36 Comments to
MOTHERS Act To Drug America’s Moms for Fake Postpartum Depression

The comments below begin with the oldest comments first. (If there's more than one page, click on the last comments page to jump to the most recent comments.) Jump to reply form.

  1. “I’m not sure what is so difficult to accept about the idea that women who are ill with real illnesses need help.”
    I want to add to that sentence. As a chronic pain patient and advocate, women have gotten this treatment for many years – the non- acceptance of their real pain and distress. As a result they got undertreated, not treated/referred for psychiatric evaluation. There is also data that shows that doctors confronted with female patients describing the same cardiac symptoms will not be referred to cardiologists while the male counterpats are referred.
    This bias against female patients is widespread.
    Thank you.
    Carol Jay Levy, B.A., CH.t
    author A PAINED LIFE, a chronic pain journey
    member, cofounder with Linda Misek-Falkoff, PWPI, Persons With Pain
    member U.N. NGO group, Persons With Disabilities

  2. denying women have real issues around post-partum that need support has nothing to do with not supporting this bill.

    women should get and often do need support when they are pregnant and after they give birth…they do indeed deal with real problems…that need can be met without drugs.

    some of the people who do not support this measure were women who themselves were treated for post-partum depression and ended up psychotic and dangerous as a result of adverse effects of these drugs.

    you’re not telling the whole story. at least acknowledge that…so many of the people who are not supporting this bill were victims of bad medicine!

    here’s a couple of other opinions..these people are not women haters who don’t want to support women.

    they fear legislation which will impose drugs on women…it’s a very different thing.



  3. denying women have real issues around post-partum that need support has nothing to do with not supporting this bill.

    women should get and often do need support when they are pregnant and after they give birth…they do indeed deal with real problems…that need can be met without drugs.

    some of the people who do not support this measure were women who themselves were treated for post-partum depression and ended up psychotic and dangerous as a result of adverse effects of these drugs.

    you’re not telling the whole story. at least acknowledge that…so many of the people who are not supporting this bill were victims of bad medicine!

    here’s a couple of other opinions..these people are not women haters who don’t want to support women.

    they fear legislation which will impose drugs on women…it’s a very different thing.

    Since you don’t seem to allow URLs google the two pieces below for alternative perspectives:

    Motherhood and the Psycho-Pharmaceutical Complex


    Psycho-Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex
    Profiting from drugging women and children
    October 2008 By Bruce E. Levine

    and to completely agree with your call at the beginning of your piece I say in agreement:

    Wake up, people who care about mental health. Wake up, people who work to prevent child abuse, people who work to prevent suicide, people who work to prevent preterm births, people who care about healthy families. Wake up, psychiatric professionals, nurses, gynecologists, pediatricians.

  4. so why are my comments going to spam? do you not want honest discourse??

  5. I have a better idea: why not investigate the differences between ecstatic, joyful births and the disease management process that western obstetrics has become?

    Normal birth is all about hormones and their impact on emotions. Nature designed birth to create an immediate, over the top, animalistic, ecstatic bond between a mother and her baby. It’s no wonder that its pathologization adversely impacts new mothers’ psychological state, her hormones are out of wack.

    Induced labor, back-birthing, cesarians, premature cord clamping, lack of breast feeding etc all have adverse psychological impacts on both mother and baby. Compounding this 19th century steam-engine approach to birth with pharmaceutical brain drugs is a recipe for further disaster.

    Do you really think that millions of years of evolution have left the human body incapable of joyful birth?


  6. To Gianna: I have no ability to control the comments to this site, so I’m not sure what’s going on with your comments.

    To Rich: I’m not sure where you got the idea from that post that I think millions of years of evolution have left the human body incapable of joyful birth. Thankfully a good 80% of all women get to experience the joy that 100% of us would like to. An unfortunate minority of us drew the short straw, for whatever reason, and our experience is to experience a devastating illness. Thankfully, with the RESEARCH and EDUCATION that may come about with the MOTHERS Act, maybe we’ll find the answers that will allow 100% of us to have the JOY. Don’t you think that might be a good thing?

