Loren R. Mosher, resignation letter to the APA and biography

Loren R. Mosher made his letter of resignation publicly available for all to see. (moshersoteria) He outlined how the pharma complex would only bring harm to the practice of psychiatry. He makes it clear that NAMI is part of the scam. He makes it clear that psychiatrists have become glorified drug pushers, with no real interest in actual science. Loren did not resign because he was some prototypical disgruntled employee who failed at everything. Quite the opposite. He led an experiment which bore results that should have brought dramatic changes in the mental health industry… But the greed and control freaks are all too powerful. No wonder he was disgusted by the APA and NAMI. There are no ethics in the business model. One of the biggest myths is that the quacks actually care about human beings.

Yet you can still hear psychiatrists and psychologists today claim that what they do is “very scientific”. In those instances, they might reference some alleged “research” that they themselves cannot explain. These are the quacks who think they can just throw the word “scientific” into a sentence with their crooked world view, and magically their imaginary crap turns into real facts. I wonder if they really believe that the fake research is legit, or if they know that it is a scam but think everyone else is dumb enough to believe their crap. I wonder what Loren R. Mosher would be writing if he saw the now legalized direct-to-consumer drug advertising on television. With all the bouncing bubble heads, wind-up dolls, and trendy yuppy’s skipping along the beach… come to think of it, the Abilify spokesperson stopped taking the drug and made his own video as a public warning.

The qualifications of this man are a rarity. You will see that in his biography which I also read aloud in the video. If there is one thing that people should learn from the legacy left by Loren R. Mosher, it’s the lesson of the Soteria House experiment.

A non-drug approach to treating those in psychological distress far exceeds the results of drugs.

Pharma and their criminal friends do not want you to know about this!

Supportive, non-judgmental, caring relationships, and liberty, far exceed the results of any pill, shot, or electric shock. And changing to such environment and lifestyle does not cause brain damage or loss of natural abilities! So please learn what you can from this. There is also a video documentary of the Soteria House experiment online. You may want to watch that as well. You will be struck at the dramatic difference between that supportive community center setting and today’s establishment of stigmatizing, suppression, coercion, force, abuse, and drugging.

Reading out loud – Loren R. Mosher resignation letter to the APA, and biography.

Yes, We Can Pretend We Did It All On Our Own (The MOTHERS Act – How at least $13 to $16.4 million in pHARMa dollars buys a bill)

pHARMa: Putting a price on the lives of American moms and babies

Oh, what did you see, my blue eyed son?
And what did you see, my darling young one?
I saw a newborn baby with wild wolves all around it
I saw a highway of diamonds with nobody on it
I saw a black branch with blood that kept drippin’
I saw a room full of men with their hammers a-bleedin’
I saw a white ladder all covered with water
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken
I saw guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children
And it’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard, and it’s a hard
It’s a hard rain’s a-gonna fall.

– Bob Dylan

Two days ago, The MOTHERS Act and several other dangerous psych programs passed the house after being stuck in the 2400 page Senate Health Care Bill. Today, President Obama, a former co-sponsor of The MOTHERS Act in the Senate, signed the bill into law.

Two years and two months ago Dr. Ann Blake Tracy, Camille Milke and I, as heads of CHAADA, UNITE, COPES and ICFDA collaborated on a press release to be sent to the public, media and Congress regarding our opposition to The MOTHERS Act. We created a petition and within days we had hundreds of signatures from around the country. I spent the next two months calling people all day and sending emails, writing press releases and trying to update my website with the numerous radio shows where we would spread the word about the fight to save America’s mothers from an invasive government screening program.

Continue reading “Yes, We Can Pretend We Did It All On Our Own (The MOTHERS Act – How at least $13 to $16.4 million in pHARMa dollars buys a bill)”

“Fresh Guidance for Pregnant Women on Antidepressants, Indeed.”

Check out Psychiatrist Dr. Doug Bremner’s comments on the fiasco from last Fall in which the ACOG and APA position paper on antidepressants and pregnancy was used to promote psychotropic drugs to pregnant women.

