancy

Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)

Phenelzine (Nardil) May cause a severe increase in blood pressure that triggers a stroke       Avoid during pregnancy

Tranylcypromine (Parnate) May cause a severe increase in blood pressure that triggers a stroke       Avoid during pregnancy

Other antidepressants

Bupropion (Wellbutrin)             No established risks during pregnancy   Consider as an option during pregnancy

Melanie Stokes (namesake of the Mothers Act S.324) checked in at Michael Reese Hospital’s emergency room. Melanie was admitted to the psychiatric unit. At the hospital, doctors placed Melanie on antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs. Melanie had resumed the ECT treatments and started another combination of medications. The day she was released from the hospital she asked for a gun. When she arrived on May 27 to Lutheran General Hospital she had already been through four different combinations of anti-psychotic, anti-anxiety and anti-depressant drugs, as well as the electroconvulsive therapy. One day, Melanie checked into a hotel under the name Mary Hall, perched on a window ledge firefighters were in her room trying to coax her back inside. She sat on the other side of a window, her back straight and pressed against the glass. After about 20 minutes, Melanie turned a little, as if she were going to try to pull herself up. Then, she turned back, put her hands at her side and dropped from the ledge.

Andrea Yates motioned Officer Knapp into the house, past the dog barking from her kennel in the family room, down the hallway lined with framed family photos and carpeted in beige plush, and into the master bedroom. “I killed my kids”. Her husband had given her a 300-milligram morning dose of the antidepressant Effexor and, the previous night, a 45-milligram dose of the antidepressant Remeron with a 15-milligram dissolvable Remeron Sol Tab booster.

“Zoloft” recommended as an option by the Mayo clinic:

Christopher Pittman, aged 12, (Paxil then Zoloft). Known amongst family as ‘pop-pops shadow’, he had always been very close to his grandfather. Shortly after being prescribed Zoloft he shot both his grandparents dead and burned the house down. Imprisoned, he waited 3 years for trial, and was then tried as an adult – a practice acceptable in the USA. [Defense pleaded involuntary intoxication. Preparing for the expected homicidality-Zoloft link, Pfizer lawyers involved themselves early into the case with prosecution. Jury opted for murder verdict.

Please visit website http://www.ssristories.com/index.php Here you will find a collection 3,000 of stories of suicides, homicides including school shootings, every one of them associated with the very SSRIs that bill S.324,The Mothers Act seeks to fund as it pertains to pregnant mothers.

In conclusion: Because there are very serious and grave issues with psych drug research and treatment directly aimed at a generation of pregnant women; and in consideration of a Swine flu pandemic mass vaccination program of pregnant women with Thimerosal in 2010/11, the Mother’s Act should be postponed and reworked recommending, for the interim period, research on the efficacy of psychotherapy, and other psychosocial interventions while considering causative the mass childhood vaccinations of the young emerging mother whose generation is riddled with childhood vaccine toxic insults that now appear as mental illness causing a greater rise in the use of prescriptive psychiatric drugs (SSRIs); suicides and homicides.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards,

Eileen Dannemann
Director, NCOW
ncowmail@gmail.com
917 804-0786

“The Big Pharma Plague”

Republic Magazine informs its readers in this issue about many dangerous falsehoods being spread as truth for the benefit of pHARMa, all in the name of “help.”

Preview the PDF here: http://tinyurl.com/PharmaPlague

Or download it here: http://www.box.net/shared/m5o3iogys0

Check out the magazine or subscribe (you can get a digital subscription for free) at: http://www.republicmagazine.com/

Anna Nicole Smith’s Psychiatrist Was Treating Her for PPD

http://tinyurl.com/SmithPPD

Howard K. Stern says medical law doesn’t apply to him

11:56 AM | May 13, 2009

Anna Nicole Smith’s former confidant and lawyer pleaded not guilty today to charges of furnishing illegal prescription drugs to the late Playboy model in the years leading up to her 2007 fatal overdose.

Following the arraignment in L.A. County Superior Court, an attorney for Howard K. Stern said he plans to seek a complete dismissal of the charges on the grounds that the law is meant for medical professionals.

“Howard is not a doctor, not a medical practitioner and the statute does not apply to him,” lawyer Steve Sadow said outside court as Stern stood silently at his side.

Authorities have portrayed Stern, 40, as the linchpin – or “principal enabler” according to the state attorney general – of a conspiracy to provide Smith with thousands of pills, including methadone, Xanax and Ambien.

Stern’s co-defendants, physicians Sandeep Kapoor, 40, and Khristine Eroshevich, 61, also pleaded not guilty today. Commissioner Kristi Lousteau ordered the doctors and Stern to provide handwriting samples to investigators.

The writing of prescriptions is the heart of the case against the trio. In court filings, prosecutors have said the three used fake names on prescriptions to funnel inappropriate amounts of medication to Smith even though they knew she was an addict.

The 39-year-old model and spokeswoman died in a Florida hotel room two years ago, five months after her 20-year-old son, Daniel, suffered a fatal overdose from drugs. A lawyer for Eroshevich, a psychiatrist, has said she was treating Smith for depression and postpartum depression stemming from the birth of her daughter.

The judge also imposed a protective order barring attorneys from disseminating some 1,400 pages of evidence that prosecutors are in the process of turning over to the defense. A lawyer for Kapoor told reporters that he is continuing to practice medicine as the case progresses.

“His patients have been very supportive and he appreciates that,” said attorney Ellyn Garofolo.

The defendants are due back in court in June to set a date for the preliminary hearing, which is expected to last at least two weeks.

– Harriet Ryan