  7. @Gianna… Sorry, sometimes the spam filter marks something as spam that is not and we have to go in and manually retrieve. Use the “Contact Us” link at the bottom to notify us if this happens to you in the future.

  8. well…I’ve tried to post a well thought out civil response that challenges some of what you say several times and it’s not going through.

    I will try again writing new stuff—first of all yes to your call to everyone to wake-up! Absolutely, we must!

    but to imagine those who are against this legislation are against taking care of women and the distress they are in is ludicrous. many of the leaders of the movement are women who had adverse reaction to the meds that were supposed to help them.

    some of these women became psychotically dangerous when the meds were given and recovered completely upon discontinuing them.

    If I had any confidence that different approaches besides psychiatric meds were going to be routinely and broadly used I would feel differently about this legislation.

    What Rick says too is key…ever look at who suffers from all the dysfunction?? I bet there is a higher correlation when women’s natural hormones have been messed with. When you’re pumped up with synthetic hormones to hasten birth your natural oxytocin which is a joy hormone and a hormone that allows one to bond with their baby is inhibited. The natural process interrupted.. if this was not so routinely and widely practiced I think it’s likely we would not see the prevalence of post-partum depression.

    we mess with nature it will mess back with us.

    in any case those of us opposed to this legislation do care about the mental health of women and and infants—very much so. And that is why we oppose legislation that will encourage much more pharmaceutical drug use that in some instances causes much worse problems and women (or any person in the psychiatric system) are rarely if ever told about the risks involved.

    Infants in turn are gestated with drugs in the womb and then through breast milk…

    this is a much broader issue than you let on and to paint the opposition as people who don’t care about women, children or the mental health of Americans is rather slanderous.

  9. oh…I cross posted with John,

    anyway, I got to say more now..

    thanks John!
    be well. I always appreciate your willingness to have critics here.

  10. “Do they not know that women with untreated depression during pregnancy are twice as likely to have pre-eclampsia, twice as likely to have a C-section, twice as likely to have a preterm delivery and twice as likely to have their baby go to NICU? […] Do they not know that suicide as a result of postpartum mood disorders is the leading cause of death for women postpartum in the US?”

    As a reader who wants to agree with you, I nonetheless experience these as very strong claims which your post doesn’t go on to support. It would strengthen your argument if you could reference the medical studies.

  11. The government knows no cure for depression. Psychiatrists know no cure for despression. They claim to have treatment because they want money. If this bill passes they are going to tell every mother that they have workable treatment, and the mothers won’t know any better and they will be doomed. It’s not about helping mothers. It’s all about money. You’re depressed because thing aren’t going well in your life. It’s not even a biological problem. People don’t believe this fact because they are told to believe otherwise so that they can be controlled.

  12. I agree they really have no effective treatment out there for depression and never have (unless you count Amphetamines, over-the-counter codeine and paragoric (back in the earlier centuries in America) and real coke in CocaCola. Yeah, I wonder if we heard a lot of complaining about depression back then.

    I disagree with one thing Cory said, though, that depression “is not even a biological problem.” This may be true in most of the garden-variety cases, but in bipolar disorder (the real thing, not the over-used diagnosis), depression is also one of the symptoms, and this disorder is usually biological in nature – and sometimes inherited.

  13. Thank you for your reply A.R.C. I’m glad the we agree on the main problem with the Mothers Act. I do have to add one thing is that liking the New York Yankees is sometimes inhereted. Until there is a brain-scan or blood test to determine this disorder it should not be considered biological. Until there is treatment that doesn’t produce wild and random results, it should not be pushed on mothers by government.

  14. Gianna,
    S324 (you can read it at the Open Congress website) does not require screening. It only suggests research into screening as a tool of identifying women who may need help. There is NO mandatory screening. And there is no identification in the bill of any specific treatment, only mention of research into treatments. There is already research into light therapy, transcranial magnetic stimulation, medication, psychotherapy, all types of treatments. Please, please go read the bill in its entirety.

    And I agree with all of you who suggest that the Western method of delivering babies stinks, and may contribute to percentage of PPD that is experienced.