“In August of 2009 ABC News did a story on antidepressant use in pregnant women, with one of the sections entitled “Fresh Guidance on Antidepressant Use in Women”. Fresh guidance, indeed. The only thing fresh about it was that a number of the academic psychiatrists who had been receiving large sums of money to serve on various “Women’s Health” consulting boards related to mental health paid for by the pharmaceutical industry, who were also being paid to fan out across the country and give lectures designed to convince psychiatrists to give SSRIs to pregnant and lactating women, were being quoted in the article as stating that antidepressants were safe to give in pregnant and lactating women.”

Read more… go here.

AMA Review: Antidepressants Pose Significant Risk of Serious Harm to Babies

You may have seen headlines this weekend or last week claiming that antidepressants are safe for pregnancy or that the ACOG recommends them for pregnant women. I did a little investigation over the weekend and I found that the AMA conducted a review of all the available research on antidepressants in pregnancy in 2007.

I will post a more extensive update later when I have more time. At the moment I am in a big rush so I am only posting a few points.

While carefully reading the review I noticed two things:

1) The authors did seem a little desperate to let antidepressants off the hook despite repeated findings that they could cause severe harm, making statements like “But this did not control for maternal depression” as though antidepressants would have reduced birth complications and defects otherwise.

2) Despite the fact that the joint council had voted for the AMA to promulgate clinical recommendations based on their findings, the AMA changed their mind midway through the process of researching and writing, and decided to hold off on making clinical recommendations, after the ACOG and APA asked them to wait until they could do something. It seems like the ACOG and APA read the extensive AMA report as a basis for forming their recommendations.

You can see the AMA report here:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/17742.shtml.

Note that numerous people on the ACOG / APA report have conflicts of interest personally or at their university, while media articles covering this have quoted conflicted doctors making statements which contradict what the ACOG / APA report actually says. In addition, many of the “counterpoint” articles cited in the review were conducted by corrupt researchers who either have extensive conflicts of interest / involvement with pHARMa companies, or they are under Senate investigation for nondisclosure while working on federally funded research on pregnant and nursing women. The ACOG and APA themselves have extensive conflicts of interest.

Amery Schultz found some of the conflicts pertaining to the report or media coverage simply by googling “Dr. _____ Conflicts of Interest” or “Dr. _____ disclosure.”

Others have been documented extensively by Evelyn Pringle in her MOTHERS Act series.

Here is the quote from the AMA report that makes it look like the ACOG and APA may have hijacked the AMA’s plan to put forth treatment guidelines on SSRIs / SNRIs in pregnancy.

Resolution 519 (A-06), introduced by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Psychiatric Association (APA), and the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, and adopted as amended, asked that our American Medical Association (AMA) work with all appropriate specialty societies to prepare a report summarizing the research on the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) during pregnancy and to promulgate appropriate guidelines concerning the treatment of depression during pregnancy.

During preparation of this report, the Council learned that the APA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) were collaborating to develop guidance on the use of antidepressants in pregnancy. Therefore, as requested, this report summarizes the research on the use of SSRIs during pregnancy, but defers any action on clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of depression during pregnancy until the APA and ACOG complete their collaborative effort.

Here are some selected excerpts from my press release on Indiana Delahunty’s death.

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.

Regarding the required FDA warnings and label changes the AMA stated:

Labeling changes to SSRIs/SNRIs

Following the June 9, 2004, meeting of the FDA’s Pediatric Subcommittee of the Anti-infective Advisory Committee, the Committee strongly endorsed class labeling for the neonatal toxicity/withdrawal syndrome related to in utero exposure to SRIs. Accordingly, class labeling changes were adopted that caution physicians and patients about neonatal complications associated with late pregnancy exposure and note that such complications have required prolonged hospitalization, respiratory support, and tube feeding. The label lists the clinical features of the SRI-related neonatal syndrome; suggests a withdrawal or toxicity mechanism, including serotonin syndrome for these symptom clusters; and states that tapering the medication in the third trimester might be considered an option to reduce or prevent these symptoms. The label also notes that women who discontinued antidepressant medication during pregnancy are more likely to experience a relapse of major depression than those who continue antidepressant medication.

Subsequently, class labeling changes incorporated the emerging data on pulmonary hypertension by noting that infants exposed to SSRIs in late pregnancy may have an increased risk for PPHN.

