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.

2 thoughts on “Faction of Pill Pushers Embarks on Anti-Information Frenzy

  1. “Few discussions with her (Ms Philo) have led to quite the round robin with Amy unable to come up with legitimate research to back up her claims.”

    Oh REALLY?

    One wonders if John Grohol might be interested in quoting the exam CL Psych gave Abilify beneath Grohol’s own BMS Advertisement for their Swiss Army Knife chemical? If CL Psych’s Research isn’t legitimate Grohol should have NO trouble De-Ideating it, and thereby convincing everyone Else of the error of their unfounded ‘Anti-Pharma’ bigotry.


    “Safety: The authors note that “adjunctive aripiprazole is relatively well-tolerated in patients with MDD.” Relatively? Relative to what — being hit with a baseball bat repeatedly? They note that akathisia occurred in 25% of patients on Abilify compared to 4% of patients on placebo. Restlessness: 12% vs. 2%; insomnia: 8% vs. 3%; fatigue: 8% vs. 4%; blurred vision: 6% vs 1%. The authors report that akathisia resolved in 52% of patients by the end of the study, which would also mean that for 48% of patients with akathisia, they were stuck with it at the end of the study. But don’t worry, it’s “relatively well-tolerated.”

    I for one shudder at the thought of Anyone driving head on toward me at 50 miles an hour under the “relatively well-tolerated” influence of Abilify, whether its Bio-$cienced Drug Intoxication intoxicated a misplaced Cognition Impaired confidence in them or not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s