  15. Unreliable narrator,
    I tried to post a list of citations but I think the Psych Central spam filter knocked it out.

  16. I’m SO happy that my PPD, my nearly throwing my child out a window, wasn’t real. THANK YOU for clarifying that I needed no treatment or screening.


  17. It never ceases to amaze me that people can be so very ignorant to how they play into the hands of those that do not have a vested interest in the well being of others without even knowing it.

    If people would merely stop putting money towards following the theory of “postpartum depression” and put some time into researching the scientific facts, this country would not be in the state of demise that we are witnessing today.

    You see, “postpartum depression” has a cause and if an individual wants research done, then you can easily do it yourself. That is the beauty of the Internet. Although there is a lot of mis-information on the net as I witness here today, there is sound, solid, scientific findings already discovered.

    If you would like more information on how to determine the best way to reach this type of subject matter, join me on:

    Study Thyself which airs on Monday nights at 7pm Pacific Time. All you have to do is start learning, you will see that these mothers are suffering from a deficiency in certain basic minerals that were lost through the child bearing process.

    Once these minerals are added back in the proper form and ratio, the symptoms of depression are lifted and the mother has that wonderful bonding time with her new babe. Experience is the evidence.

    If you or someone you know is pregnant, or thinking of getting pregnant, I suggest beginning research now. It saves those last minute struggles and provides a more healthy and wholesome environment for the new baby, mom and the whole family.

    This should be a beautiful and spiritual time, the gift of a new life. It can be.

    “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” ~Hosea 4:6

    Vickie Barker – Autologist

  18. Unreliable Narrator,
    Here are some citations for you. Hopefully these won’t get kicked out of the spam filter.

    Altshuler et al, The Expert Consensus Panel for Depression in Women. The Expert Consensus Guideline Series. Treatment of depression in women. Postgraduate Medicine 2001 March(Spec No):1-107.

    Bonari L et al Perinatal Risks of Untreated Depression during Pregnancy. Can J Psychiatry, Vol 49, No 11, November 2004.

    Chung TK et al. Antepartum depressive symptomatology is associated with adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes. Psychosomatic Medicine 2001.

    Dayan J et al. Prenatal depression, prenatal anxiety, and spontaneous preterm birth: A prospective cohort study among women with early and regular care. Psychosomatic Medicine 2006.

    Hoffman H, Hatch M. Depressive symptomatology during pregnancy: evidence for an association with decreased fetal growth in pregnancies of lower social class women. Health Psychology 2000.

    Kurki T, et al. Depression and anxiety in early pregnancy and risk for preeclampsia. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000.

    Orr ST. Maternal prenatal depressive symptoms and spontaneous preterm births among African-American women in Baltimore, Maryland. Am J Epidemiol 2002.

    Rondo PHC, et al. Maternal psychological stress and distress as predictors of low birth weight, prematurity, and intrauterine growth retardation. Eur J Clin Nutrition 2003.

    Hope these help.

  19. Here are some more. The previous studies were about the impact of antepartum depression. The ones in this comment relate to postpartum depresson.

    Hay DF, Pawlby S, Sharp D, Asten P, Mills A, Kumar R. Intellectual problems shown by 11-year-old children whose mothers had postnatal depression. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001 Oct;42(7):871-89.

    Minkovitz CS, Strobino D, Scharfstein D, Hou W, Miller T, Mistry KB, Swartz K. Maternal depressive symptoms and children’s receipt of health care in the first 3 years of life. Pediatrics. 2005 Feb;115(2):306-14.

    Murray L, Cooper P. Effects of postnatal depression on infant development. Arch Dis Child 1997 Aug;77(2):99-101.

    Weinberg MK, Tronick EZ. The impact of maternal psychiatric illness on infant development. J Clin Psychiatry 1998;59 Suppl 2:53-61.

  20. My two cents, which likely no one will listen to.

    Why would anyone not want this bill, unless they had serious concerns about it? Do you honestly think people have nothing better to do than shoot down bills which purport to help?

