“As far as I can tell, the ringleaders of the anti-Mothers Act movement are the anti-psychiatry, anti-medication, anti-the-brain-is-an-organ crowd.”

“Legitimate researchers and mental health experts may regard them as “Internet nutters,” in the words of one highly published psychiatrist. Their views may sound so ridiculous to educated (and sane) people that they are dismissed outright.”

Exactly which “researchers and mental health experts,” are you referring to? Any of those discussed below:

In an April 19, 2009 commentary on the Discover and Recover website, Dr John Breeding, author of, Wildest Colts Make the Best Horses, says “the mental health industry is rife with other major overt ethical failures.” And further explains:

“Many prominent researchers and industry spokespersons are now fighting for their professional lives as the hidden monies they received from Big Pharma are revealed. Psychiatry department chairs Charles Nemeroff  ($1 million from GlaxoSmithKline alone) of Emory University, Martin Keller of Brown University (associated with a severely compromised drug trial), and Alan Shatzberg of Stanford (who was principal investigator on a drug developed by a company in which he owned $6 million of stock) have all recently resigned their positions as a result of Grassley’s investigation.

“Joseph Biederman of Harvard (largely responsible for the explosive 4000% increase in the number of children diagnosed and treated as “bipolar,” usually with the most damaging of all psychiatric drugs, the antipsychotics) received at least $1.6 million from Big Pharma in the first several years of this 21st century. Federal prosecutors have subpoenaed him and two of his Harvard colleagues.

“Several other prominent doctors in the University of Texas system—John Rush, Lynn Crismon, Graham Emslie and Karen Wagner to name just a few—have been shown to have severe financial conflicts of interest from monies received via Big Pharma.”

In summary, the list of names on Grassley’s hit list so far includes Harvard University’s Joseph Biederman, Thomas Spencer and Timothy Wilens; Charles Nemeroff from Emory; Melissa DelBello at the University of Cincinnati; Alan Schatzberg, president of the American Psychiatric Association from Stanford; Martin Keller at Brown University; Karen Wagner and Augustus John Rush from the University of Texas; and Fred Goodwin, the former host of a radio show called “Infinite Minds,” broadcast for years by National Pubic Radio.

The latest addition to the list is Emory University’s Zachary Stowe, for not disclosing money he received from drug makers at the same time that he was conducting federally funded research on the use of antidepressants, such as Paxil, by pregnant and nursing mothers.

Stowe has been the primary investigator of an NIH grant since 2004 to study children delivered by women who may also be taking antidepressants. From 2003 to July of 2008, he was the primary investigator of another grant that looked at fetal exposure to medications consumed by pregnant mothers.

In 2008, Stowe was the primary investigator of another NIH grant where the stated purpose was “to stimulate vigorous debate with the emphasis on the reproductive safety of antidepressant medications,” according to a June 2, 2009, letter from Grassley to Emory University.

In 2007 and 2008 alone, Stowe received about a quarter of a million dollars from Paxil-maker, GlaxoSmithKline, mostly for giving promotional talks, the letter shows.

In a deposition, Stowe said he had been on Glaxo’s speaker’s bureau since 1999 and claimed that on top of his $232,000 Emory salary, he earned an additional 20 – 30% more doing work for drug companies.

On June 10, 2009, on the “Carlat Psychiatry Blog,” Dr Daniel Carlat noted that, “Stowe appears to have been deceptive during a recent deposition, when he claimed that on top of his $232,000 Emory salary, he earned an additional 20 – 30% more doing work for pharmaceutical companies.”

If he made $154,400 from GSK alone in 2007, “by my calculation this is already 66% more salary than he got from Emory,” Carlat said. “And Stowe did work for lots of other companies as well.”

So the big question remains, which researchers and mental health experts will be conducting studies and providing services for the women snagged with the Mothers Act disease mongering campaign?