Specific warnings are advanced for paroxetine regarding its association with an increased risk for congenital and cardiac malformations.

Finally, in contrast with much of the media coverage of the ACOG release claims that antidepressants are safe, the AMA report concluded:

“SRIs carry a small but significant risk for serious medical consequences.”

My comment: I am not certain how reliable their conclusion of the risk being a “small but significant” one really is, considering the apparent or probable lack of any attention to the recent MedWatch data, and the extensive conflicts of interest among some of the report’s cited researchers, some of whom are under investigation.

Given that in the past three years the rate of antidepressant use among pregnant women has skyrocketed from “over 1%” to approximately 13%, I can only imagine how many babies are dying now.

The Mothers Act—Fruit of the Poisoned Tree

The Mothers Act—Fruit of the Poisoned Tree

Michael G. Zampardi, Ph.D. and countless others

The expression, “fruit of the poisoned tree”, is known to many of us from television shows about police, lawyers, and courts.  In short, the expression refers to improper actions with someone such that the chain of events following the improper actions must be considered to be contaminated and to be excluded from consideration.  For example, police who improperly search a person or a house or police who do not properly inform people of their rights create a “poisoned tree”.  All subsequent evidence collected after the “poisoned tree” must be excluded and considered as inadmissible evidence in legal proceedings.

With this formulation, the New Jersey Postpartum Depression (PPD) Law is analogous to the “poisoned tree” and the upcoming proposed Mothers Act (S1375; HR20) is the “fruit of the poisoned tree”.  The Mothers Act is a virtual replica of the NJ PPD Law (N.J.S.A. 26: 2-175; 2-176; 2-177; 2-178) and, therefore, focus will be upon discussion of the NJ PPD Law primarily.  Both legislative formulations will be considered as virtually equivalent in this discussion

What is the essence of the NJ PPD Law?

The first part of the New Jersey PPD Law is concerned with educating new mothers/prospective mothers and their families about various problems/reactions that can occur before or after childbirth (actually perinatal rather than postpartum as such).  The overall aims are to detect problems, to educate, and to consider treatment and access to treatment for problems uncovered.  Many would consider the overall aims to be laudable and commendable.

In developing a full law, there are rules and regulations that specify how the law is to be implemented.  In this law, the rules and regulations are called clinical guidelines.

The second part of the NJ PPD Law concerns itself with a screening process that also involves a screening instrument or questionnaire.  It is here that the heart of the matter lies.  In short, the heart of the matter centers around the following wording or script presented to the new mother or the mother-to-be:

Current wording used in PPD screening:
Instructions and wording of the script used for patients is as follows:
“The purpose of the tool will be explained to the patient using the following script:”
‘As our patient your emotional and physical well being is very important
to us.  While you are here under our care, we would like to offer to you this
screening questionnaire that will help us to know if you are at risk for
developing postpartum depression.  The questionnaire has 10 questions
and will take about 5 minutes for you to complete.  Please take it on your
own.  I will pick up the questionnaire within 15 minutes’*

*Clinical Practice Guidelines for Postpartum Depression Screening, Effective Date:  January 2007, page 4.

The script may seem harmless enough, even altruistic and caring.  However, the script, in effect, contains extremely serious legal and ethical violations that include but are not limited to:
1) Failure to provide full informed consent (i.e., proper consent should be express, written, voluntary, informed.  At least 7 major violations of the APA Code of Ethics can be cited.).
2) Failure to provide adequate privacy and protection of client communication (e.g., ease of acquiring a serious psychiatric label and potential for abuse and misuse).
3) Failure to adhere to legal/ethical principles with resultant erosion of the quality of client services (e.g., federal mandates and ethical requirements for proper informed consent; full information about risks and benefits of the PPD screening process; need to provide an explicit option to decline services; need to provide information on alternatives to prevailing services).

To pursue the metaphor of looking at a glass as being half-full versus half-empty, the current situation involves a glass filled with a toxic beverage—half a glass of nourishing milk (i.e., the first part of the law) and half a glass containing deadly poison (i.e., the second part of the law, the rules and regulations/clinical guidelines).