    Fact is the treatment most often used for any kind of depression is drug “therapy”. Whether it actually benefits the person taking it depends on a wide variety of circumstances, but the experiences can be so disparate as to create the conflicts you see before you now. An example:

    I took various ADs. The first couple didn’t seem to do much. One caused a minor withdrawal, but I lived through it. Eventually I took one which seemed to work, but did not improve the physical problems I had (sleeping too much.) What did work was acupuncture, something I stumbled into by accident, and this after studying psychology in university.

    Later though after a situational problem arose I became afraid and took an AD as a pre-emptive action. I thought I would get depressed.

    What happened instead–I nearly died from the drug. I had overt suicidal URGES. I hallucinated. I had bowel problems which were a clear indicator of a reaction. I was manic, had urges to pace around, heaviness in my arms and legs. Then once it was diagnosed as a drug reaction I was promptly removed from the drug and my mind collapsed. I now have a permanent movement disorder (akathisia) along with what amounts to brain damage.

    These drugs are far from safe. Few people would deny that someone can suffer psychiatric symptoms (I say symptoms as a lot of these problems have medical causes, and most psych diagnoses are actually voted on by p-docs at their APA meeting–an illness is not something decided upon by consensus). Few people will say that these problems are not serious for some. HOWEVER, just because a problem exists does not mean the purported treatment is either safe or effective. This is what continually confounds me.

    Desperation will not make a treatment safe.

    And if you follow the pharma industry you would understand that they have actually killed healthy people in drug studies and launched the drug anyways (see Cymbalta); they have lied, lied and lied again about the effects of the drugs, the withdrawal, which can go on for years; they have falsified results and then hid them; they have pushed drugs for any and every use (google Neurontin for everything.) They spend twice as much money on marketing than testing. If the drugs are safe and effective, why do they need so much marketing? Maybe it is to hide the fact that ADs cause suicide, homicide (yes, this is a listed effect of Effexor XR), movement disorders (watch a video on tardive dyskinesia and tell me how this benefits anyone), pseudo-parkinson’s, intestinal bleeding, severe withdrawal effects, hallucinations, cancer (see Paxil), blindness (see Paxil again), permanent sexual side effects, etc…the list is very, very long. And they don’t necessarily give you just one of these effects; some people such as myself have had lists of 50 to 100 symptoms.

  21. Katherine,

    The whole “mental illness” trend is fully linked with big pharma and psychiatric treatment. How many billions have been pumped into “mental illness” under the banner of psycotropic drugs, and what is the result?

    Well, a comparison is the 833,000 thousand psychotropics drugs that are administered to our children and adolescents every hour. Well, date coincident to this spike in drug use, you have the school killings, suicides by our kids, violence at home, etc.

    I agree that women should be cared for, especially when pregnant. But mark my words, drugs are behind this “act” and it is just another way for psychiatry and pharma to reach deeper into society until they have an entire society on drugs.

    I work almost all hours of my spare time to educate youths and parents on the harmful effects of illicit drugs, and to be constantly “stabbed in the back” by “legal” drugs and their continual legalization is not okay with me.

    In the name of education, you should study a little about these “mental illnesses” and how they are formed. You would be surprised to see that there is NO concrete evidence to prove the existence of these hundreds of psychiatric “mental illnesses” that our children are diagnosed with on a daily basis.

    And now we are opening the gateway for all mothers to be diagnosed with “mental illnesses.”

    Please carefully study the ingredients of these drugs and their side effects, generally included in the fine print that no one reads.

    6,500,000,000 people on Earth today and billions more that have come and gone over the ages. I think we know more about giving birth to a child than any lobbyist or legislature would ever know.

    Please, if the system is failing, don’t ask a failing industry (psychiatry) to handle the issue. Go to the professionals.

  22. Yellow,
    I am listening and I’m glad you wrote. I am very sorry for your experience and I appreciate you sharing it.

    There are many assertions you make with which I agree. The pharmaceutical industry has made it difficult if not almost impossible to trust anything they say, based on the reasons you outlined.

    And when it comes to safety, I don’t know of any drug that is 100% safe, with the exception of aspirin. Wait, that’s not safe either, at least not for children. I think all people, regardless of ailment, are forced to gamble with their health– we hope that whichever treatment decision we make turns out to be better than continuing to experience our illness. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t. I know many women for whom antidepressants have worked — they would tell you in very clear terms that they are the living evidence of its effectiveness. I also know women for whom antidepressants have not worked and they believe just as surely in whatever treatment they used. I’m sure it’s the same with many other conditions and their associated pharmacologic treatments. And it’s the same way for people who choose to try alternative or natural treatments that either do or don’t work for them. I’ve tried acupuncture for back problems, for instance, and it didn’t work for me because of scar tissue. We are all just SO different.

    I’m not sure, nonetheless, why any of this means we shouldn’t try to fund more services for people who are suffering and don’t have access to ANY form of treatment.

    I guess what I continue to have trouble with is what drugs have to do with the MOTHERS Act. Should we not pass a bill that would conduct more research into risk factors for these VERY real illnesses? Should we not look more deeply, thanks to funding from the bill, into how to prevent these illnesses entirely? Should we not look further into alternative treatments, which would also be funded by this bill and would probably include things like acupuncture? I know of researchers looking into the effects of exercise, nutritional therapies, light therapy and more when it comes to treating PPD. Should we not support giving them money to pursue these avenues, since, in fact, almost NO ONE else will?

  23. Katherine,

    Yes. The answer to your question to Yellow is “Yes, we should move funds in this direction of truly helping women.” However, the problem with that is that big pharma and psychiatry have their hands so deep in the “cash cow” pocket of the drug-market and have the public and physicians so convinced that anti-depressants and psychotropic drugs are the solution, that such a bill is not possible until all the smokescreens of the drug pushers are revealed and an honest bill is presented that is based on true medical ethics and a desire to truly help your fellow man.

    I am convinced that this is simply the next strategy to hook all of society on “legal” drugs under the banner of “mental health.”

    Let me point out one thing: How many billions of tax payer monies have been pumped into “mental health?” Now imagine that was your money and you had invested all that money into your company. What have those billions produced in terms of products — a few examples are 833,000 children and adolescents being prescribed psychotropic drugs every hour for “mental illnesses” that have never scientifically been proven to actually exist as “mental illnesses.” Another is the school shootings that are date coincident to the spike in prescription drugs in schools. Another is the suicides of kids and teenagers on these drugs.

    We need to raise our confront of evil before blindly approving a new law into effect that could result in thousands of deaths to mothers and unborn children due to the adverse effects of the drugs that will most likely be administered as a “handling” for PPD. There is a solution to PPD and it is not psychotropic or anti-depressants drugs.

    Please research the history of psychiatry and their mental health agenda.



  24. This Bill is not only UnConstitutional prima facia, it also is hiding behind a more un American plot, to wit being labeled as mentally ill.
    which means under Federal Statute you shall not own a firearm or possess one.
    Thank you Republican Congress and Bill Clinton.

    The “questionaire” that a woman would have to answer, prior to taking her PROPERTY home, is ilegal due to an (ARBITRARY) judgement by the state. In other words, there was no (DUE PROCESS of LAW) to take away the property of the woman. ONLY a court of law can determined whether the child (property) will be (safe) for a woman to take home. And the courts will have NO jurisdiction over this matter at all. Even if the courts in the several states, by state statutes give authority to the courts, the courts still will not possess a constitutional authority to adjudicate the matter. Why? Because there has been (NO HARM DONE).
    And of course, Americans have a 5th Amendment Right to (not self incriminate).
    Furthermore, a “questionaire”, is part of a (MEDICAL TREATMENT) under Common Law, ergo Constitutional Law, and a patient may refuse this treatment under same.


  25. Katherine Stone at 8:23 pm on April 8th, 2009 said in response to Gianna:

    “S324 (you can read it at the Open Congress website) does not require screening. It only suggests research into screening as a tool of identifying women who may need help. There is NO mandatory screening….”

    “Mandatory” is irrelevant.
    It will be “Public Policy”, another form of “color of Law”. Which is NOT law at all.

    My youngest were and are subjected to school “policy” for police to randomly search them and of course, others in class, for candy, cell phones, and pocket vid. games.
    My kids say no.
    They are exited out of the room, ’till the other sheeple are searched, then brought back in.
    Did ya know, that I as a parent, cannot force my children to surrender their Constitutional Rights?
    U.S. Supreme Court saith so…
    What about a woman’s right?
    Hey, you failed the questionaire, therefore you cannot take your child home, and cannot own a firearm under federal law, since you are mentally deficient.
    It’s not a “mandate” just “Public Policy” AND OR “policy” of the hospital…
    I’m thinkin’ this aint kewl for the family.

  26. Katherine,

    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.


  27. I am a psychiatric nurse and I assure you that postpartum depression and psychosis are real.

    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.

  28. The bottom line, the US GOV’T does not have the RIGHT to do this. It is NOT in the Constitution to decide who is and who is not depressed. Last I heard it was my decision, and MINE alone. ARE YOU KIDDING, and do you think it would stop here?
    And by the way, maybe more homebirths would help a mom instead of hurt. Maybe you, Kristi G. are the one with a closed mind.
    Maybe if we had a society that encouraged a mom to STAY home with her child instead of abandoning to DAYCARE would help? How do women justify having a child and then leave it to someone else to raise? Could that be an underlinig problem? Are women even ALLOWED to say that they would rather be home with their child then AT WORK?

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

  29. You’re right, Debbie — the government should never decide who is or isn’t depressed. Thankfully they won’t. They will simply be paying for the costs of research carried out by real clinicians with specialties in this field, and for the costs of public awareness of this illness so that women will not be afraid to reach out for help.

  30. I can not support this. I had a very frightening experience with depression and the meds I was given made it MUCH WORSE. Getting off of the meds was a nightmare but I am now well and will NEVER again take an anti depressant. Women who need help can seek it without government intervention.

  31. Kristi, I agree. The mandatory screening is the reason I can not support this.

  32. I’m late in coming back to this, but thanks for your bibliography. It’s a daunting list, of course, and I suspect few of your readers really have a way to access any of the publications, much less interpret the findings of the published studies.

    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’. :o)

  33. WOW…can we say paranoid? My gosh people…the bill was written by a man whose wife experienced PPD. How dare he care about keeping other moms from having to go through the same thing…what an ass! As someone who fully supports the MOTHERS Act and has read the bill in it’s entirety many times I don’t understand how you can twist it and say big pharma is behind it all. I am a PPOCD survivor and frankly if I wouldn’t have been screened I would be DEAD…no question. So how many untreated women have to die before this bill passes? And by the way, there were many forms of treatment used in my therapy, most of which had nothing at all to do with meds. (Meds were not used until I had tried just about everything else)…all of which I had a say in, even when I was completely suicidal. My children were never removed from the home and I was never threatened about losing my children when I didn’t want to take medication. No one squirted Prozac in my babies eyes. No one made me take the screening. The did something much, much worse…they helped me to recover so I could be a great mom! The bastards! I thank God for those bastards!

  34. Well done, Ms. Young.

    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.

  35. It’s a SCREENING, you wingnuts. Learn to read. And take your medication. And shut up.

  36. No, Mr Lee, it is the cluelessness of naive and quick reacting non professionals, or professionals with a covert agenda who view this legislation as a panacea. But, I am not interested in arguing with those who just spew lame rhetoric and aren’t seeing the forest for the trees, just trying to make sure invested and moderate readers get the full picture here.

    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!?

  37. Frank Lee said above:

    “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

  38. Forgive my snickering, but holding up John Breeding as an expert? Just look at one of his videos. Very peculiar looking and peculiar thinking. Another wingnut. He’s a legend in his own mind — and to Internet nutters.

  39. Nice switch Lee.



Join the Conversation!

We invite you to share your thoughts and tell us what you think in this public forum. Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines. A first name or pseudonym is required and will be displayed with your comment. Your email address is also required, but will be kept private. (Please note that we use gravatars here, which are tied to your email address.) A website/blog/twitter address is optional.

Post a Comment: