My Bad – Mothering Magazine Promotes “Antipsychotics” Not Just Zyprexa

Note

For background you should read the following blog posts:

• Mothering Magazine Publishes Letter Reaming Them for Being So “Anti-drug”
• Open Letter to the Editor of Mothering Magazine – Re: “Beat The Baby Blues” by John Breeding and Amy Philo

Recently John Breeding and I published an open letter to the editor of Mothering Magazine. After reading an unsettling letter to the editor which promoted Katherine Stone’s Postpartum Progress in the next edition of Mothering, I sent out an alert to everyone that they should express their disapproval with the magazine for promoting antidepressants and Zyprexa.

Even though the editor, Peggy O’Mara, had not responded to our letter when John Breeding emailed it to her (for weeks), she did choose to respond to one of the other letters to the editor (within three hours) as follows:

We have not recommended Zyprexa in any of our articles.
Peggy

My first reaction was, “OMG she is so full of it, yes they did.”

So I set out to find the old article. Unfortunately, I no longer have the hard copy because I gave it away at my speech in April in Austin. I searched for everything online and then I realized that I had probably made a technical mistake. I eventually figured out how it happened – that I had mistakenly come to think of their May 2007 article as one where they recommended Zyprexa. What I found online was a categorical statement that moms can take antipsychotics while breastfeeding and that antipsychotics are required for psychosis. I then remembered that at one point, in disbelief at Mothering’s promotion of antipsychotics for breastfeeding, I went to Thomas Hale’s website and searched for antipsychotics, and found that he was recommending Zyprexa for breastfeeding. Then, over time the two pieces of advice began to merge in my mind as I talked and wrote about them. What can I say, I’ve had a pretty busy 3 1/2 years and rewired lots of brain cells to devote large portions of my mind to the task of cramming for law school finals every semester. My bad.

Filed under: adverse drug reactions, antidepressants, pharmacology, Postpartum Progress, Postpartum Support International, PPD, antidepressants, Beat the Baby Blues, Breastfeeding, Breastfeeding and Depression, breastfeeding on antidepressants, breastfeeding on antipsychotics, Kathleen Kendall-Tackett, meds, Mothering Magazine, Paxil, Peggy O'Mara, SSRI, Thomas Hale, Wellbutrin, Zachary Stowe, Zoloft, Zyprexa

Open Letter to the Editor of Mothering Magazine – Re: “Beat The Baby Blues” by John Breeding and Amy Philo

Note

Please see updates to this letter on the following blog posts:

• My Bad – Mothering Magazine Promotes “Antipsychotics” Not Just Zyprexa
• Mothering Magazine Publishes Letter Reaming Them for Being So “Anti-drug”

To The Editor:

In May 2007 Mothering magazine published an article titled “Overcoming Postpartum Psychosis.” It featured the story of a woman who nursed while taking antipsychotic drugs but eventually found recovery through alternative means. The article also featured an excerpt from Kathleen Kendall-Tackett stating that Zyprexa was a good antipsychotic to use for breastfeeding moms who go psychotic.

This month (Sept/Oct 2010 edition of Mothering) the same article promoting Zyprexa to breastfeeding mothers is referenced at the end of the Kathleen Kendall-Tackett article on breastfeeding helping moms to “Beat the Baby Blues.” Adding insult to injury, you chose to publish a graphic encouraging the use of Wellbutrin, Paxil, and Zoloft for breastfeeding as though they are “compatible.” Based on what definition of compatible?

That breastfeeding helps alleviate depression, and co-sleeping helps prevent depression, is a wonderful topic for an article. We are very deeply concerned, however, about the misinformation regarding breastfeeding on psychotropic drugs! With all due respect to the admirable premise of the article, helping to encourage breastfeeding, it is a tragic mistake to encourage the notion that mothers can safely breastfeed while taking the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa—a drug that is well-documented to cause excessive sedation, diabetes, permanent neurological damage and high rates of death. Zyprexa is an extremely toxic and dangerous drug, and decidedly unsafe for babies.

After examining the literature critically we are sure that in 2007, the existing data, including one study cited by Thomas Hale as evidence of supposed safety which examined blood samples from only six babies, did not warrant a statement by anyone that Zyprexa is fine for nursing. As just one example of why it is still the case that Zyprexa cannot be considered safe for babies, consider a 2008 article by S. Gentile (J Clin Psychiatry, 2008; 69(4): 666-73.), “Infant safety with antipsychotic therapy in breast-feeding: a systematic review,” which specifically warns against using Zyprexa in breastfeeding mothers, stating, “The drug seems to be associated with an increased risk of inducing extrapyramidal reactions in the breast-fed babies.”

A vital omission for a magazine with such a critical eye on research is to forward any information based on studies, without mentioning that the research was conducted by people under Senate investigation for financial conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies.

Kathleen Kendall-Tackett has published other misleading statements in the past regarding antidepressant effectiveness. One example was a statement in an article on PPD alternatives in Leaven magazine, which claimed that antidepressants and exercise worked at relieving depression equally, when the actual study showed that by the end of the experiment, the medication groups relapsed while the exercise groups improved.

Presumably the editors of Mothering assume that mothers must be told to use antidepressants or antipsychotics because they cannot possibly be expected to get through the horrors of depression or psychosis without taking psychiatric drugs. The assumption is that babies will miss out if their mothers wean them. We think it is a regrettable mistake to ignore the immediate risk of death to the infant in favor of a hypothetical benefit from taking psychiatric drugs.

For a magazine such as Mothering to condone the use of drugs during breastfeeding that cause infants to develop serotonin syndrome, or vomit, aspirate, suffer seizures, slip into comas and die from various toxic reactions, and to ignore the other serious nonfatal risks of these drugs is unconscionable. The wide readership of breastfeeding advocates gives your magazine added responsibilities, and we urge you to reconsider your position.

Mothering has taken seriously the topics of the risks of medicated births, vaccines, circumcision, and even chemicals in toys. In almost every respect Mothering is satisfied with nothing less than perfection in the information conveyed which can affect the way that we raise our children. But we see a blind spot when it comes to the so-called experts that Mothering endorses on the topics of postpartum depression and psychosis.

We encourage the magazine to spend some time investigating the deaths of babies linked to psychiatric drugs and breastfeeding. If you refuse to address the issue honestly you will lose not only the trust of your readers, but credibility in the much larger community of critics and informed consent advocates.

