The Bitter Pill

The Official Blog of UNITE – uniteforlife.org

What the Media Doesn’t Say about Antidepressants & Pregnancy

In reality, you cannot separate the need for the baby to be healthy and to survive from the mother’s mental state. How many mothers honestly do not worry that something could go wrong with their babies or do not feel responsible for protecting their children? How many women who lost children can go on day by day not feeling anything about that loss? Which antidepressant are you supposed to take to help with depression if you’re dealing with loss after your baby dies from an antidepressant?

Unlike Vogue Magazine or TIME, for some reason ABC has decided to promote more misinformation that will no doubt prove deadly for far too many babies, and possibly mothers too. Read on to find out more…

You may have read a couple of posts I recently wrote (see: here – AMA Review: Antidepressants Pose Significant Risk of Serious Harm to Babies and here – ABC Story on ACOG Release Refers Readers to momsandmeds.com and CHAADA) after I was contacted for a possible story on TV by an ABC producer regarding the ACOG / APA guidelines on antidepressants and pregnancy.

As I wrote in those articles, I had sent numerous emails to the producer with various studies and analyses including not only the conflicts of interest (the conflicts document was so extensive that it took up about 20 pages or so in Word and I didn’t even look up all the names) among the researchers either writing or cited in the report, but also a comparison of the difference between the ABC article they published, and the actual report issued by the ACOG and APA.

I don’t expect that I’ll be hearing much back from them, but the reason I am writing this is not because I really wanted to be on TV (far from it) but because it just makes me horrified that the media can take something that says there is evidence of harm to babies (to quote the ACOG release, “[T]he use of antidepressant medications during pregnancy have been associated with negative consequences for the newborn…some studies have linked fetal malformations, cardiac defects, pulmonary hypertension, and reduced birth weight to antidepressant use during pregnancy.”) and twist it around by quoting “experts” with fancy titles who are willing to say that “the jury is still out” on whether antidepressants can hurt babies. The proposition is that it’s the depression that causes the birth defects, not the drugs.

The ACOG report clearly says that there is evidence of harm – but unfortunately when you watch the videos put out or read the articles on the ABCnews.com website you won’t know that unless you look further.

Just think about cases in which mothers who lose babies to antidepressants or have babies with severe birth defects linked to antidepressants go on to have more children off of antidepressants, without further problems in the babies. Julie Edgington is one example (out of 5 children, only one baby had problems and it was the one exposed to Paxil, Manie, her 4th), Kelly S., who lost her baby to a Paxil heart defect, is another. I was myself told that I shouldn’t have more kids because I would risk severe PPD. I had nothing of the sort. Toby is one of the healthiest kids I’ve seen. I know I am not the best example because I wasn’t actually depressed during pregnancy (was never depressed except for when I was taking Zoloft while nursing), but it just goes to show that there is no conscience regarding the harm coming to babies from these drugs. I was told to stay on Zoloft if I ever did want to have another baby. I am so thankful that Toby is drug-free and healthy.

I honestly do not know how these people can live with themselves.

A great example of what the public sees if they are not up on the latest information, but just passively receiving news bytes, is the ABC piece that just came out which covers Heather Armstrong’s story and states that there is no convincing proof that antidepressants cause harm to the baby. In it Heather tells ABC that she went off her meds during her last pregnancy but experienced panic attacks, and then later, suicidal thoughts after her baby was born, so she decided to stay on it during this recent pregnancy.

1) Of course when you go off antidepressants you can experience panic attacks or even suicidal thoughts – it’s called withdrawal. Been there, done that. For me the withdrawal was way worse than being on the drug at a stable dose, but once I got off of the drug and had time for it to clear out of my system I felt so much better.

Even if you were suicidally depressed before ever taking antidepressants, that does not mean that antidepressants will cure the suicidal thoughts, nor does it mean that you cannot find safe and effective alternatives (link to postpartum nutrition / orthomolecular medicine article). (See also: Preventing & Treating Emotional Problems and a post about counseling and self help.)

