Motherhood is Not a Mental Illness: Bremner on TIME

(Note: I encourage everyone to send a letter of thanks to TIME and Catherine Elton at letters@time.com.)

In this post from yesterday on Before You Take That Pill, which Philip Dawdy picked up over at Furious Seasons, Emory researcher and psychiatrist Dr. Doug Bremner writes about The MOTHERS Act in response to TIME magazine’s article, “The Melancholy of Motherhood: Should All Moms Be Screened for Postpartum Depression?”

“[T]o screen all moms as if giving birth is a risk factor for depression is ridiculous. And whenever you start screening the general population, you get into problems with over-identification of people and an increase in the number of people that go on antidepressants.”

He continues:

In the case of Melanie Blocker-Stokes, she had already been treated with multiple courses of psychotropic drugs and electro-convulsive therapy, so there is no reason to think that her life would have been saved by “screening.” This legislation is typical of much that comes out of an individual tragedy, that results in an intrusion into the personal lives of individuals and the further relinqueshment of individual freedoms to the government.

The article quotes psychiatrist Katherine Wisner MD as stating ”how can you be opposed to something that will help mothers?” But an examination of the fine print from one of her articles here shows that she is on speakers bureaus for Pfizer and Lilly, makers of Zoloft and Prozac, respectively.

Catherine Elton did a fantastic job of showing both sides in a fair light. She tells the truth about the treatment given to Melanie Stokes, about my experience with Zoloft, and about screening. But this does not sit well with people who make a living marketing disorders to the public. Later on down the page in the comments section of Dr. Bremner’s blog, I get accused of paranoia and of being mentally ill by a woman named Gina Pera, whom I’d never heard of, and she also says that people like me shouldn’t get to have a say in what happens to our country:

We cannot make public-policy decisions based on the stories of people who have been diagnosed with mental health disorders and treated for them.

Sorry, but it’s true. Many mental health disorders limit objectivity, so these people are just not the best judges of what has been done to them and why. They can have their stories and they can share them. But we can’t make policy on this kind of hearsay and paranoia.

Okay, I’ve had enough of the anti-medication, anti-psychiatry, don’t-control-me crowd. It’s bad for my brain, and it seems to be swelling in ranks on the Internet. Good luck making your way in the dismal future that you are creating for others who could use — and would appreciate — legitimate psychiatric help, well administered.

OK, would she say the same for those advocating for The MOTHERS Act who are currently both diagnosed with a mental illness and taking drugs – that their experiences don’t get to count because they were diagnosed mentally ill? Or does mental illness magically disappear and the slate is wiped clean because you start taking drugs? If so, then I was never “mentally ill” because I was fine before Zoloft and apparently being on drugs makes you “sane” or eligible to participate in public debate. I expected to see comments from the folks from PSI but I guess I didn’t think about the fact that simply by opposing The MOTHERS Act in TIME Magazine, I would get to encounter disease mongerers for all of the DSM (“adult ADHD” anyone?) who go as far as attacking informed consent in order to defend all drugging schemes that they hear about.

Apparently I am “creating a dismal future” for our country just by telling my story? Sorry, U.S.A. That’s just my paranoia and selfishness you’re feeling from afar, when you think about your future and your mental health – it has nothing to do with your life situations.  Is there an anti-future-creation drug yet available? Maybe they should inject me with it. Thanks, Gina for a good laugh.

TIME Magazine’s piece on The MOTHERS Act is sure to draw a lot of people with varying levels of pro-pharma bias, and many anti-pharma survivors into this debate. But most importantly, people who would otherwise never think twice if their doctor hands them a prescription for psych drugs will see this article and perhaps be saved because of it. I can only hope that when people read the print version they will decide to get online and google me or The MOTHERS Act so that they can get some more warnings before accepting a diagnosis and meds. Information is the least people deserve.

Katherine Stone and her pro-drug friends from Postpartum Support International were not pleased with the TIME article. They’ve worked themseleves into a tizzy issuing an open letter attempting to discredit Catherine Elton’s piece. And to think I was upset because the print version had an error about me. If I were Catherine Elton I would be more than a little annoyed by the pathetic whining coming to my inbox complaining that I didn’t write the article the way the drug industry front groups had hoped.

They’ve really got their panties in a wad. Apparently telling my story in TIME is a “disservice” to the country, and they “skip facts” when stating that there is dissent about this issue.