Evelyn Pringle

If you believe blanket screening for psychiatric disorders is responsible, I wish you well WHEN the consequences play out and many are over diagnosed and issues of custody get raised. And if you believe pharmaceutical companies are not involved in this legislation, again, when your reality overlaps with the one that encompasses this planet, be sure to respond then.

What do you think screenings lead to, Mr Lee? Let’s look at ADD as a recent example. You think children have been underdiagnosed by as much as 400% prior to the push by pharma companies with their choice screening forms? Tell that to the families that have come to regret their children being forced on stimulants to be allowed in schools. Who’s the wingnut now, sir!?

Admittedly, I am late in learning about not only the Mothers Act but this scary movement against it. I am glad to see a voice of sanity on the Internet.

As far as I can tell, the ringleaders of the anti-Mothers Act movement are the anti-psychiatry, anti-medication, anti-the-brain-is-an-organ crowd.

Legitimate researchers and mental health experts may regard them as “Internet nutters,” in the words of one highly published psychiatrist. Their views may sound so ridiculous to educated (and sane) people that they are dismissed outright.

But, unfortunately, they have a lot of time on their hands, and they gather force on the Internet and make their voices known — and LOUDLY.

The fact is, a significant percentage of the American population has untreated mental disorders. But many of them have been treated — and treated hamhandedly by ignorant physicians. These former patients are angry — and LOUD.

Some, no doubt, blame their current disordered mental state on medication when in fact it is the natural progression of their disorder. Some are simply so selfish they will deprive others of the chance for medical care simply because treatment for theirs didn’t work out so well. Selfish. Selfish. Selfish. But that’s the way many mental disorders are — selfish. And many of these people “self-medicate” with opposition.

We need to recognize these people as the sick minds that they are, or all progress is lost.

I’m just trying to gently encourage everyone at Psych Central, but perhaps especially bloggers, to get in the responsible, journalistic habit of citing sources. It’s not about giving the issue and page number of the medical journal (and if you thought that’s what I meant, it probably made me seem nitpicky and English-teachery beyond belief). What I actually mean is a style of in-line citation, such as, for example:

“Do they not know that (according to a 2000 study from the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology) women with untreated depression during pregnancy are twice as likely to have pre-eclampsia…?”

If you feel this would interfere too much with your rhetorical style, the information could be confined to a footnote (which is delightfully easy to accomplish on the Internet, using links.) And if Psych Central can’t figure out a way for their own WRITERS to link to outside articles…well, y’all got a problem.

Obviously, my comment isn’t really directed at you at all, but at the editors. Your website is heavily trafficked and I’m sure many readers re-report and spread information from it, so I think it has more responsibility than just a single-author opinion blog. Strong claims deserve support. And I still don’t know that I’m convinced by the post—having experienced depression myself, I am a staunch mental health advocate (and in strong disagreement with someone like Vickie, who thinks psychiatric illness can be cured with prayer and minerals); but just from reading this post and the subsequent comments I don’t understand the proposed bill, don’t understand the objections to it (we don’t learn the origins of the “actual text”), and in fact am not going to be supporting the legislation.

Sorry if it seems I’m trying to “school” Psych Central. I’ve been a devoted reader for many months and I just don’t want to see such a singular and potentially important advocacy outlet come under less friendly fire for sloppy reportage. Or, in other words: I’m not sayin’. I’m just sayin’. )

Look at other solutions before you suggest drugs.
JUST SAY NO! Sound familiar?

I am against this bill though. I firmly believe that it will increase the number of home births, which can be much more dangerous.

I wish the bill had been written to increase funding and support for research without the mandatory screening and language that can be interpreted to mean that services should be FORCED on people that are not an obvious danger to self or others.

Did you ever study up on psychiatry and psychotropic drugs and the devastating effects these drugs have on children and adults today. Well, with the Mothers Act, that is where we are headed.

If you would like, I can send you an informative documentary called “Making a Killing, The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging” which will lay out the facts and figures about this scam.

Jules