Perhaps Prozac really helped Heather feel better mentally but that does not justify what could have happened to the baby. During her last pregnancy she says that she had panic attacks. I think I’ll take panic attacks over my baby dying. It wasn’t even until after her baby was born that she says she had suicidal thoughts. So, were those a result of a drug withdrawal, or did she have a hormonal imbalance after birth of estrogen or thyroid that so many women have? I can’t claim to know what caused Heather Armstrong’s depression after her birth of her first child, but I can guarantee that it was not a Prozac deficiency and that there are safe treatments available. However it still makes no sense to me why having PPD would lead someone to consciously decide to take drugs during a subsequent pregnancy. If you had PPD before, then by all means if you are going to take drugs for PPD, do so after the baby is born and don’t do it while nursing. The time it takes you to get your placebo effect should be well worth it considering the peace of mind and increased safety for the baby.

In my opinion the reason women do this sort of thing stems from the misinformation fed to them by their doctors or other people in the public doing the off label marketing spin. Off-label marketing, or promoting psychiatric drugs to pregnant women (no psychiatric drug is FDA approved for pregnancy), by the way, is currently illegal, but the drug companies usually find ways to get others to do it for them. That’s more than I can say for Pfizer’s criminal behavior with the illegal marketing of Geodon and Lyrica.

2) Just because Heather Armstrong’s baby was born without complications (and she had an unmedicated birth if I am not mistaken) does not mean that the drugs are safe. Nor does it mean that whatever drug she is feeding her daughter in her breast milk is safe for the baby. I am so thankful that her daughter is ok so far, because no baby deserves to suffer from these drugs and I truly hope that she continues to be ok.

But this does not excuse pushing drugs on the entire country with misleading information from conflicted “researchers.”

Here is what you will probably not see on ABC any time soon:

(I hope ABC will prove me wrong, but so far no such luck)

Craniosynostosis caused by Antidepressant Exposure

Craniosynostosis before / after surgery (caused by antidepressant exposure)

Omphalocele caused by antidepressant exposure

Omphalocele caused by antidepressant exposure

Anencephaly (lack of forebrain) caused by antidepressant exposure - 100% fatal

Anencephaly (lack of forebrain) caused by antidepressant exposure - 100% fatal

Look at these devastating photos and ask yourself if it is really worth it to expose your baby to something that can cause a birth defect like this, when there is no taking back the exposure. I lived through suicidal and homicidal thoughts for four months because of Zoloft and I would not want to live through that again, but I would rather go through it (drug-induced or not) a hundred more times rather than have to live through losing a baby or having a baby born with a severe birth defect.

Everyone is bound to go through sad times, depression, grief and despair at some point in their lives but that does not mean that the entire human population suffers from serotonin deficiencies (when in reality serotonin excess is what leads to problems in the first place) or “chemical imbalances.”

I enjoy occasionally drinking wine or mixed drinks, but that doesn’t mean that because I feel relaxed while drinking alcohol, that I should drink when pregnant or that I suffer from an alcohol imbalance.

Women deserve to know the truth about what can happen with these drugs. They deserve to get the truth about what is causing their emotional problems (not some sales tactic like attributing it to an unproven, unprovable chemical imbalance) and how to safely deal with them with “alternative” medicine, orthomolecular medicine, proven hormone therapy, counseling, etc. They deserve support and understanding and compassion. They do not deserve to be fed deadly lies. But mostly, their babies deserve for the mothers to know.

ABC quotes doctors who say you cannot separate the health of the child from the health of the pregnant mother. This is an illogical catch phrase that they use in order to try and make us feel guilty for insisting on drug free options because some women obviously already take antidepressants and find it impossible to stop (again, this is caused by horrific withdrawal and the drug companies seem fine with that). Try and think about what this really means. They are saying that the mother’s mental health cannot be ignored during pregnancy because doing so hurts the baby. They are saying depression is more dangerous than drugs to the baby. Aside from the fact that this is clearly untrue, and that antidepressants do not reduce birth defects, but rather, increase them, think about whether you have ever been sad during pregnancy. Does feeling sad during pregnancy or being depressed cause PPHN, cardiac defects, the lack of a forebrain, and stillbirth? Or do toxic drugs with mystery chemicals that dangerously elevate serotonin and affect the organ development of babies cause these problems?

Something most people don’t know is that Fen-phen which was taken off the market for heart and lung-related deaths is actually a serotonergic drug which was a chemical mirror image of an SSRI. As I have said repeatedly and will say again, when you have drugs leading to heart problems and PPH in adults, how could they possibly not hurt babies the same way or worse?