Nevermind the fact that between 2004 and 2008 FDA MedWatch collected 1,031 reports of miscarriages, abortions, and other prenatal and neonatal deaths caused by psychotropic drugs. Nevermind the 4,154 cases of suicidal depression reported to MedWatch for Psychotropic drugs from 2004-2006, along with 2,911 Attempted suicides, 4,260 completed suicides, 2,452 other deaths not from suicide, 434 cases of Homicidal Ideation, 195 Homicides, and 1,098 cases of Mania.

An anti-information campaign letter posted on a blog of a woman who worked for Cohn & Wolfe (a PR firm employed by pharma) with 43 signatures, including that of George Parnham (attorney for Andrea Yates), who advocates with PSI for lesser sentences for infanticide, should somehow top the 53 groups, 12,588 petition signatures, and 2,311 members of the Facebook Coalition against the bill? Why? Because they proclaimed themselves the final authority and followed up their names with long titles.

I’m betting PSI would love it if nobody ever wrote about The MOTHERS Act without running it through them first. Do they speak for all psychologists? All psychiatrists? As evidenced by the post on Dr. Bremner’s blog, Dr. Grace Jackson’s work, Dr. David Healy’s work, and the activism of Dr. Michael Zampardi, Dr. John Breeding, Dr. Peter Breggin, and the ICSPP, as well as countless other psychologists, midwives, doctors, psychiatrists, and mothers selflessly working to educate the public about the risks of psychotropic drugs or to prevent this dagnerous Act from becoming Law, I think not.

Without referring to me by name, Katherine and her co-signators say that they feel bad about my story – which they believe is a rare adverse event.

“We are terribly sorry about the experience of the one mother quoted in your article, which happens on rare occasions, but we believe that the MOTHERS Act would actually go a long way to prevent what happened to her.”

Not that I want half-hearted “sympathy” from people who can’t bring themselves to speak my name, but thank you for the apology. I can only wonder if they also feel guilty for all the “rare” moms out there who are suffering because of medication, since their letter gushes about how great screening and medication are.

“As Time reported in June, the National Academies fully endorses screening for parental depression and believes it is crucial, while also emphasizing that screening is not helpful unless there is effective follow up and treatment tied to it.”

[emphasis mine]

In case you didn’t notice, Katherine stone now emphasizes and refers to screening for parental depression rather than perinatal depression, and makes a point that treatment must follow screening.

I wonder when they’ll apologize about all the dead and injured babies they have helped to drug? Perhaps not unless and until the media pays attention to their stories as well.

As I wrote in my letter to the editor of TIME, which I will share later in a separate post, anyone who wants more information should email me and I can refer you to the FDA MedWatch Adverse Event Reports to help you get all the facts.

In the comments below the “Time Magazine Skips Facts” nonsense on Postpartum Progress, this is what AbleChild had to say:

Ablechild said…

Thank God for Time Magazine, I understand the “Expert” that was quoted in the article has ties to the drug companies. Considering the Subjective Nature and the lack of an accurate test, I find it interesting that you all would get so upset about people who would actually oppose the Mother’s Act.

Well you can count our organization into the camp that opposes such a far reaching grasp of parental rights! Great Going Time Magazine! It is about time the underdogs reeived a fair hearing! Informed Consent consists of all the information, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Why not promote all the deaths associated with your proposed mental health treatments. Andrea Yates was treated and look at what she did to her kids! Stop Promoting Misleading and dangerous treatments. With great respect for human rights and free will of man!

Don’t forget to send a letter of thanks to TIME. Honest journalism is most definitely not dead.

Stay tuned.

Filed under: mothers act, Postpartum Progress, Postpartum Support International, Bremner, disease mongering, Doug, Emory, Gina Pera, Katherine, Motherhood is Not a Mental Illness, Stone, The MOTHERS Act, TIME Magazine

Emory Backs Off Bremner to Avert Major Media Attention

Dr. Bremner was notified yesterday that he can use the Emory name and his title on his blog, as long as he does not implicate the university in his opinions. This was after Emory received an inquiry from a major reporter regarding the situation. Nice one, Emory. Read more here… and see a fun little comparison between Emory’s past treatment of Zachary Stowe, and their treatment of Dr. Bremner.

Filed under: Emory, academic freedom, Bremner, Emory, First Amendment Rights, NY Times

Emory, What’s New?

The following article from Emory’s website, written by Steve Frandzel, is archived here. Just in case Emory decides to perform an articlectomy on their Academic Exchange page…

My favorite quote is, “Goodwin told Inside Higher Ed that she didn’t know why other Emory bloggers or Web sites who listed their Emory affiliations seemed to fall outside of the restrictions.” Read on and you will see.

Faculty Member Removes Emory Name from Blog
July 9, 2009

In his June 18 blog post, Doug Bremner, a professor of psychiatry and radiology at Emory, wrote that, at Emory’s insistence, he had removed all mention of the university from his blog. The move didn’t go unnoticed.

Bremner’s sometimes-acerbic blog, “Before You Take That Pill,” comments on drug and health safety news. He frequently goes after the pharmaceutical industry for, among other things,  misleading claims and unseemly financial ties with academic researchers.

According to Bremner’s July 1 post, Emory wanted to distance itself from his blog because of a complaint it had received about a satirical letter posted January 28. Bremner had written about mental health blogger Phillip Dawdy, who was being evicted from his Seattle apartment because he smoked on the property in violation of the lease. He wrote that Dawdy, who has bipolar disorder, should be allowed to smoke because the strain of quitting could “disrupt his mental condition in an unacceptable way” and that it was “medically contraindicated for him to stop smoking cigarettes.” Emory, Bremner added, said that his blog is for personal use and therefore it is a violation to use its name or letterhead.

In separate letters, Emory’s executive associate dean for administration and faculty affairs, Claudia Adkison, and the acting chair of the psychiatry and behavioral sciences department, Steven Levy, ordered Bremner to remove the Emory’s name from his site because he had violated Emory policies of using its name for non-Emory Business.

“If that’s the case, why doesn’t Emory ask others to take their names off of work not related to Emory? It’s not like I’m just blogging about what I had for breakfast or where go on weekend with kids,” Bremner told the Academic Exchange. “I only write about things that are relevant to what I’ve carved out in my work, which is prescription medications, health care news, and mental health in general.” If [Emory] is asking me to take name my name off of my blog, why not ask others to take name off work not related to Emory?”

The story was picked up by Inside Higher Ed, which said it had received the letters from Bremner:

“According to Bremner’s Emory superiors, complaints they received suggested that he was making ‘clinical recommendations for a patient you do not know and have never examined,’ and these postings made them feel the need to tell him to stop using the Emory name.”

Comments posted by on the blog and the Inside Higher Ed website have been overwhelming supportive of Bremner and generally critical of Emory. Bremner said that visits to his blog had quadrupled since the controversy broke.

Some of the comments contrast Bremner’s situation with that of other medical researchers at Emory who freely identify themselves as Emory faculty when involved with outside interests.  The Inside Higher Ed article noted that other Emory faculty bloggers “who blog (but not anything to do with the pharmaceutical industry) don’t appear to distress the university by having their affiliations noted.”

The article went on to say that Emory Health Sciences director of media relations, Sarah Goodwin, said that  “Emory’s objection to the use of its name in non-official places was ‘across the board’ and not related to the content of Bremner’s blog,”

Bremner responded to Goodwin in his July 1 entry by naming other Emory faculty who write for non-Emory online publications and who “prominently display the name of our university on their blogs.”

Goodwin told Inside Higher Ed that she didn’t know why other Emory bloggers or Web sites who listed their Emory affiliations seemed to fall outside of the restrictions.

The Inside Higher Ed article went on to say, “Goodwin noted that Bremner has been ‘blogging for some period of time,’ and that “if you read it over a long period of time, you can see comments he makes that may be of concern.’ She declined to identify those comments.”

Cary Nelson, national president of the American Association of University Professors, told Inside Higher Ed that “he had no problem with Emory restricting the use of its logo, or even of asking professors to add a statement to a blog stating that opinions don’t reflect those of the institution. But he said that it was wrong and a violation of academic freedom for Emory to tell a faculty blogger not to use the university‘s name in his identification or elsewhere on his blog.”

Links

Double Standard at Emory, Inside Higher Ed, July 1, 2009

Before You Take That Pill (Doug Bremner’s Blog), July 1, 2009: “Is there such a thing as academic freedom?”

Before You Take That Pill (Doug Bremner’s Blog), June 18, 2009: “I am removing the name of my university from this blog”

—Steve Frandzel

http://www.emory.edu/ACAD_EXCHANGE/2009/may/whatsnew.html

Filed under: Emory, Before You Take That Pill, Doug Bremner, Emory, Goodwin

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.

Filed under: Emory, academic freedom, Before You Take That Pill, Bremner, Emory, facebook, First Amendment, pharma ties, throw doctor under the bus to suit your pharma ties

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

Filed under: antidepressants, Congress, mothers act, PPD, Pregnancy, antidepressants, Birth Defects, breast, conflicts of interest, depression, Emory, Grassley, GSK, milk, NIH, nursing, Paxil, pharma, Pregnancy, SIDS, speaker fees, Stowe, sudden infant death, Zachary