Sincerely,

John Breeding, PhD
Amy Philo

Filed under: antidepressants, antipsychotics, pharmacology, PPD, Pregnancy, antidepressants, Beat the Baby Blues, Breastfeeding, Breastfeeding and Depression, breastfeeding on antidepressants, breastfeeding on antipsychotics, Kathleen Kendall-Tackett, meds, Mothering Magazine, Paxil, Peggy O'Mara, SSRI, Thomas Hale, Wellbutrin, Zachary Stowe, Zoloft, Zyprexa

Effexor Baby’s Grieving Mother Protests Potential MOTHERS Act, Warns Others

Grieving Mother Christian Delahunty Warns Others About Effexor During Pregnancy and Breastfeeding

(Newswire: http://christiannewswire.com/news/120709939.html)

by Amy Philo

“Please I beg you to learn more. Learn everything you can while there is time… Drugs, whether legal or illegal, should not be used during these most precious months of creation.”

April 2, 2009 — Christian Delahunty of Utah believes Effexor is to blame for the death of her six-week-old daughter Indiana, who passed away last September. Given the overwhelming evidence on the toxicity of Effexor and other psychotropic drugs for adults, children, and babies, it seems to be the obvious cause. But in the minds of those responsible for pushing Effexor on Christian and similar drugs down the throats of pregnant women across America, it may be “impossible” to prove that’s the case.

With Mommy

It is only with that mindset of denial, or simple ignorance, that anyone could possibly justify pushing for the passage of the federal legislation called “The MOTHERS Act,” that will increase the number of pregnant women and new mothers taking psychotropic drugs.

Following the birth of her son Anaid in 2001, Christian first started taking antidepressants around six months postpartum – but primarily for stress, fatigue, and trouble coping with her mother’s death. Eventually Christian settled on Effexor because it gave her the most energy. She says she felt medication was her only option because nearly everyone in her family, from aunts to her mother, had been on some kind of antidepressant and she believed that she probably suffered from some sort of hereditary chemical deficiency.

Although Christian had three children – Gavin, Ayla and Anaid, she knew her mother would have wanted more grandchildren. In 2004, she added another baby, Jake, to her family. During that pregnancy Christian switched from Effexor to Zoloft, a milder antidepressant, at her doctor’s recommendation, but went back on Effexor after she finished nursing.

In 2007 Christian approached a new family doctor about whether she should switch back to Zoloft because she wanted one more baby. She was taking 300 mg of Effexor XR (extended release). But the doctor told her, “Oh no, you and the baby will be fine. There are no studies that prove that the Effexor is even transferred to the baby in utero or in the breast milk.”

During her last pregnancy, Christian had developed gestational diabetes (a known effect of antidepressants), went into premature labor two months early (another effect of Effexor), and had to be put on bed rest. She delivered baby Indiana a few weeks early, one month before the due date (37 weeks is considered full term and 38-42 is a normal length for a pregnancy).

When Christian found out that the doctors planned to break her water rather than try to stop contractions, she says that she told her husband, “Matt you’ve got to grab me my Effexor.”

The attending doctor abruptly reacted with, “What?!”

This doctor, who worked with Christian’s regular OBGYN, explained to Christian and Matt that he had delivered many Effexor babies and had seen a lot of problems.  “It’s not good for the baby and it needed to be stopped in the first trimester,” he said.

Next he called and warned the NICU to get ready because an Effexor baby was coming.

When Indiana was born she had trouble breathing, scored low on her APGARs, and wouldn’t cry. Christian says she was floppy, excessively sleepy and nearly impossible to feed, and states:

“She was just a really sleepy baby and wouldn’t eat. She would eat for maybe ten minutes and fall asleep. To try and nurse her was extremely difficult. In the NICU they would have to shove a bottle into her mouth just to get her to have a little bit. I would have to wake her up to eat because she would go for too long and she was having problems with keeping her food down anyway. I would burp her and she would usually throw up most of what she would eat and I would try the other side.”

Indiana spent a while in the NICU during the hospital stay and had to be on oxygen and have an IV. She was also in and out of the hospital and doctor’s office after they got to go home. Indiana had jaundice and had to be checked for bilirubin levels four different times. She had been losing a lot of weight so she also had to go in for numerous growth checkups.

Christian says she had to work really hard to wake Indiana from a deep sleep for almost every feeding and that she had to wake her up to switch sides. Her excessive sleepiness never improved, even by five weeks of age.

On September 7, 2008 Christian nursed Indiana at 8 am and then put her down for a nap. Christian went back in to wake her up at 10 and found she was not breathing.

Indiana was rushed to Children’s Hospital by paramedics. The staff was finally able to revive her after 45 minutes and she spent the next five days on life support. But it was too late. MRIs showed Indiana’s brain had badly deteriorated and the family had to let her go. She died on September 13 at six weeks of age.

Indiana with Dad

As reported by Vera Sharav, “In April, 2004, the National Toxicology Program – Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (NTP-CERHR) panel issued a Report after examining all the available published evidence about infants exposed to an antidepressant in utero and / or breast fed by mothers taking an antidepressant.”

Sharav continued, “The NTP-CERHR expert panel found reason for concern:

Late pregnancy exposures were associated with increased incidence of prematurity, reduced birth weight and length at full term, and poorer neonatal condition characterized by admission to special care nursery and adaptation problems (e.g., jitteriness, tachypnea, hypoglycemia, hypothermia, poor tone, respiratory distress, weak or absent cry, or desaturation on feeding).

“The authors concluded that the observed effects are specific to SRI exposure rather than underlying maternal depression.”

This report, titled “The REPRODUCTIVE and DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY of FLUOXETINE”, was originally available at http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/news/fluoxetine/fluoxetine_final.pdf.

As if the conclusions of the report were not bad enough, various studies demonstrate that antidepressants double spontaneous abortions and stillbirths and quintuple preterm births. Babies exposed to SSRIs have a six-fold increased risk of persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN), a potentially fatal lung problem. Nearly a third of women who take SSRIs have a baby who dies, is premature or underweight, or who has seizures.

It seems that certain sectors of the medical industry aren’t paying attention. From 2004-2008 (through the 2nd quarter only) the FDA MedWatch Adverse Events Reporting Database amassed 647 adverse reaction reports (amounting to 432 babies’ cases, since some reactions are reported by lawyers, doctors and consumers for the same child)  for prenatal or neonatal Effexor exposure, including four reports of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Two Effexor-SIDS cases were specified as a breast milk exposure only, while one was listed as pregnancy exposure. For the other, with a coma followed by SIDS, the timing of exposure was not specified.

There were also 18 intrauterine deaths, 2 neonatal deaths, 2 stillbirths, 51 miscarriages (spontaneous abortions), and numerous other fatal or life-threatening birth defects, for a total of at least 77 deaths from Effexor alone, not counting the prenatal and neonatal deaths caused by the numerous other psychotropic drugs taken by women during pregnancy or breastfeeding over those four years.

Multiply these totals by a factor of between 10 and 100, because the FDA estimates that only 1-10% of adverse reactions are ever reported. (To see the 2004-2008 reports go to http://www.psychdrugdangers.com/MothersAct.html and then select SNRIs, and Venlafaxine from the drug tables.)

The American Academy of Pediatrics publishes and disseminates a long list of drugs that “may be of concern” in breastfed infants. The tables also appear in The Breastfeeding Answer Book (BAB) published by La Leche League (2003), which is given to leaders and subsequently used to counsel nursing mothers when they request information about drugs and breastfeeding.

In these tables, following a list of psychotropic drugs that “may be of concern” but nonetheless are claimed to have “no reported effects,” is a list of “Food and Environmental Agents” that have effects on breastfeeding. On the list are aspartame (NutraSweet) with the warning, “Caution if mother or infant has phenylketonuria” and a “Vegetarian Diet” with the warning, “Signs of B12 deficiency.”

It’s good to warn women about aspartame and diet, but what about drugs that do not have giant warnings plastered on them like NutraSweet does with PKU?

Effexor is not listed anywhere in the AAP drug tables. It seems psychotropic drugs must be incredibly safe in the mind of the Academy because even though numerous patients have nursed babies on the new antidepressants in the last two decades, there are apparently “no reports” of adverse effects on babies for most of them, at least according to the AAP.

“Drugs of Abuse” such as Amphetamine and Cocaine, Heroin and Marijuana are listed in the table with side effects identical to those listed for antidepressants in current warnings. These same side effects are absent from the AAPs tables for prescription psychotropics, with the exception of Prozac and a few antipsychotics.

The effects of street drug on infants include “Irritability, poor sleeping pattern” for Amphetamine, “Cocaine intoxication, irritability, vomiting, diarrhea, tremulousness, and seizures” for Cocaine, “Tremors, restlenssness, vomiting, poor feeding” for heroin, and none reported for Marijuana.

Prozac must be the only unlucky antidepressant that’s bad for breastfed infants, even though according to Thomas Hale, Ph.D. and kellymom.com (a breastfeeding information site), it’s the only antidepressant that’s “recommended” for pregnancy.  Prozac side effects listed in the BAB for nursing infants include colic, irritability, feeding and sleep disorders, and slow weight gain. Although in a 2002 Mothering Magazine article titled “But Is It Safe For My Baby? Medications and Breastfeeding,” Dr. Hale wrote that Prozac had been shown to induce coma in breastfed infants.

According to kellymom.com’s summary of Dr. Hale’s recommendations, “Effexor can also be used in breastfeeding mothers if it is efficacious. It may be effective against hyperactivity.”

However, kellymom.com later implies that Celexa is no safer than Effexor even though it’s an SSRI and therefore supposedly “weaker” because “There have been two cases of excessive somnolence, decreased feeding, and weight loss in breastfed infants,” according to Hale.

Kellymom.com does note that, “Lithium use by the breastfeeding mother is dangerous to the breastfed infant. Valium use by the breastfeeding mother entails a greater risk of infant sedation, and may perhaps increase the risk of SIDS.”

Finally, a “Drug Hierarchy” of Hale’s first to last choice is listed as: Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, Effexor, and Prozac.

“Dr. Hale concluded his talk by saying that breastfeeding should be supported fully and not interrupted by mom’s needs for medication; and that treatment of postpartum depression can be accomplished relatively safely in breastfeeding mothers. So, in his consideration, moms should continue breastfeeding and should get drug treatment as needed for depression.”

http://www.kellymom.com/health/meds/antidepressants-hale10-02.html#Effexor

However according to Candace S. Brown, PharmD, BCPP, CFNP, writing for femalepatient.com, “Illet et al studied three cases of breast-feeding women using venlafaxine [Effexor], and reported M/P ratios of up to 4.7.28… Given their high M/P ratios and the limited amount of information available on these antidepressants [venlafaxine, bupropion, trazodone, and nefazodone], they are not recommended in lactating women at this time.”

Milk-to-Plasma Ratio: Medication concentration in milk is frequently compared with the concentration in maternal serum to quantify the extent of passage; this is known as the milk-to-plasma ratio (M/P). In general, compounds that are weakly protein-bound, highly lipid-soluble, weakly basic, and small in molecular size have higher M/P ratios. Ratios greater than 1 indicate that the medication is present in higher concentrations in breast milk than in maternal serum. The higher the M/P ratio, the greater the infant exposure to medication.

http://www.femalepatient.com/html/arc/sig/pharma/articles/article_3.asp

The article further explains that:

Infants’ abilities to absorb, metabolize, and eliminate drugs determine how these drugs will affect them. Compared with adults, infants have a higher gastric pH, causing basic compounds, which remain un-ionized, to have higher absorption rates than do acidic compounds.  Infants also have lower levels of albumin, resulting in higher amounts of free/unbound (and therefore active) medication. Liver metabolic enzymes are immature in infants, decreasing the rate of degradation of medication. In addition, neonates’ kidneys have a glomerular filtration rate that is 30% to 40% of that in adults. Finally, the blood-brain barrier in newborns is not fully developed, and central nervous system concentrations of some lipid-soluble compounds may reach levels that are 10 to 30 times those in serum. As a result of all of these factors, medications that reach the serum in neonates, as compared with those that reach the serum of adults or children older than 6 months, are more likely to be active, less likely to be metabolized and excreted, and more likely to cross into the brain.

Given the confusing and contradictory information found with so many varying sources, whether it’s their La Leche League leader or lactation consultant, a magazine article, or even a breastfeeding website, most new mothers will probably ask for a professional opinion from a doctor or pharmacist.  Either one should be readily able to offer the following information straight from the Effexor label, which can be found by merely “Googling” Effexor in breastfeeding or pregnancy:

[Effexor during pregnancy in animal studies resulted in a] “decrease in pup weight, an increase in stillborn pups, and an increase in pup deaths during the first 5 days of lactation, when dosing began during pregnancy and continued until weaning. The cause of these deaths is not known. Venlafaxine appears to cross the human placenta near term.

In a prospective study pregnancy outcomes of 150 women exposed to venlafaxine during first trimester were compared with the pregnancy outcomes of a group of pregnant women who received selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants and a group of women who received nonteratogenic drugs. The majority of the women in the venlafaxine group took 75 mg/day (range 37.5 to 300 mg/day) of venlafaxine immediate release form. Among the 150 women who were exposed to venlafaxine during pregnancy, 125 had live births, 18 had spontaneous abortions and seven had therapeutic abortions; two of the babies had major malformations.

Yet when Christian Delahunty approached her family doctor about switching from Effexor to a different medication when she wanted to have another baby, she was told that there were “no studies” showing that Effexor even gets to the baby during pregnancy or breastfeeding. According to Christian, the maximum dose of extended release Effexor is 225 mg. She was on 300 mg at the start of her pregnancy and throughout Indi’s life.

Perhaps Christian’s OBGYN and family doctor only recently graduated from medical school, or maybe they both had gone on vacation and missed reading emails when the FDA MedWatch and Wyeth issued a warning letter on June 28, 2004, specifically for doctors on the dangers of Effexor in pregnancy and stated in part, “Neonates exposed to Effexor, other SNRIs (Serotonin and Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors), or SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors), late in the third trimester of pregnancy have developed complications requiring prolonged hospitalization, respiratory support, and tube feeding.”

Today, Christian spends the days coping with the loss of her daughter but says she feels inspired by baby Indi to help others not have to go through the same tragedy. Christian switched to Lexapro after Indiana died because she wanted nothing to do with Effexor, and then started tapering off the drug slowly. Her last dose was four days ago. Already she says, “I am actually starting to feel better because I don’t feel so controlled by a substance… If you don’t take your dose it affects you horribly. This is the first time I’ve been sober in eight years. It makes me want to cry because it did have so much effect on every part of your life. I was just on a rollercoaster ride, that’s what it feels like.”

“I cope by just praying to God, and in my mind having conversations with Indi. I have an incredible support system and I have to believe – and I think one of the biggest things helping me through this – is that I believe this was her purpose. We had to go through what we had to because she needed to make a difference. She needed to help other people realize that this is serious and it is real.”

“I told my OBGYN at my first consultation that I was on Effexor and she didn’t think there was anything wrong with it. Throughout the pregnancy, I had my doubts and my first instinct was that this wasn’t right, but I was being told that it was just fine. The delivering doctor brought up Effexor. After Indi passed away the thought just kept coming back to me and then I started doing my research and found out how dangerous it was. I Googled Effexor baby, Effexor dangers, Effexor and pregnancy… I was so shocked because it was so easy to do that and I should have done that before. Why didn’t the doctors know that? There is so much controversy over it, why don’t the doctors research more into it without taking the rep’s point of view saying it’s just fine?”

When asked what she thinks about The MOTHERS Act, Christian said:

“It puts so many babies at risk for developing so many different problems. And it puts the mother at risk. Postpartum is normal, it’s natural. It’s learning how to cope with your stress and your situation, rather than just taking drugs to forget about it or to mask what’s natural. There are so many people out there who I know are thinking like I thought – you either have family members on antidepressants or you know somebody – it’s just kinda normal, you know we’ll all start taking an antidepressant… Just because it’s prescribed from a doctor it doesn’t make it safe.”

“I trusted my doctor and that mistake – it cost me. It cost my whole entire family. That is why I have to believe that this was Indi’s purpose. Educate yourselves. If the doctors aren’t going to be educated then we need to. We need to take the power back.”

By the way, the March of Dimes, a pharma-funded group that endorses The MOTHERS Act as well as the use of antidepressants during pregnancy, does warn against the use of caffeine in pregnancy due to a risk of miscarriage.

To learn more about the dangers of “The MOTHERS Act,” go to uniteforlife.org.
Please go to this link to watch a video in memory of baby Indiana: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGX_34TmT4w

Note: This article was updated with the latest MedWatch information on July 28,2009. For more reports on drugs commonly given to nursing mothers such as antidepressants and Zyprexa, go to http://momsandmeds.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/breastmilkexposure/

Filed under: toxicity deaths, experimentation, Congress, FDA Warnings, mothers act, antidepressants, Effexor, Pregnancy, PPD, child endangerment, The Future of The United States, dead babies, eugenics, Birth Defects, drugging children, drug "safety", pharmacology, Effexor in pregnancy, Indiana, Christian Delahunty, Breastfeeding, kellymom.com, Thomas Hale

Leading Families to the Slaughter: An Open Letter to all so-called Breastfeeding "Advocates"

The hypocrisy of conclusions in “But is it safe for my baby” and “Overcoming Postpartum Psychosis” featured in Mothering Magazine, and other actions of breastfeeding advocates is quite disturbing.

I feel that it is relevant to include some background about the way that families have been led astray, particularly by institutions and people who claim to be promoting natural health.

First, here is some background on how I became aware of the issues that tie breastfeeding and psychiatric drugs.

In 2004, my 3-day-old son suffered a life-threatening choking incident (from formula he could not digest) only a few minutes after we arrived at Children’s Hospital, having brought him in on the recommendation of paramedics due to the fact that he was overly lethargic and looked like he was blue around his mouth, on his hands, and on his feet. The staff at Children’s hospital saved his life and admitted him for observation overnight, but I was so upset about having witnessed him choking nearly to death that I became extremely anxious about his safety. To make a long story short, I was given Zoloft samples by my OBGYN at 6 days postpartum, for anxiety, and as a “preventive” treatment to ward of the possibility of severe PPD. By postpartum day 9 (day 3 on Zoloft), I was suicidal and homicidal. I checked into an ER and they forcibly held me in a psych unit for 2 days. They tried to give me several new drugs in addition to Zoloft and told me that I had to keep taking Zoloft. If I had not been breastfeeding my son, I may have agreed to take them, but all of the new drugs they tried to give me (one of which was Zyprexa) were listed as being clearly contraindicated for nursing mothers. I declined the new drugs.

I observed other patients in the hospital who were sleeping nonstop for the first couple of days they were there, and one man who was so disabled by his medications that his speech was slurred, he could barely keep his balance, and he was extremely confused. I also observed a patient locked in a padded room who jumped violently at the window and stared out with wide bloodshot eyes- he reminded me of an angered caged animal. I was thankful that I had not become as disabled as they were and it was obvious to me that the drugs I was taking were not quite as physically toxic as the ones they wanted me to add.

I returned home with strict orders from the psychiatrist to stay on Zoloft and see a psychiatrist, a therapist and take parenting classes. Over the next few months I experienced a dose-dependent worsening of homicidal thoughts from increases in Zoloft dosage. Finally I got off the drugs and went back to being a normal person not obsessed with homicide or suicide. Since then I have been following the actions of the FDA, drug companies, and breastfeeding advocates closely.

Thanks to the FDA black box warnings I am confident that my life, my son’s life, and many others that I have come in contact with have been spared. This is not good news for Eli Lilly, Pfizer, or any other multi-billion dollar drug company.

Prior to my decision to discontinue Zoloft, the homicidal urges were so bad that my psychiatrist recommended that I wean my son and go on Zyprexa. She clearly stated I would not be allowed to breastfeed if I took it, and this was one factor in my decision not to try Zyprexa. The continuation of Zoloft also eventually led to my realization that Zoloft was not working for me no matter how many months’ time I let it “start to work.”

I eventually wrote a letter to a breastfeeding advocate and psychologist named Kathleen Kendall-Tackett expressing my concern that new mothers were being encouraged to breastfeed while taking SSRIs because this could lead to psychosis and the perceived need to wean to take drugs like Zyprexa. see: http://chaada.org/smf/index.php?topic=189.0 http://chaada.org/smf/index.php?topic=236.0 and
http://uniteforlife.org/breastfeeding.html

I also wrote to Peggy O’Mara at Mothering Magazine to ask her to do an article about the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs like SSRIs for new moms.

To my surprise, this past spring Mothering Magazine (“Natural Family Living” is its subtitle) published an article titled “Overcoming Postpartum Psychosis” in which they cited Kathleen Kendall-Tackett’s opinions and Thomas Hale’s research (he is the author of Medications in Mother’s Milk) as justification to condone breastfeeding continuing, despite the use of drugs like Zyprexa.

This article was the story of one mother who went psychotic, and was hospitalized. In the hospital she recommended that her psychiatrist check out Hale’s book, and the psychiatrist actually allowed her husband and child to come to the hospital to stay with her 24-7 and cosleep and allow the baby to nurse on demand for the 9 day stay while she was also taking antipsychotic drugs. Breastfeeding was touted as the only connection the mother had left to reality and sanity and the only healing force in her life. (So why take the antipsychotic drugs?)

The author described her first experience in the hospital as one where they injected her with a drug because she was rambling off a paranoid delusional speech about her fears that someone was plotting to murder her grandmother, and after the injection she quickly passed out and slept for the first time in a long time. The article claimed that mothers should be allowed to take antipsychotic drugs while breastfeeding as long as they avoided nursing during peak concentration times.

I was truly shocked at the position of the magazine and the so-called health experts, both because of their failure to address the dangers of drugs, and their endorsement of a practice that puts mothers and babies at serious risk.

To make a very long story much shorter, over the past year I have seen antipsychotic drugs promoted for breastfeeding moms in New Beginnings (LLL magazine), Mothering Magazine, and on the Thomas Hale website. Knowing that Mothering Magazine’s online forums have a lot of natural-health minded people, I also attempted several times to post information about the dangers of psychiatric drugs. Almost invariably, my threads were deleted. At two different points I complained but I was told that my posts were deleted due to violation of the User Agreement. This seemed to be untrue because my posts were only deleted after I began posting proof of what I was saying by posting articles and abstracts that demonstrated the dangers clearly.

Prior to my providing additional proof when what I was saying had been “discredited” by drug users on the forum, I had violated the user agreement from the very first post. Yet the threads I was posting in were going on as debates for weeks before the threads eventually were removed altogether. (To read the paradoxical and restrictive user agreement, click here: http://www.mothering.com/mdc/mdc_useragreement.html It prohibits posting links to other forums, even if you wrote the thread, for instance my personal story on the CHAADA message board was not allowed because it disrupted the continuity of their message board by taking you to another, you are not allowed to post any links or text that go to a website that is critical of Mothering Magazine or their discussion boards or website, you are not allowed to debate sensitive topics, you are not allowed to debate with a moderator or raise any public questions about what the moderator has done, and you are not allowed to post text of any copyrighted material that exceeds 100 words despite fair use guidelines which allow this for educational and non-profit distribution).

After my threads were deleted (without warning, so I do not have a copy of the first thread which was removed) I got into a dispute over this issue with the administrators and Peggy O’Mara, and eventually I was quite rudely written off. I stayed away from the boards for a while but then went back to post on different topics and also noticed that some of my threads were removed without explanation or comment.

So if you go to the PPD board or any other board on Mothering.com’s discussion board, you can see that the only information that is invariably allowed and not subject to removal is that which promotes a pharmaceutical agenda. Although you may find information about alternatives, if you say anything negative (especially if the information is compelling) about psychiatric drugs, your posts are likely to be removed.

According to a friend I met on the forum who came to my defense, Mothering Magazine has been engaging in discrimination against certain sectors of society (including Scientologists) since the 1980s. This realization was a disappointment considering their appearance as being a magazine about acceptance and tolerance and natural family living. Why would a PPD forum which promotes drugs to new breastfeeding mothers fit in with that mission?

In addition, I was not the only one who was censored. A long-time member of the board who wrote a book on the dangers of vaccines was censored and angered to the point that she left the board altogether and all of her posts from several years were removed by moderators.

My friend’s posts have also been subject to censorship and removal and she has received warnings of being banned. The moderators even removed threads she had written about her husband’s death while she was newly grieving.

I have noticed other turnarounds in the Mothering magazine opinions, notably on breastfeeding in public. They went from writing about the power of women (they even published a report I wrote claiming our constitutional rights to stand up for each other and defend nursing in public as a human right, to a position which claims that our rights are non-existent due to a lack of enforcement or a lack of adequate state and local laws. See: http://www.babywhys.org/nurse%20in.htm and http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/breastfeeding/lactation-law.html
and also http://www.babywhys.org/philosophyoflactivism.htm and http://www.mothering.com/resources/bfpocketguide.pdf and http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/breastfeeding/breastfeeding-law.html )

Although, it seems, based on the dates, that the magazine has just been confused. One year you need to be afraid, the next year breastfeeding is fine, the next year you better bring your lawyer and 2,000 supporters if you want to feed your baby.

Now it seems they have also begun to turn around on the stance against vaccines, publishing an article in the most recent edition by a doctor who is in favor of vaccinating every patient no matter the consequences. Mothering Magazine has long been known as the most radical of anti-vaccine advocates in all of the major parenting publications. They have even come out against HIV and AIDS drugs for women who want to breastfeed, saying that it’s perfectly ok to risk giving your baby HIV by breastfeeding, and not to use them to help your own case of HIV or AIDS (because they are contraindicated for nursing). Yet now it seems that to these breastfeeding advocates, an unnecessary and dangerous drug for a nonexistent chemical imbalance is fine to use while nursing an infant, and can rightly be promoted as a good preventive for severe cases of Possible Andrea Yates Copycat Disorder. (PAYCD)

It would not surprise me very much if they soon start to come out against cosleeping or in favor of circumcision or hospital birth with epidurals. Although the root of this recent position on drugs and breastfeeding seems to be the notion that you must breastfeed at all costs. However as I stated in the original UNITE article “Leading Families to the Slaughter” – formula has never put a baby into a coma, as far as I am aware.

Recent studies undertaken on antipsychotic drugs have revealed that patients on placebo actually improved more than those taking atypical antipsychotics, like Zyprexa. Any magazine or advocate who ignores the facts and censors those who try to get the word out about dangers poses a very serious danger to families and society and shows a total disregard for ethics. We have been slowly deluded and our society is being eaten away, our rights are eroded and ignored, and our health and safety threatened.

I have been reluctant to speak out against Mothering, Thomas Hale, Kathleen Kendall Tackett, and New Beginnings because I know people make mistakes. But this type of mistake seems to be more a generally intended goal than an accident.

I examined the research which has been claimed as evidence of safety of both SSRIs and of Zyprexa for nursing moms and what I found was disturbing. A full written analysis is forthcoming – but in short, the studies were done on extremely small samples, side effects were disregarded, and most of the women in the studies were not exclusively breastfeeding. When a significant portion of a baby’s diet is formula, it’s obvious that any exposure will be reduced.

Given the absolute refusal of the FDA and certain mental health advocates to accept the negative outcomes from our current slew of psychiatric drugs and interventions, it is not too surprising that others such as those in the media or in positions of influence in the natural health community can get away with ignoring the facts.

I guess it all comes back to the original lies of chemical imbalances and the backwards serotonin theory (see http://uniteforlife.org/links.html#books)

For anyone who has not seen it, the DVD Psychiatry: An Industry of Death is extremely informative on the history of psychiatry and psychology. I highly recommend you watch it. You can find it at http://www.cchr.org/index/5285/15242/

Needless to say, my subscription to Mothering Magazine is not being renewed. I encourage others to speak out if they too have been censored or if they disagree with the ideas in the magazine. The readers won’t continue buying the magazine if it becomes too full of false and dangerous ideas. In fact one of the only reasons to continue reading would be to monitor the manner in which decline of reason and the rise of dangerous dogma are promoted and innocent young families are unknowingly deluded.

To Mothering Magazine, should you read this blog, I urge you to prove me wrong by changing your ways and apologizing to those who have been censored. I also encourage you to overhaul your user agreement and revamp or remove the PPD and mental health forums so they will not be players in supporting one of the most evil of all enterprises we face in our world.

Filed under: Uncategorized, censorship, PPD, PPP, Thomas Hale, vaccines, Zyprexa

My Objection to a New 2-Week Injectable Version of Zyprexa (an NDA with the FDA)

If you see the open letter to Mothering Magazine below, I stated that I did not believe that Thomas Hale would recommend antipsychotic drugs during breastfeeding. I was wrong. Based on a 2003 study of 7 women, 6 of whom were “evaluable,” the entire world now is subject to the irresponsible recommendation to use Zyprexa while breastfeeding. Lilly wants more patent protection for Zyprexa so they are proposing a new injectable formulation that is a 2-week long-lasting shot. Please read my letter to the FDA below and send your objection letter to the email address or fax number provided here.

This written testimony is being submitted to the FDA for the Feb. 6 Zyprexa hearing on concerns about increased somnolence with the new formulation.You have until January 18 to submit your written testimony to:
Diem-Kieu H. Ngo, Pharm.D., BCPS LCDR, U.S. Public Health Service Program Management Officer Food and Drug Administration Office of Executive Programs Advisors and Consultants Staff (HFD-21) 5630 Fishers Lane Room 1093, Rockville MD, 20857 Telephone: 301-827-6765 Fax: 301-827-6778 diem.ngo@fda.hhs.gov
======================================================================
I submit this testimony as an extreme objection to possible approval of any NDAs for new formulations of the highly dangerous drug Zyprexa, and particularly to the proposed intramuscular, extended-release, long-acting (2 week) version. A 2-week-long extended-release formulation which could potentially threaten children who are incapable of efficiently metabolizing it (such as breastfeeding infants), and which carries increased somnolence effects compared to older formulations, will inevitably lead to “SIDS” in some infants if the drug is allowed to be given to breastfeeding women. Should this occur, increased cases of depression in mothers who lose their infants because of drugs will increase subsequent profits for Eli Lilly through additional sales and continued drugging of grieving mothers and families.
For the sake of expediency I’ll assume you understand that psychosis is commonly caused in postpartum women by administration of SSRIs. (I know that it is, because I survived the dose-dependent worsening of homicidal and suicidal urges and even one hallucination which started after only 3 days on Zoloft. My family and I suffered through for about 5 months – starting with Zoloft samples at 6 days postpartum following the birth and near death of my son in July 2004, and continuing through months of frightening urges, expensive hospital bills and visits to psychiatrists and therapists, my condition worsening to the point of near loss of control over my own thoughts or actions until I discontinued the drug. I also know this from the research that I have read over the past 3 years.) I believe that the push to medicate mothers with antipsychotic drugs serves more than the purpose of attempting to control psychosis, bipolar disorder, or extreme depression (which Zyprexa does not do – recent studies undertaken on “antipsychotic” drugs have revealed that patients on placebo actually improved more than those taking atypical antipsychotics, like Zyprexa).
Even if Zyprexa were discontinued by someone who tried it, in favor of a lesser poison, an SSRI would only lead people back to a place where they feel they cannot function without antipsychotic drugs. And so the cycle of sacrifice on the altar of profit and power will continue… Among the effects produced by Zyprexa (and there are almost 3,000 known side effects), somnolence seems to be the most advantageous to the psychiatric staff who will be dealing with patients. With or without breastfeeding mothers’ use, a long-lasting extended-release version which increases somnolence beyond what these major tranquilizers already do will make the task of filling beds and subduing psychiatric patients much easier and more profitable. And it will pose a serious threat to young children whose parents and doctors are quick to medicate them for the “symptoms” which are nothing more than the effects of other toxic drugs and foods – things that your organization should never have allowed to be legally fed to and injected into children.
The current cost of atypical antipsychotics is $300-$600 more per month than older antipsychotic agents and sales are steadily increasing. This is Eli Lilly’s best-selling drug, and with all the new users of SSRIs and other psychosis-inducing, FDA-approved drugs, it is likely to remain a profitable drug as long as it enjoys FDA approval, patent protection and inadequate warnings, and even potentially bring in huge sales as a generic drug.Even though Zyprexa has not been studied in under 18s, I can tell you that every day parents feed their children antipsychotic drugs like Zyprexa because of court orders. Why in a country supposedly regulated by your agency is this allowed to happen? This is criminal! If you do approve the new intramuscular version of Zyprexa extended-release I hope you will do the right thing and create requirements for this drug to be severely controlled. It should be illegal for a psychiatrist to force-drug a child with this medication or any medication which causes permanent neurological damage and tics. It should be illegal for a pregnant or breastfeeding mother to take it.
According to the package label for current formulations, intramuscular administration of Zyprexa results in a plasma level 5 times that of oral dosage tablets and reaches that concentration within 15-45 minutes, compared to 6 hours for the oral version. What will be the speed and exposure level of a longer-acting version? In addition, the somnolence effect is more pronounced in current intramuscular versions compared to oral tablets, and it is reported to be worse in the newer version for which Lilly seeks the patent.
And what are intramuscular injections used for? Most commonly they are used in cases of forced treatment for hospitalized patients. Given the fact that almost every patient who enters a psych ward will be given an antipsychotic agent, the potential for worsened adverse events is profound. The situation which we are faced with is one where the order of a doctor – even one who has never met the patient – but is told of her situation over the phone – can legally require a patient to be locked up, deprived of informed consent, and force-drugged with poisons approved by your organization. So I ask, are you the FDA, charged with regulating drugs and foods that the public faithfully trusts are safe or “safe enough,” or are you merely a tool drug companies use to persuade the public to trust in their so-called science, proprietary and twisted as it may be?

The label for Zyprexa includes a warning against nursing an infant while taking the medication. However, recently Dr. Thomas Hale and Kathleen Kendall-Tackett (among others) have encouraged breastfeeding mothers who experience psychotic episodes to make their way immediately to a hospital and get treatment with Zyprexa without interrupting breastfeeding. According to Mothering Magazine, psychotic breastfeeding mothers can safely continue nursing while taking Zyprexa if they avoid feeding during peak plasma concentration.
What is the likelihood that a doctor will know when the peak concentration in a nursing mother will be, when only one study has been cited by advocates of this position as an excuse for evidence of safety, and this was conducted on a sample with 7 women? Most breastfeeding studies have samples this small, even for drugs like Zoloft, with samples as small as 4 women, and totaling around 30 women in all. In addition, many studies purporting to study breastfeeding women have actually involved mostly women who were not exclusively breastfeeding, with the infant who was exclusively breastfed being the one who experienced seizures and coma and other serious effects.
Not to mention that psychiatric patients are often given multiple drugs which cause concentrations of Zyprexa to become elevated and increase the somnolence effect. The Zyprexa package label also cites reports of pregnant women using Zyprexa which led to 1 neonatal death, 3 therapeutic abortions, and 1 spontaneous abortion (or miscarriage). Though the package label states that infant exposure through breast milk is as high as 1.8% of the maternal dose, the article cited by Thomas Hale in his recommendations that Olanzapine is an acceptable drug for breastfeeding mothers claims that out of the six “evaluable” samples… the exposure was only 1% of the maternal dose. They only studied 7 people, 6 of whom were “evaluable”, yet on this weak basis the drug is recommended to breastfeeding mothers for psychosis, bipolar disorder and extreme depression.
How can we in good conscience expose infants to risks like excessive somnolence, hypotension, seizures, tardive dyskinesia and multiple other effects? This drug has not been studied or approved for children under 18, yet it is now being prescribed to breastfeeding mothers and apparently some pregnant mothers as well.
This is completely irresponsible, and even though the advice of breastfeeding advocates differs from what the package inserts say (as to the the level of exposure to the baby, the claims of no side effects in babies, and in the attitude about the reasoning behind the claims being based on liability versus risk), people are currently going along in droves with the most dangerous advice, rather than heeding the most cautious approach.
How is a mother who is under the influence of a drug which causes extreme somnolence supposed to prevent the baby from nursing at peak concentration times? Anyone who has ever seen a patient under the influence of antipsychotic agents knows that the other profound effects of Zyprexa can incapacitate you to the point that you would not even be able to care for yourself, much less an infant. A drooling, barely able to walk or talk woman, whose bodily functions have been disrupted cannot be expected to do anything to take care of a baby safely, and the expectation that she would is dangerous. If any woman taking the drug actually were able to continue caring for her baby she would at minimum be severely impaired. Perhaps she could lie around nursing her child 24 hours a day and increase the exposure, but it is doubtful she could do much more.
A mother who is told to take Zyprexa while nursing cannot be expected to manage breastfeeding in a way that would minimize exposure at a peak concentration time, particularly if she is also taking another agent like Prozac which enhances plasma levels of olanzapine. If concomitant medications or intramuscular injection are used, the concentration multiplies 5 times or more, and could reach peak concentration in a shorter amount of time (according to the package label, 15-45 minutes from intramuscular injection alone and potentially faster if mixed with other drugs). How is a mother supposed to guess how all the factors play a role? Furthermore, Zyprexa increases prolactin levels and will thus increase milk supply and overall exposure for the baby (especially by increasing the likelihood of engorgement and mastitis, thereby encouraging the mother to nurse more frequently, especially during potentially peak concentration times).
Most women who would be so insistent on nursing as to continue doing so while taking this medication would be those who are also co-sleeping and night nursing. Increased somnolence above and beyond current levels caused by existing formulations, in this type of co-sleeping situation, would be even more dangerous than somnolence in other patients due to the lack of the awareness of the baby’s whereabouts and the potential for a mother to fail to notice whether her baby is nursing when a potentially peak concentration time is taking place. Is increased bonding worth the risk that these drugs pose to infants? Somnolence, seizures, coma, inability to regulate temperature, all effects of Zyprexa… these pose so much risk to babies for SIDS that it sounds like population control or eugenics to recommend them. Even if all psychotic mothers and their babies were accidentally killed by drugs we will still have more come along because of SSRIs and other FDA-approved drugs.
Infants cannot metabolize drugs at the same rate as adults – drugs are more readily absorbed, more free-floating drug courses through their veins, their kidneys work at 30-40% the capacity of adults, and brain concentrations are always higher than the dose would suggest (10 to 30 times higher) due to the immature blood-brain barrier. It takes infants much longer to rid themselves of a single dose. How long will it take an infant exposed to Zyprexa to eliminate it – especially if the child is a newborn? If the toxic effects are noted in an infant who is exposed to an even longer-lasting formulation (such as a 2-week formulation), it will already be too late to do anything to save the child. Prozac has caused coma in infants exposed through mother’s milk… why would we put them at risk with a drug much more toxic?
Involuntary injection with a formulation of a highly dangerous drug which will not wear off for 2 weeks will pose a particularly serious threat in any case of a breastfeeding mother who comes to the hospital for psychosis. It is not unreasonable to assume that psychiatric staff may at some point inject a woman with this prior to learning that a mother is breastfeeding, nor is it unlikely that the mother may insist on the basis of Hale’s endorsement that she can continue nursing her baby on this drug. If this is allowed, there is no doubt that mothers who start the treatment will probably continue an oral version if they are sent home. If the drug were to be banned to breastfeeding women (a burdensome choice you could easily enact by declaration due to safety concerns), then any mother mistakenly forcibly injected with this drug will also be forced to discontinue breastfeeding, most likely permanently.
If the FDA approves the New Drug Application and hands Eli Lilly another several years of patent protection in a market that has grown to over 4 billion dollars per year and is ever-expanding, we will have a dire situation on our hands.
Doctors do not abide by your recommendations, or even necessarily those of drug companies, and currently even though the package insert says that pregnant and breastfeeding women should not use Zyprexa – or women who use it should not breastfeed, this advice is not being heeded. Three years ago I was told that I should wean my baby and take Zyprexa – that the “symptoms” I was having stood a better chance of relief with a toxic drug that my baby could not have. I chose not to go on Zyprexa or wean my son. Instead I eventually realized that no matter how long I gave Zoloft to work, it was only going to make me more homicidal. I was even told it was not Zoloft, but that I was just crazy, and ought never to have more children. But I got off Zoloft and as a result I got better. I had a second child (an un-interfered-with home birth attended by a CNM), and experienced no PPD whatsoever in the past 16 months since my second son was born.
Psychiatrists have demonstrated no concern for safety whatsoever, even prescribing cocktails of drugs to very young children for completely ridiculous reasons despite the evidence that children can die from being given these medications (not to mention that adults can too).
You go after chiropractors or doctors who administer unapproved hormone treatments, sandwich carts that serve tainted food, and vaccine manufacturers who put contaminated drugs into vials intended for injection into newborns, and you should equally go after judges who court-order parents to drug their children, psychiatrists who prescribe these drugs and others in a cocktail, and any hospital that force-treats someone with harmful medications. There should be some sort of improved warning or prescription process that applies to Zyprexa and the entire class of drugs so that mothers will not be led astray and into dangerous territory by people who haphazardly attempt to be their advocates.

We have entered a brave new world where drug companies seek FDA approval for new versions of old drugs for financial reasons alone. Much of the public has seen how dangerous Zyprexa is, yet it remains a growing market for those who are unaware, or for those who are forced, or for those who mistakenly believe they have chemical imbalances which can only be corrected by the “right” medication. To consider approving a more dangerous version of Zyprexa simply for the financial gain of Eli Lilly, knowing that it puts patients at even greater risk is unthinkable. This drug currently costs several hundred dollars more per month than older antipsychotic agents. The very clear incentive to prescribe such an expensive drug or forcibly inject it into a patient should make you all pause and ask yourselves if you are in this organization for the ultimate mission of ensuring the safety of Americans or for keeping the drug companies profitable and powerful.

On behalf of the 257 members of CHAADA (Children and Adults Against Drugging America) and on behalf of members and friends who are unable to attend this meeting or submit written testimony due to the fact that they are currently in the midst of having their children forcibly poisoned and ruined by these drugs, I urge you to do the right thing and consider what possible implications your actions will have. The Eli Lilly corporation does not need more patent protections for a drug that is already causing so much disease in our country, especially in an even more dangerous form than the current formulation. Hopefully by the time their existing patent expires in 2011, this drug and others will already have suffered a ban, or the government will rein in their out of control actions and regulate them like a company that claims to promote health should be regulated instead of a company out for profit and more disease markets.
Your SSRI black box warning for suicide played a role in saving my life in 2004, secured my son’s safety with me as his sole caregiver for the first time in his life, and made it possible for me to go on to have another child. The public has been deluded for too long and it is your responsibility to issue the types of warnings, bans, and denials of drug approval applications that will ensure public safety. We do not need more Zyprexa, more expensive Zyprexa, or more long-lasting Zyprexa. There are enough generic, less toxic drugs and placebos for doctors to experiment on us with to last us until the sun implodes or explodes, our planet is destroyed, and the solar system gets its claws on Eli Lilly and pulls it straight to Hell (unless I am mistaken and we are already living in it).

Sincerely,
Amy PhiloBreastfeeding mother of two boys
Founder, http://www.uniteforlife.org/Co-Founder, http://www.chaada.org/FOunder, http://www.babywhys.org/

Filed under: Uncategorized, FDA, involuntary hospitalization, New Drug Application, SIDS, Thomas Hale, Zyprexa

Breastfeeding and Medications: "Experts" Lead Families to the Slaughter

I have analyzed some common advice given to moms with PPD about medications and breastfeeding. It’s important to note that Hale only claims to have studied about 30 babies when he recommended Zoloft. Also, Prozac can cause COMA in the baby. SSRIs work the same way.
Also it’s important to note that Omega 3s have been so successful for treating depression, that a recent study on bipolar disorder was halted because they considered it unethical to continue the placebo group and immediately put them all on 14 tabs of fish oil a day.

Please also see the home page of uniteforlife.org for some very important articles and announcements.

Filed under: Uncategorized, coma, Omega 3, PPD, SSRIs, Thomas Hale, Zoloft