Even after considering the fact that antidepressants actually cause depression and suicide, and work about as well as a placebo, this catch phrase makes about as much sense to me as saying that a mom who is addicted to crack, or drinks 5 coffees a day, or smokes, or is an alcoholic, should be told to keep doing those things if it eases her anxiety or fatigue while pregnant. Or about as much sense as telling women to go take Thalidomide because we’re not really sure that Thalidomide causes problems and it was probably actually the morning sickness causing the birth defects and not the Thalidomide. The jury is still out on whether swallowing RAID or drinking bleach while pregnant is bad for your baby. Perhaps working in a nuclear plant or handling plutonium should be considered safe for pregnant women too.

In reality, you cannot separate the need for the baby to be healthy and to survive from the mother’s mental state. How many mothers honestly do not worry that something could go wrong with their babies or do not feel responsible for protecting their children? How many women who lost children can go on day by day not feeling anything about that loss? Which antidepressant are you supposed to take to help with depression if you’re dealing with loss after your baby dies from an antidepressant?

Stop lying to women about what are confirmed, known risks.

If the jury were still out, the FDA would not be issuing warnings like:

“Infants born to mothers who took SSRIs after the 20th week of pregnancy were 6 times more likely to have persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN) than infants born to mothers who did not take antidepressants during pregnancy.”

See: PPHN Paxil baby Sarah Hart here. Sarah survived, but Matthew did not.
Face to Face:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/madnapfacetoface/

See more FDA MedWatch Data here: http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/MothersAct.html

I can only hope that every person responsible for off-label marketing will be held accountable in some way. I am no expert in FDA  or criminal law, but when you essentially have money laundering taking place – drug companies giving donations to organizations, who then promote drugs through their own organizations via blogs, press releases, and speeches, it would seem that either the drug companies, or the individuals doing the marketing should be held to account for the off label promotions.


Warnings/Studies Showing Risks Associated with Antidepressants and Pregnant Women or New Mothers:

There is ample evidence to support the risks associated with placing pregnant women or new mothers on antidepressant drugs:

  • September 7, 2005: The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration issued an information sheet to health professionals warning that SSRI antidepressant use—especially Paxil—in early pregnancy could cause congenital [defect at birth] heart abnormalities in newborns.[i]
  • September 27, 2005: The FDA and GlaxoSmithKline issued a warning that pregnant women taking Paxil or other antidepressants during their first trimester of pregnancy, placed their newborns at increased risk of major congenital and cardiovascular [heart] malformations at birth.[ii]
  • February 9, 2006: The New England Journal of Medicine found that mothers who took SSRI antidepressants in the second half of their pregnancies were 6 times more likely to give birth to infants with a lung disorder called persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN). The condition occurs when a newborn’s circulation system does not adapt to breathing outside the womb and causes high pressure in the blood vessels of the lungs making them unable to get enough oxygen into their bloodstream and can be fatal. Between 10% and 20% of infants with PPHN would die even if they receive treatment.[iii]
  • March 10, 2006: Based on the New England Journal of Medicine study, Health Canada issued a warning that SSRI antidepressants and other newer antidepressants when taken by pregnant women placed newborns at risk of developing the rare lung condition; persistent pulmonary hypertension or PPHN.[iv]
  • April 7, 2006: A Canadian study from the University of Ottawa published by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, found pregnant women who used SSRI antidepressants were more likely to have premature and low birth weight babies.[v]
  • June 2006: An Archives of General Psychiatry study found women who take antidepressants during pregnancy at risk of giving birth to children with respiratory problems.[vi]
  • July 19, 2006: The FDA warned of the risk of a fatal lung condition in newborns whose mothers took SSRIs during pregnancy. The agency added it was seeking more information about persistent pulmonary hypertension in newborns from the drugs. It asked drug makers to list the potential risk on their drug labels.[vii]
  • November 2006: The journal Epidemiology published a study entitled “Maternal Use of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Risk of Congenital Malformations.” Researchers did the study from Aarhus University. It found that pregnant women who take SSRI antidepressants are more likely to have babies with birth defects than mothers who don’t take these drugs.[viii]
  • August 2007: The American Journal of Psychiatry published a study that determined that antidepressant use during pregnancy was associated with premature births.[ix]
  • September 18, 2007: A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine of nearly 500,000 women by researchers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center found that nearly 50% of women taking a prescription drug that could cause birth defects did not receive warnings to avoid pregnancy.
  • Moreover, experts say the seriousness of a life-threatening lung disorder found six times more often in infants born to mothers who take antidepressants during pregnancy is not being adequately conveyed to women while they are considering whether to use the drugs.[x]
  • The Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR) states: “Like many other drugs, paroxetine [chemical name for the antidepressant Paxil] is secreted in human milk, and caution should be exercised when Paxil…is administered to a nursing woman.”