Some would observe that:

NJPA (New Jersey Psychological Association) and others collaborated to produce the NJ PPD Law.
NJPA should have known about the full law, the rules and regulations (clinical guidelines) as well as the full implications of these rules and regulations.
NJPA has seriously blundered in developing this law.
(NJPA has highly trained psychologists well-versed in law and ethics at its disposal.)

One might construe that it appears that:

1)  In effect, wittingly or unwittingly, NJPA has duped the citizens of New Jersey including legislators and the governor.

2)  In effect, wittingly or unwittingly, NJPA has duped the American Psychological Association (APA) which subsequently supported the Mothers Act.

One might conclude that:

NJPA should be embarrassed in supporting the NJ PPD Law.
NJPA should take steps to suspend this law, pending full review and attempts to repair it.

Very likely most would hold that it is not too much to ask that, at a minimum, laws and proposed laws should be both LEGAL and ETHICAL.

Our immediate task is to halt passage of the Mothers Act, pending review and attempts to repair it.
After this is accomplished, immediate efforts should be made to suspend the NJ PPD Law, pending review and attempts to repair it.

Relevant documents will be provided, upon request, regarding assertions and issues in this paper.  Write to me at drmzampardi@aol.com.

ACTION TO TAKE:

Notify legislators, APA, and NJPA to halt passage of the Mothers Act and to suspend the NJ PPD Law.

Feedback and comments are welcomed.

Michael G. Zampardi, Ph.D.
New Jersey Psychologist License #1685
APA Member since 1967

APA Elections Require MOTHERS Act Response

Dear colleagues:

Reproduced below is an email to the New Jersey Psychological Association (NJPA) regarding 2 New Jersey candidates seeking election to be president of the American Psychological Association (APA) this year.

Michael G. Zampardi, Ph.D.

************************************************************************

Re: APA Elections/Mothers Act/ NJ Postpartum Depression Law
To: NJPA Listserv
From: Michael G. Zampardi, Ph.D.
Cc: Some NJPA members, Michael G. Zampardi, Ph.D.

Dear colleagues at the New Jersey Psychological Association (NJPA):

Reproduced below (and in a Word attachment above) is a letter that I have sent to Dr. Carol Goodheart and Dr. Robert McGrath, 2 New Jersey candidates to be president of the American Psychological Association (APA) this year.

3 main items must be addressed:

The Mothers Act, a proposed national law
The New Jersey Postpartum Depression Law
Torture in the military

All 3 of the above contain many serious legal and ethical violations.

It seems that guild interests may have overridden legal/ethical considerations.

If you wish to send your own letter, you can copy my letter and add your name in place of mine.

Michael G. Zampardi, Ph.D.

************************************************************************

Re: APA Elections/Mothers Act/ NJ Postpartum Depression Law
To: Carol Goodheart, Ed.D. and Robert McGrath, Ph.D.
From: Michael G. Zampardi, Ph.D.
Cc: Michael G. Zampardi, Ph.D.

Dear Dr. Goodheart and Dr. McGrath:

I am writing this because both of you are candidates from New Jersey seeking election to be president of the American Psychological Association (APA) this year.

I would like each of you to comment on what appear to be extremely serious legal and ethical violations contained in the proposed Mothers Act (on the national level) and contained in the current New Jersey Postpartum Depression (PPD) Law. Both pieces of legislation contain features that reflect failure to have full informed consent provisions, and were sadly blindly supported carte blanche by the New Jersey Psychological Association and by APA. These bills have dire, critical national implications both legally and ethically regarding womenʼs rights and freedom.

Another candidate for the APA presidency (i.e., Steven Reisner, Ph.D.) is extensively concerned with ethical issues and with concern that the APA has lost its moral compass regarding the issue of the APAʼs support of psychologists working in facilities that use torture.

Before I cast my vote for any candidate this year, I expect to be fully informed regarding their position on these three issues, and I sincerely hope that each of you from New Jersey make clear statements regarding these issues. My vote will not go to any candidate who does not comment on all three issues, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. The APA should be concerned with more than just guild issues and the presidency is a start in that direction.

Michael G. Zampardi, Ph.D.