Selected SSRI Antidepressant Studies/Warnings on Suicide Since 2001:

  • March 22, 2004: The FDA warned that SSRIs could cause “anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, impulsivity, akathisia [severe restlessness], hypomania [abnormal excitement] and mania [psychosis characterized by exalted feelings, delusions of grandeur].”
  • February 18, 2005: A study conducted at the Ottawa Health Research Institute and published in the British Medical Journal determined that adults taking SSRI antidepressants were more than twice as likely to attempt suicide as patients given placebo.[xi]
  • June 30, 2005: The FDA issued a Public Health Advisory entitled “Suicidality in Adults Being Treated with Antidepressant Medications,” that there could be an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adults taking antidepressants. It recommended that physicians monitor adults who took antidepressants for suicidal tendencies.[xii]
  • August 4, 2005: The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration published an Adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin reporting evidence supporting an association between SSRI use and “new onset of suicidality” in adults.[xiii]

[i] “Information for health professionals concerning the use of SSRI antidepressants in pregnant women,” Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration,” 7 Sept. 2005.[ii] “Important Prescribing Information,” Letter to healthcare professionals by GlaxoSmithKline, Sept. 2005; Miranda Hitti, “New Study Links Paxil to Twice as Many Birth Defects as Other Antidepressants,” WebMD Medical News, 27 Sept. 2005.[iii] Christina D. Chambers, Ph.D., M.P.H., Sonia Hernandez-Diaz, M.D., Dr.P.H., Linda J. Van Marter, M.D., M.P.H., Martha M. Werler, Sc.D., Carol Louik, Sc.D., Kenneth Lyons Jones, M.D., and Allen A. Mitchell, M.D., “Selective Serotonin-Reuptake Inhibitors and Risk of Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 354, 2006, pp. 579-587.

 

[iv] Health Canada Advisory, “Newer antidepressants linked to serious lung disorder in newborns,” 10 Mar. 2006.

[v] Andre Pickard, “Prozac-type drugs increase birth risks, study finds,” Globe and Mail, 4 June 2006.

[vi] Tim F. Oberlander, M.D., FRCPC; William Warburton, Ph.D.; Shaila Misri, M.D., FRCPC; Jaafar Aghajanian, B.Sc.; Clyde Hertzman, M.Sc., M.D., FRCPC, “Neonatal Outcomes After Prenatal Exposure to Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Antidepressants and Maternal Depression Using Population-Based Linked Health Data, Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 63, 2006, pp. 898-906.

[vii] “Antidepressants should list new risks: FDA,” Reuters, 19 July 2006.

[viii] Wogelius, Pia, Nørgaard, Mette, Gislum, Mette, Pedersen, Lars, Munk, Estrid, et.al. “Maternal Use of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Risk of Congenital Malformations,” Epidemiology, Vol. 17, No. 6, Nov. 2006.

[ix] Rita Suri, M.D., Lori Altshuler, M.D., Gerhard Hellemann, Ph.D., Vivien K. Burt, M.D., Ph.D., Ana Aquino, B.S., Jim Mintz, Ph.D., “Effects of Antenatal Depression and Antidepressant Treatment on Gestational Age at Birth and Risk of Preterm Birth,” American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 164, Aug. 2007, pp. 1206-1213.

[x] Evelyn Pringle, “Women not warned about SSRI-related lung birth defect,” Countercurrents.org, 2 October 2007.

[xi] “Drugs Raise Risk of Suicide; Analysis of Data Adds to Concerns on Antidepressants,” The Washington Post, 18 Feb. 2005.

[xii] “Suicidality in Adults Being Treated with Antidepressant Medications,” FDA Public Health Advisory, 30 June 2004.

[xiii] “Suicidality with SSRIs: adults and children,” The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) Adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin, Vol 24, No. 4, Aug. 2005, p. 14.

Filed under: antidepressants, Baby Matthew, Birth Defects, child endangerment, Christian Delahunty, Christiane Schultz, dead babies, Effexor, Effexor in pregnancy, FDA Warnings, Indiana, Informed Consent, Isaac Philo, Julie Edgington, Paxil in pregnancy, PPD, Pregnancy, toxicity deaths, Withdrawal, Wyeth, Zoloft, , , ,

Gestational Diabetes, Midwifery, Antidepressants & Infant Death

Please read this post on Christian Delahunty’s blog indibaby.wordpress.com:

Gestational Diabetes? Our bittersweet results…

http://indibaby.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/gestational-diabetes-our-bitter-sweet-results/

I find it sad that it is so hard to find a midwife who understands the dangers of antidepressants for pregnancy. But even more difficult to grasp is how people can be so cold when dealing with parents who have lost their children to antidepressants. What is this world coming to?

If you lose a child to cancer, you never expect people to say stuff like “Sometimes kids just die” or “Your baby did not die from cancer” or “So would you like a higher dose of drugs” – no, you expect them to have compassion and understanding and sympathy. Why is it hard for people to have sympathy when someone dies from antidepressants? Instead of instantly jumping to defend the drugs, perhaps people should think about how it would feel to have the same thing happen to you.

Unfortunately I have experienced similar responses any time this subject gets brought up. I suppose that it’s beyond comprehension for people to deal with a “medication” killing someone. Or perhaps it’s only something with psychiatric drugs? I can’t imagine if I told you my grandmother died from Vioxx that anyone would start jumping to defend Vioxx.

Wake up people.

Filed under: antidepressants, dead babies, Effexor, Effexor in pregnancy, Indiana, Informed Consent, Pregnancy

Faction of Pill Pushers Embarks on Anti-Information Frenzy

I’d like to show you a few things being said about the anti-MOTHERS Act coalition on the net, by people who sell disorders to the public.

First of all, here’s a sampling of quotes from The MOTHERS Act legislation, to show you what they claim to be for:

Activities under such subsection shall include conducting and supporting the following:

(3) The development of improved screening and diagnostic techniques.

(4) Clinical research for the development and evaluation of new treatments.

(i) raising awareness about screening;

(ii) educating new mothers and their families about postpartum conditions to promote earlier diagnosis and treatment; and

(iii) ensuring that such education includes complete information concerning postpartum conditions, including its symptoms, methods of coping with the illness, and treatment resources.

To the extent practicable and appropriate, the Secretary shall ensure that projects funded under subsection (a) provide education and services with respect to the diagnosis and management of postpartum conditions. The Secretary may allow such projects to include the following:

‘(1) Delivering or enhancing outpatient and home-based health and support services, including case management and comprehensive treatment services for individuals with or at risk for postpartum conditions, and delivering or enhancing support services for their families.

‘(2) Delivering or enhancing inpatient care management services that ensure the well-being of the mother and family and the future development of the infant.

‘(4) Providing education to new mothers and, as appropriate, their families about postpartum conditions to promote earlier diagnosis and treatment. Such education may include–

‘(A) providing complete information on postpartum conditions, symptoms, methods of coping with the illness, and treatment resources

Question: Do the proponents of this bill agree that complete information should be given to women?

Answer: “How dare TIME Magazine interview Amy Philo and not me.”

Question: What’s wrong with hearing about Amy Philo’s story?

Answer: “That’s a rare event and you just scared people away from drugs.”

Question: Do you think screening is a good idea?

Answer: “Screening isn’t required by the bill, but we like screening, but you don’t have to accept the screening, but all moms need to be screened, but I didn’t say that, oh wait yes I did. But without universal screening, up to 20% of moms with PPD won’t get treatment. But screening is not effective unless it’s followed by treatment. But you can use whatever treatment you want. Including drugs. Don’t look at the Abilify ad on my site, please. Just be on your way.”

This is not much different from last year’s bill, with the exception of the fact that it has been rearranged. Nor are the arguments and attacks much different from last year’s fight.

Quote from Lauren Hale’s blog earlier today:

Awhile back, I was contacted by Catherine Elton regarding an article which was to examine Postpartum Depression and the Mother’s Act. The email somehow got buried and I did not get a chance to participate in the discussion.

It seems that it would not have mattered if I had been able to discuss my story with her.

Time published the story this week. While the online version has been modified, you can still see the original version in the hard copy. (Which by the way, I am personally asking you to boycott – even asking if you can take the copy of TIME home from the doctor’s office in order to keep other moms from reading it! And make sure you ASK – because just taking it would be stealing and that’s illegal.)

The original version, entitled “The Melancholy of Motherhood” includes one quote from Carole Blocker, the mother of Melanie Blocker Stokes…

The quote reflects Ms. Blocker’s confusion as to how someone could oppose the MOTHER’S Act, a bill which is designed to increase public and professional education regarding Postpartum Mood & Anxiety Disorders. Frankly, I’m confused right along with Ms. Blocker.

The only survivor story featured in this article is that of Amy Philo…

Amy has tirelessly worked against this bill for quite some time now but continues to be tragically misled. Few discussions with her have led to quite the round robin with Amy unable to come up with legitimate research to back up her claims. When asked for said research, Amy refers to her own websites instead of to specific research articles supporting her claims.

I chose to take Anti-depressants. My first prescription did not work out. But my second one did. Just as with any other medication, sometimes they don’t work so well with your system. So you try another one. You don’t suddenly take your own care into your hands – that’s ridiculous. Would you try to heal a broken leg or diabetes on your own? No? I didn’t think so. So why would you rely solely on self-care when it comes to mental illness? Self-care should be part of the picture but it shouldn’t be the ONLY part of the picture.I am so tired of being judged and accused of not having informed consent…

TIME – I am very disappointed in your lack of sharing both sides of this debate.

Hmmm, that’s interesting I thought TIME did include both sides of the debate. I guess Lauren is just upset that they devoted a whole paragraph to my story. I made a response to Lauren on her blog, pointing out that I had indeed sent her abstracts for studies over a year ago when she asked, but apparently she can’t keep up with her email.

Maybe she did get them and simply can’t recall, as she has been on drugs for quite some time and could be suffering from the side effects of confusion, poor concentration, or memory loss. I don’t think she understood that we want all women to have the right to informed consent, meaning all the information on the available treatments, the exact medical diagnosis, and the risks and benefits of treatment and of doing nothing. We were not waging a campaign against Lauren Hale’s lack of informed consent for her antidepressants. In fact, I have no idea if she has given informed consent, but frankly it’s none of my business. But what is my business is if the government wants to pass a law that could affect me and my children.

After my comment on Lauren’s blog, which stated in part, And why do you refer people to the original copy of the magazine? Is that because you want people to read the error about me which was the only correction made in the online version?” she altered her blog entry to state the following:

Time published the story this week. While the online version has been modified to correct an error with Ms. Amy Philo’s story, you can still see the original version in the hard copy.

Lauren has failed, as of yet, to publish my comment on her blog. And I still have to ask why she would continue to refer people to the original version, instead of the online version, when the only difference in the original version is that it contains a misstatement about my story. A pretty big one. Namely a misstatement that I had thoughts of hurting Isaac before going on meds.

I’ve got to hand it to Lauren, for her blatant attempt to get women to remove the TIME article from public places, and to get people to read the original if they do read it at all. It’s incredibly strange to oppose people getting warnings, participating in public debate, or hearing about adverse effects of medications, and trying to purposefully spread false information about me. I don’t know if she is feeling desperate, or what, but she has just won the “Most Bizarre Behavior of a  Disease-Mongerer of the Year” award from me.

On to Dr. John Grohol, who writes that Dr. Bremner of Emory is publishing “false” statements about PPD. Sorry but this one just isn’t as interesting. You might want to close this down and get back on Twitter. The best I can say about this blog, is that it’s a highly publicized blog with many readers.

Sadly, whether people want to admit it or not, mothers are another “at risk” population. Why? Because society has told mothers time and time again that giving birth is supposed to be a joyous, happy occasion. If you’re depressed after giving birth to a child, there must be something wrong with you. Don’t draw attention to yourself or your problems. Just try and deal with it, try and take care of the baby, and make it through each day. Mothers don’t know they might have something recognized as postpartum depression, much less that they can talk to someone about these feelings or that there’s treatment — psychotherapy or medication — readily available for it.

Darn it Dr. Grohol, I didn’t realize that when I had both of my sons, thinking it was going to be a joyous occasion was a bad plan. Whoa, I just upped my risk for PPD. But did I actually have it or not? I think what I really need is Dr. Grohol to come to my house, watch me for a few days, and tell me about all the mental disorders I might not realize I had. Because I was just sitting here, blogging, thinking my life was great, but I didn’t realize it really sucked until you told me so. Please oh please Dr. Grohol which medication should I take for these disorders. Hmmm, how about Abilify?

(See the huge ad for Abilify on his page: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/07/14/bremners-false-claims-about-postpartum-depression/#comment-629791)

The risk factors he lists for making you prone to PPD are:

prenatal depression, self-esteem, childcare stress, prenatal anxiety, life stress, social support, marital relationships, depression history, infant temperament, maternity blues, marital status, SES, and unplanned/unwanted pregnancy.

Holy crud! Childcare stress? Check. Anxiety? Check. Life Stress? Check. Social Support? Check. Marital relationships? I’ve got one. Check. Depression history? I have a history of not being depressed. Check. Infant temperament? Yes my baby has one. Check. Maternity blues? Was that a blue maternity bra? What? I need more sleep. Marital status – oh wait. Deja vu. SES. Yes I have an SES. Unplanned pregnancy. Sorry, can’t help you out there.

Golly. Oh my gosh. I am so sorry for all this anti-pharma advocacy. I didn’t realize exactly how crazy I am!!!!!!!!!!! Get me some pills, and I don’t want to know what they might do to my unplanned pregnancies I might not plan.

Marcie, another commenter on the blog actually said something I liked though:

I dare you to look into my children’s eyes and tell them that their mother’s life isn’t worth screening for. Tell them that your paranoid antipharm agenda is more important than them having a mother and even possibly life themselves. If you don’t want to take medication then don’t but leave the rest of us alone!

This was my reply:

OK then, I dare you to look into my children’s eyes and tell them that screening and drugging me and risking my life was worth it. If you want to take drugs fine but leave the rest of us alone – to use your words.

I dare you to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnxuw2ufSug

I have no doubt there will be more to come. Keep your eyes open and feel free to chime in.

If you are wondering about MedWatch and how to file a report, the link is here: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/medwatch-online.htm

Click on begin. Please file a report if you have experienced an adverse event from a drug. It’s pretty much the only chance we have of helping more moms get complete information about the already available treatments being marketed for newly approved uses – a la antipsychotics being doled out for depression, anxiety and sleep problems. This falls into the category in The MOTHERS Act of research for the development and evaluation of new treatments. Apparently the only evaluation of treatments that the pill pushers want to see, would be the “meds helped me” or “meds saved my life” type. The “meds killed my baby” and “Meds made me homicidal” type apparently do not matter.

Do your part if you have never filled one out and you’re also a victim.

Filed under: Informed Consent, mothers act, , , , ,

1031 Deaths of Babies Exposed to Psychotropic Drugs

“There’s no tragedy in life like the death of a child. Things never get back to the way they were.”
– President Dwight David Eisenhower

Below is a link that shows some of the MedWatch reports submitted to the FDA of deaths caused to babies by exposure prenatally and neonatally to psychotropic drugs. This does not include the birth defects and withdrawal syndromes for babies who did survive exposure, which seems to be the only thing we usually hear about in the media concerning the drugs’ risks for babies. These figures are based on about a four year time period and represent from 1-10% of likely actual deaths. Keep in mind that these were preventable deaths of helpless babies which would not have occurred were it not for the exposure to psychotropic drugs prenatally and neonatally.

Go to http://psychdrugdangers.com/MothersAct.html and look through the summary tables for the 1,031 Abortions, Miscarriages & Other Deaths. You can see the breakdown for each drug class.

Filed under: "mood stabilizers", "prevention", Effexor, Effexor in pregnancy, experimentation, forced 'treatment', Fred Baughman MD, Indiana, Informed Consent, Isaac Philo, Julie Edgington, Katherine Stone, lawsuits, Melanie Stokes, mothers act, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

MOTHERS Act Action Campaign All In One Little Link! (Numbers, Online Campaign, and Outreach)

MOTHERS Act Action Page

STOP THE MOTHERS ACT! What you can do now:

1) Download, post, distribute, link, post on blogs — this video http://tinyurl.com/IndiVid

2) Link to this article from your website or post links from this article on online websites, blogs etc. http://tinyurl.com/StopTheMA

3) Write or fax your member of Congress.

4)  Forward to your friends http://tinyurl.com/StopTheMA

Filed under: Informed Consent, Melanie Stokes, mothers act, , , , , ,

Donate: Stop Preventable Infant Deaths and Birth Defects

Click here to lend your support to: Stop Preventable Infant Deaths and Birth Defects and make a donation at www.pledgie.com !

Be a Facebook Fan!

UNITE FOR LIFE Fan Page

UNITE FOR LIFE Fan Page

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 729 other followers

Get the latest from the Fiddaman blog

Archives

UNITE News

September 2014
M T W T F S S
« Aug    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

Where Do People See This Blog?

Protect babies from drugs

Eli Lilly Funds Depression Screening Initiatives

depredrugshirt

Matthew Schultz killed by Effexor. Two hours old.

More Photos

Big Pharma Victim

  • I haven't been on in awhile thanks to all those who followed 3 years ago
  • @LindsayRush yay IOWA! 4 years ago
  • Another rainy day here in IOWA. Well at least i had a good time swimmin yesterday. 4 years ago
  • Hey everyone hope you have a great day! THanks to all the new followers :) and for those that continue to follow 4 years ago
  • srry if I dont get on here much I mostly just look at my facebook acct. thanks to all the new followers! 4 years ago

The Indiana Star

Christiane Schultz

  • Is not coping well at all. Loss sucks! 4 years ago
  • is scared to bond with this baby, just in case. 5 years ago
  • Happy 6 months today baby. I love you Matthew. 5 years ago
  • Living with loss, sucks. 5 years ago
  • Thinking I need to discuss plans for this baby soon or I will be having it in my doctors office. Where do I deliver? 5 years ago

Amery Schultz

Seeking Parents in Missouri for Celexa / Lexapro Class Action – Call 800-827-0087

TWEET FOR LIFE

BREATH – The Official Blog of MADNAP – momsandmeds.com

RSS BREATH

  • Untitled
    Originally posted on The Bitter Pill:Kickstarter is a website for artists to use to raise money and complete awesome projects. The best thing to come to the informed consent movement since Thomas Szasz could just be the new, upcoming film by Dan Jenski, “ADDicted” which basically gives Ritalin, Adderall, Concerta and the like a…
  • Untitled
    Originally posted on The Bitter Pill:In the studies submitted to the FDA for approving Zoloft (a drug that has killed numerous families, babies, mothers, children), the drug maker covered up the fact that Zoloft failed to outperform placebo, according to a new consumer fraud lawsuit filed by the firms Baum, Hedlund Aristei & Goldman…
  • Antidepressants Again Linked to Preterm Birth & Seizures
    In what was more than likely originally an attempt to prove that depression causes birth complications, researchers from Yale, Tufts, et al found in two new studies that antidepressants increase the risk of preterm birth and seizures. Read more at this link on the newly redesigned UNITE website.
  • Who Could Do This On Purpose
    Read this blog to find out
  • Canadian Regulation on Fetal Exposure to Psychotropic Drugs – Public Input Needed
    Canadian Regulation on Fetal Exposure to Psychotropic Drugs – Public Input Needed (Cross-Posted on The Bitter Pill blog) Amery and Christiane Schultz have been asked to provide input on proposed recommendations regarding psychotropic drugs in pregnancy in Canada. Amery & Christiane are hard-working activists affiliated with UNITE and MADNAP. Please send […]

UNITE ARCHIVES – Victims & Survivors Against The MOTHERS Act: YouTube Playlist

Videos: Psych Drugs, Birth Defects, Infant Death, Violence & Suicide

UNITE ARCHIVES – Add Your Group To The Coalition Against The MOTHERS Act

CADIMA: 54 Groups and Counting!

UNITE ARCHIVES – The MOTHERS Act Citizen Voting Area on Open Congress

Status: 76% AGAINST S. 324 The MOTHERS Act. Vote & Comment.

UNITE ARCHIVES – Join the Coalition Against The MOTHERS Act on Facebook!

3,271 Facebook Members and Counting!

UNITE ARCHIVES – Stop The Dangerous and Invasive MOTHERS Act!

13,500 Signatures and Counting!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 729 other followers

%d bloggers like this: