- About
- Blogosphere Buzz
- Archived Posts 2007-2008
- Register for Email Alerts
- The Book: Before You Take That Pill: Why the Drug Industry May Be Bad For Your Health
- Follow me on twitter @dougbremner
- Subscribe to my podcasts
- Rave Reviews for “The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg: Accutane, the truth that had to be told”
- Follow me on goodreads
- Catania! The movie
I posted a comment on John Grohols web site at 4 pm Atlanta time when there were 32 comments; now there are over 50 and he hasn’t approved mine so I am going to write from here (currently 9:11 pm local time). All I can say is thank god for the internet which finally will spell the end of censorship by large entities. I am not sure what he had an issue with but assuming there was not a glitch maybe he didn’t like the fact that I said that many of these so-called patient advocacy groups receive funding from pharmaceutical companies and with their emphasis on screening and identification of cases are a bonanza for drug companies increasing their market share. It is not only for post-partum depression (PPD) but for other disorders and I know because I have been there but I don’t want to throw rocks at any particular organization.
Moving on to the comments under John Grohol’s psychcentral post on my original post and followup on Motherhood is not a Medical Illness (I know I am paranoid but having my website hacked into and comments disabled right after I made this post seems like an eery coincidence), relating to his (what I consider) impugning me that I have an agenda, am against use of psychotropic meds, or am trying to sell my book, I have the following response: 1) I don’t know what agenda he thinks he has; 2) I am not against psychotropic meds, in fact prescribe them, I only believe that people have the right to be informed and to decide for themselves the risks and benefits and not get railroaded into things by the government (i.e. mass screening as with the Mother’s Act), doctors, or other entities; 3) my book sells for one cent (yes!) on amazon, and as authors like Gina Pera (who setting aside for the moment some of her strident commentary on the topics at hand, which I don’t always agree with necessarily, wrote a very nice book on ADHD, thank you very much) can attest, you get all of your payment in advance, and unless you get on the best seller list (which I am not) you never get payments related to how much it actually sells. And the amount authors get pales in comparison to the tens or hundreds of thousands that psychiatrists get consulting or being on speakers bureaus for pharmaceutical companies. We don’t write books to make money, we do it because we are passionate about our topics. There’s a difference.
Moving on to the specific issues, Grohol stated that I cherry-picked a single paper to pick a fight with him about whether there were more risk factors for PPD than merely a prior history of depression or anxiety. He, somewhat condescendingly IMHO, described me as a “prestigious researcher” (thanks for the compliment, John), implying that I hadn’t done due diligence. Or maybe shut up and sit down, go back to the lab, etc. Well, he made a series of statements about so-called risk factors for PPD and I went after the few that looked most relevant. The risk factor of substance abuse turned out to be women who were actively abusing cocaine or drinking a six pack a day while pregnant, which can cause harm to the fetus. I originally said they should get a slap up side the head rather than worrying about PPD screening, and I took it down cuz it wasn’t politically correct (violence against women and all) but I think I am gonna put it back there. As for “abuse” most of those were men who abused their pregnant wives, which is another story altogether. The studies of childhood abuse didn’t show an association for the most part after controlling for depressive symptomatology. We can argue the details, but I guess the point is that I think he is making statements and then giving a string of references and getting up on a bully pulpit about science and not expecting a rebuttal cuz noone will read them. So far, no good.
Again, NO to the MOTHER’S ACT.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
As a psychiatrist, you would likely concur that you intimidate him, and he is blocking envy- not your comments.
The last time this topic reared up at Furious Seasons, I was banned from commenting at Psych Central too. John Grohol is a Fuller Torrey wanna-be: believes in preventative medicating of innocent people who “might” become mentally ill by his description, and one who believes in forced drugging out patient. People who believe in their medications and promote them place themselves in a position to live with consequences of the people who are wrongly diagnosed, and drugged for no reason.
It’s not easy walking in the fire storm over this topic, I’ve been attacked by pro-med people for my daughter being on drugs and off drugs and anything they can think of, you have to grow a thick skin in the advocate world, but based on witnessing loss of life (mothers write to me their child is dead from psych meds etc)or like my daughter, a life torn apart left disabled after a decade of psych meds from a misdiagnosis.
The sad thing about this debate is that pharma lobbies Congress with millions of dollars each year, people like Grohol promote it using his “been a blogger for a decade” stance, in the end the people with the most money in their corner win, and that we know are the ones represented by pharma’s big bucks and marketing agenda (not patient well-being like ignorant people buy into).
Onward!
Well I enjoyed the various comments on the Grohol blog, maybe someone could spread the word about the censorship that has occured. I certainly don’t enjoy being censored (for anyone who has been reading this blog for the past month knows) and am taking him off my email list and won’t reply on that blog anymore or read it.
I’ve added an update to my post on my blog (where I copied your article straight there)highlighting the censorship.
I’ve also got the link to the “say no” to the Mother’s Act petition in that post.
I stopped reading that blog along time ago, it always seems to steer toward pharma-funded-agenda, whether Grohol admits it or not. I find it interesting he rips you further in comments there, and that he appears to not like anyone who does not have HIS agenda.
I am surprised Dr Grohol kept my last comment this evening about “the defenses of scoundrels”, but I appreciate he allowed it after reading what appears to be at hand with you, Dr B.
It appears what I wrote is more applicable as the discussion blossoms. For any and all who are reading here, I just have one word I believe validates my concern there is a covert agenda at hand with this legislation:
Sarafem.
Still is brand name for Lilly, and has the superficial appearance of being safe in pregnancy. Maybe just a shot in the dark, but I’d rather propose something that will be legitimately refuted than watch inappropriateness blossom at the risk of thousands of women.
Has been one helluva day regarding this topic.
http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2009/04/controversy_swirls_around_mothers_act.html
There’s the last Furious Seasons go-round with this topic, for interest.
You know, this antidepressants and mothers/pregnant/etc brings to mind Dr Daniel Carlat and his opinion that some antidepressants should be OTC. I wrote a post about it, when he made comments in his blog comment section a while back.
It’s another thing to think about, with the safety of these drugs in pregnant women or nursing women. Anyone read the Shelly Hart story? she took Paxil while pregnant and her baby has a hole in his heart, story came out of Seattle.
Sorry, need to correct Shelly Hart’s baby was born ADDICTED to Paxil; it was another mother who had a son born with a hole in his heart, named Manie. 2 tragic examples of women taking an antidepressant while pregnant.
http://www.encognitive.com/node/1071 Shelly Hart’s story
Sorry TF, this is just not about blocking comments, this is about the poster whom he attacked and now he does not post that persons comments. This is abuse.
I’d like to quote John Grohol’s comment to me:
“Amy Philo – If you keep twisting around another’s words and argument, I guess that indeed you could find yourself making many fine points against your opponent. But you’re not arguing with anything I ever said.
I never said anything about:
So you’re promoting giving out medication to new mothers – and you don’t see a need to include warnings here with that statement?
I guess if in your mind educating mothers about postpartum depression and asking them to take a screening quiz equates to “giving out medication,” then it’s no wonder we’re arguing without hearing the other side.”
As I posted on my blog earlier, John Grohol wrote:
“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.”
Back on his blog (does Dr. Grohol exhibit the symptoms of amnesia?), Dr. Grohol continues:
“I think a person’s treatment choices, if they are properly diagnosed with PPD, is that person’s choice. I never said any differently, and this law will not change that.
I’ve also noticed that nobody has answered why PPD is different than health screenings for cancer. Or other mental health screenings that the government has promoted for decades (such as those for depression).
I also don’t see how a discussion about a government funded education and screening law is a legitimate place to talk about forced treatment and such. As anyone who has bothered to read the first thing about me knows, I’m generally against forced treatment and organizations like TAC.
But I also understand some people’s personal experiences are extremely negative and respect that. That’s an important voice to hear in this discussion. But so is the research data, and I fear the research data gets swept under the rug when people appeal to emotional arguments (e.g., hypothetically, “I had a horrible PPD experience and it ruined my life”). Hopefully we don’t make policy decisions based solely upon our emotional reactions; I hope we also make it based upon a reasoned and objective measure of the data.”
Apparently Dr. Grohol is just now entering the debate on The MOTHERS Act and he would like us to fill him in on all the issues relating to the treatment of women in a single comment block on his post. Yet he gets to say which issues he thinks are relevant to the law and which are not?
Although he is accusing me of not being objective, he goes on to discuss “more than one” person he knows who had PPD and went on to get therapy. Therefore the MOTHERS Act is a good idea. I don’t know if he considers MedWatch data as real, or if he only considers his anecdotes and then the research studies he likes as real. There are plenty of both types of “research” on both sides to go around.
Originally his post targets you because you stated that you were in agreement with the research of Catherine Elton which concluded that credible experts had compelling evidence that the biggest factor to predispose one to depression after birth is previous depression. I don’t see how any of his post disputes that, other than to point out other “risk factors” that would be associated with any person in the general population. So why not just screen everyone for everything in the DSM to see whether they need Prozac or Sarafem, or Wellbutrin or Zyban. Or Zoloft, or perhaps its next new name if it should ever be approved for pregnant and nursing moms or for PPD, maybe it will be called Breastloft or Uterex. Or Infaxil.
I’m tired of the insulting comments from Dr. Grohol towards me. He comes across as super disrespectful. When really what reason would he have to care about any of this, except for his obvious conflict of interest.
I doubt he has followed any of the links I have provided to see how I have already quoted him numerous times to point out where he has gone over the top.
I’m so sorry that he has attacked you and censored you, and I thank you for your informed consent position and advocacy.
As I also posted on Dr. Grohol’s blog, the reason that a screening law has something to do with forced treatment, is that if you have the government targeting moms with screening, or doctors, or nonprofits, or agencies, these entities become horrified that someone might slip through the cracks and they want to tag everyone with PPD and get them the treatment that they “need.” In the case of New Jersey which has mandatory screening, doctors are afraid, and very legitimately so, that they will be censured by the medical board if they do not properly refer and treat all women they think may have PPD – because if they fail to screen or treat or refer a woman who has been flagged by the mandatory screening, the NJ clinical guidelines include a provision for the doctor to be censured. This explains why, in Melanie Stokes’ name, doctors might be afraid if they do not force treat a woman, she could commit suicide and they would be sued or lose their license.
The paranoia that develops from this in the minds of doctors and police leads to overreactions when women ask for help, as I shared in the article from the NJ Star Ledger posted on his blog showing how women had been taken by force in police cars to the hospital for reaching out for help.
I am not against women getting whatever treatment they think they need, but I am against people lying about what the risks are and then those women being caught off guard when they have side effects, which are then labeled as an illness and those women could wind up force treated. How many ex-force treatment patients are for this bill? I don’t think I have encountered them. If I had been given proper warnings I would never have agreed to take Zoloft. If I had had a clue that it could be the Zoloft before I went to the ER for help, I wouldn’t have wound up locked in a mental ward for two days.
The first time I ever saw a warning sheet was in the hospital – and as soon as I started declining more meds and then questioning the Zoloft I was told I had to follow their orders or I wasn’t going home, and then I was labeled noncompliant and paranoid.
After I got off Zoloft and talked to various doctors about it, I encountered the same attitude, “It has helped millions of people.”
Yet all the studies I have seen are based on a much smaller sample than millions. And at that, you have the placebo effect that has to be taken into account.
If women were told that their prescription might help them about as much as a placebo, but that it might cause them to commit suicide, kill their baby, or that it could hurt their nursing babies or future babies in the womb, I wonder how the risk benefit analysis would seem in their eyes.
http://www.netpowwow.com/unite011109/ppdcriminals.htm
The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey)
December 9, 2007 Sunday
Promised lifeline for new moms falls short
Postpartum depression law called a disappointment so far
BYLINE: SUSAN K. LIVIO, STAR-LEDGER STAFF
Excerpts…
A `HORRIBLE’ RESPONSE
Maxine Garcia of Sayreville says that when she asked for help she got a response that left her stunned. Police officers and rescue squad workers arrived unannounced at her home last year, an hour after she called the hotline to say she was six months pregnant and “depressed out of my mind.” According to the police report, Garcia threatened to hurt herself, but she denies it. She and her two children were forced to go to the emergency room. “I felt like I had no rights,” Garcia said. “I really just needed someone to talk to.”
Yolanda Iyube of Franklin in Somerset County says she confided to her gynecologist two years ago she was consumed with scary thoughts about her baby dying violently. Before she left the office, a police-escorted social worker took her to the emergency room. “They brought me in a police car to the hospital. It was horrible – everyone was looking at me like I had committed a crime.”
Venis said such responses can discourage women with postpartum depression from seeking help.
…When the law took effect, there was an initial reluctance from physicians treating new mothers – a fear that “we won’t be able to discharge anyone from the hospital,” said Edward Wolf, vice chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston.
Wolf said the law added responsibilities for obstetricians already vulnerable to malpractice lawsuits. He said there was a fear of “I am going to get this thrown on my lap without help.”
Here’s my post on the topic of the silencing of the messenger:
http://tinyurl.com/mwftof
[...] Mommy Wars: John Grohol is Blocking My Comments from His Website So I Am Commenting Here [...]
http://uniteforlife.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/mommy-wars/
Stephany, that’s odd, as we have no mechanism to “ban” someone from the blog and never have. But then again, someone claiming I am a Torrey wannabe has never really bothered reading my blog over the past decade:
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/04/08/liz-spikol-is-a-threat-to-your-library/
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2007/05/02/violence-and-mental-illness-simplifying-complex-data-relationships/
Doug Bremner, I’m sorry you had trouble posting a comment to the blog; I had the same trouble trying to post a comment to your entry yesterday (notice how I didn’t accuse you of anything when I noted I couldn’t post to your entry). It appears the technical demons were out in droves.
Im curious, is Dr. Grohol a U.S. Board Certified Physician, with prescribing privileges, or is he from the UK? If he is of the ladder, his comments are irrelevent.
Grohol says Bremner not censored, and debates further in Grohol’s comment section, here’s the comment I posted on my blog for interest:
http://tinyurl.com/nx32nm
Interesting debate going on, clearly Grohol is not comfortable with anyone challenging the Mothers Act, he took Dawdy to task over it in April.
I read the comments over there. I don’t have any reason to doubt that the comment was deleted by accident. However he obviously put comments on moderation or whatever and I don’t see how he can expect a “debate” when he doesn’t respond for a day while he and his gang go on trashing me. He put out his string of references as authority and then made me go look up the articles and point out how he was twisting them. I provided the actual paper linked here so that anyone can go read it for themselves. That said I am not going to continue on this “debate” as I have no interence in reading papers about how “low self esteem” is a risk factor for PPD. Why don’t they go start a blog then. Lol.
I like the comment @Dr Wayne that I was making comments that were not professional, when I never made any comment there at all!! Lol!! Meanwhile Grohol is going on about “science”. He is not a prescribing doctor so what is his authority to provide an opinion on the Mother’s Act. I would never allow a pregnant or lactating woman in my life to take psychotropic medication. The evidence for harm has been there all along and it is shameful that the drug/dr lobby has used this group to push into a new market. Take the walk of shame guys.
That’s what I’ve been thinking/harping about, is that Grohol isn’t a prescribing doctor, and has a lot of nerve promoting the mothers act, on his blog which is one of the oldest ones that ppl read for “help and advice”. His blog reads pro-pharma whether he believes that or not (he says its not).
I’m not seeing his attack very professional, it looks down and dirty underhanded, but what do i know.
Onward!
It’s always easy to say that you didn’t get the comment and don’t know what they are talking about, and they must be technologically challenged or paranoid. But it’s funny that he still seems confused in his post, calling himself not pro-pharma? Yet he had a problem with every argument I put forth – asking him why he would encourage meds, he says he is not doing so, when he clearly encourages it in his original article. Oh, and that the thread on his blog is not the appropriate place to talk about forced treatment, or anecdotes. But then he brings up anecdotes himself.
I guess I’ll go check out the comments there, since I now feel like I have to monitor it for my own sake. But really it’s starting to feel like a waste of time.
I am not saying that he has no business in the debate because I think theoretically anyone would, but he hasn’t been very convincing to say the least.
JG writes: “Even though the law isn’t about treatment (and yet it seems opponents can’t focus on anything but treatment, virtually ignoring the benefits of education and screening on its own), I’d have to defer to our personal freedoms and our freedom of choice. Such freedoms means leaving treatment decisions where they belong — between doctors and informed patients. Which this law does.”
Um, ok Dr. G. Can you point out where informed consent is listed in the bill? Because when I met with a senator on this in April 2008, he specifically asked me if I would be ok with the bill if they added informed consent. So far, they have not done anything of the sort. Furthermore, the law is about screening, treatment, and services, as you can see by actually reading the bill. I highligted many the portions discussing how screening will be implemented – it appears in both the dismally short research section of the bill, and in the much longer services / PSAs / screening section of the bill here: http://uniteforlife.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/faction-of-pill-pushers-embarks-on-anti-information-frenzy/
Not only is the bill not just about research, but it also discusses case management, and inpatient care management to ensure the future development of the infant. You don’t have to make stuff up, it’s all in there.
Check out: http://uniteforlife.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/new-fax-campaign/
““Massive drugging?” Wow. Okay. I guess cancer treatment also leads to “massive drugging” using that logic. Yet some people seem to suggest that since a specific treatment option is offensive to them and their sensibilities, we should limit treatment choices.”
Actually, the opponents of The MOTHERS Act are in favor of evaluating all the known data on the existing treatments which are likely to also be the new treatments, approved for new uses like Sarafem / Prozac and Wellbutrin / Zyban. Nobody said anything about limiting treatment choices. We’d like people to slow down and allow a public and peer review of the data on the treatments in existence before moving forward advertising a disorder.
I have yet to see Dr. G respond to the NJ article on treating moms like criminals for reaching out for help, or responding to the issue of drugging nursing and pregnant women which is promoted by the massive perinatal depression and mood disorders crowd. I can only assume since he thinks PPD is just like cancer, that he has no problem with the number of babies dying from spontaneous abortions and fatal birth defects and SIDS.
Katherine says on the blog:
“Amy, It’s actually open knowledge that in 2008 I made that $5800, as I shared with you on your blog willingly. I have been doing my blog and advocacy for 5 years, and it is only for that single speaking series that I have been paid. Never before and never since.”
The only reason this is open knowledge is because Evelyn Pringle exposed the fact that Pfizer funded a series of perinatal mood and anxiety disorder talks presented by Katherine Stone sponsored by an intermediary front group. Not sure if the money was sparkly clean when it made it into her wallet, but it was not shared by her on Dr. G’s blog earlier in response to Lisa’s question, so she must be ashamed of it. But it’s public knowledge, and I never disputed that, having posted it from my own public blog. I was not revealing a secret, I was reminding her after she lied and stated in response to Lisa that she doesn’t do this for money.
I can understand Katherine’s passion because I have it too, and I can believe that someone would devote a lot of time to the issue of helping women survive scary experiences postpartum. However to promote taking drugs during pregnancy / breastfeeding and attempt to discredit the TIME piece and have friends working on discrediting the VOGUE piece, as that crowd has done, it takes a lot of guts too.
Dr. Grohol said (quoted above) that we are obsessed with treatment and don’t want to talk about screening and education, however here is a quote from the open letter to TIME on Postpartum Progress, which was signed by him and 42 others:
“As Time reported in June, the National Academies fully endorses screening for parental depression and believes it is crucial, while also emphasizing that screening is not helpful unless there is effective follow up and treatment tied to it.”
See: http://uniteforlife.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/motherhood-is-not-a-mental-illness-bremner-on-time/
So if he is not promoting medication, why are there so many people objecting to the TIME piece, my story, and blathering on about medication? Or if antidepressants are just like cancer drugs, (why then do antidepressants interfere with tamoxifen??? off topic) why does he fail to address the issue of giving them to pregnant and nursing mothers, and why does he fail to address the risk of suicide? Here’s a quote from that article on my blog:
“[B]etween 2004 and 2008 FDA MedWatch collected 1,031 reports of miscarriages, abortions, and other prenatal and neonatal deaths caused by psychotropic drugs. Nevermind the 4,154 cases of suicidal depression reported to MedWatch for Psychotropic drugs from 2004-2006, along with 2,911 Attempted suicides, 4,260 completed suicides, 2,452 other deaths not from suicide, 434 cases of Homicidal Ideation, 195 Homicides, and 1,098 cases of Mania.”
I’d like to see someone from the other side respond to the problem of spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, and birth defects as well as the breastfeeding reports I pulled here:
http://momsandmeds.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/breastmilkexposure/
These FDA MedWatch cases are based on those in which the medication in question was the primary suspect drug.
Check out this playlist: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=5035F0873A36F493
Yeah, he had no problem with supporters bringing up anecdotes… but god forbid if a woman with a mental illness herself brings up an anecdote… oh, we can’t base public policy on that.
The irony of course being that the Act ITSELF is grown out of ONE woman’s anecdote, Melanie Blocker-Stokes.
Kimbriel are you calling me mentally ill? Ha ha ha… sorry for my paranoia. ; )
Well, Amy, doncha know that any woman who flips out when she sees her newborn son choking is clearly mentally unstable? Matter of fact, let’s put ‘em all on drugs so that when these inevitable incidents happen, they will be better qualified to handle it.
This is John Grohol’s response to Evelyn Pringle when challenged on how PPD and cancer are not exactly the same.
“Evelyn Pringle — Mental disorders are not medical diseases, and never have been. But then again, even within medicine, we don’t have diagnostic tests that prove every known disease. What’s the diagnostic blood test for Alzheimer’s? Or any test for that matter… Does that then mean that Alzheimer’s doesn’t exist??”
Then he replies to you:
“But this isn’t a perfect comparison, of course, since the incidence of death from PPD is likely pretty low (while the incidence of some cancers may not be). The objection to PPD screening seems to be, if we find more postpartum depression, we’ll have to treat more of it. And some people may choose an antidepressant, rather than psychotherapy.”
So if it’s not deadly, what is his justification for supporting a bill that would put so many babies at risk of death, and mothers at risk of death from suicide?
“But isn’t that a treatment choice between a person and their physician? Who is anyone else to say what treatment someone with PPD should or shouldn’t have available to them (assuming the research makes no clear differentiation)?”"
Nobody. Yet he continues to refuse to address forced treatment and the paranoia that will lead to it when doctors are pressed to not let anyone slip through the cracks.
He calls my story an anecdote? Where is his research on the number of forced inpatient treatments, ECTs and forced antipsychotic drugs being given out each year? Melanie Stokes herself was an inpatient who suffered through several rounds of drugging and ECT in just a few weeks.
Did he miss the fact that we now have Zyprexa being given to nursing mothers and that Lilly just got approval for an injectible 2 week shot, which was almost denied because it causes so much sedation? How is a mother supposed to be conscious to experience whether or not her drug is helping her for her adverse reaction to her other drug on that? Besides, telling women that they can nurse on Zyprexa puts their babies at extreme risk of SIDS.
John Grohol is on mental merry-go-round. As I told Sara earlier, I am refusing to comment on his site any more, although I will continue checking the comments just to make sure I am not defamed.
Not only is his web site PLASTERED with drug company ads, including JUXTAPOSED with medical information aimed at those newly diagnosed (see http://i39.tinypic.com/v5wl5c.jpg for a good example), but HE REFUSES TO POST anything that is critical of his point of view. Given the number of people that turn to the Internet for mental health information, Grohol’s pandering to the pharmaceutical industry, combined with his REFUSAL TO POST ANY CRITICAL COMMENTS on Psychcentral.com, represents a grave risk to people with mental illnesses who are looking for fair, balanced and objective information.
I have apparently now been banned from PsychCentral, as I spent about an hour composing a response to a request to provide sources for my claims in previous post and twice it was not accepted.
I therefore will take a chance and post my response here, being people seem to be linking back and forth between the two sites in following the debate.
I have spent the past six months researching the various websites of the main supporters of the Mothers Act.
In response to the request for sources to back up my claim that social workers are now running treatment centers and providing therapy for mental illness, and using websites to recruit customers, while promoting the use of screening tools equal to a pop quiz, and advising women on what drugs to take, I will gladly submit the following.
The websites discussed below all refer to each other back and forth with live links.
This from social worker Susan Stone’s website:
“Welcome to Perinatal Pro, the website presence of Blue Skye Consulting, LLC, posted by women’s reproductive mental health expert Susan Dowd Stone, MSW, LCSW, to help educate and inform women, families and health care providers about the often unexpected challenges of mood changes during pregnancy, the postpartum and throughout a woman’s reproductive life.”
Susan is a past president of Postpartum Support International. She maintains a private practice, “specializing in women’s reproductive mental health across the life cycle,” according to her bio.
The “Clinical Focus” of treatment advertised with PerinatalPro includes: Perinatal Mood Disorders and Postpartum Depression; Perimenopause and menopause; Bereavement associated with child loss, stillbirth or miscarriage; Lifestyle changes and loss (divorce, remarriage, health issues); Depression associated with medical conditions; Disordered Eating and Body Dysmorphic Disorder; Trauma/PTSD; and Affective Disorders including depression and anxiety.
Potential patients can click on a link on the website to schedule an appointment.
Blue Skye offers half-day workshops for professionals “to help develop a specialty in perinatal mood disorders,” including two titled: “Identifying Perinatal Mood Disorders,” and “Treating Perinatal Mood Disorders.”
Karen Kleiman, another social worker, runs a treatment facility called the “Postpartum Stress Center,” in Rosemont, Pennsylvania.
“The Postpartum Stress Center specializes in the diagnosis and treatment of prenatal and postpartum depression and anxiety disorders,” Kleiman’s site says.
“The Postpartum Stress Center specializes in the diagnosis and treatment of prenatal and postpartum depression and anxiety disorders,” the homepage says.
Services offered include, “Screening for prenatal and postpartum depression and anxiety,” and “Psychiatric evaluation and follow-up.”
At the Center,” Kleiman teaches seminars for professional training with ads on her website and the heading: “Become an Expert in the Treatment of Postpartum Mood Disorders.”
The first sentence in “Highlights” for this training states: “This is a crash course on diagnosis, screening, assessment, treatment options.”
The fee is $750 for a 10-hour course, but they do throw in a book titled, “The Postpartum Stress Center’s Guide to Enhancing your PPD Private Practice: A checklist for successful practice.”
Karen could make $7,500 per seminar by simply recruiting 10 trainees. Nearly all the websites pitch in to promote conferences and seminars, so rounding up 10, or even 20, trainees would likely not be too difficult.
The site shows 4 seminars a year, meaning Karen could earn roughly $30,000 for 40 hours of teaching people how to “Become an Expert.”
And if she could round up 20 trainees per class, she could make $60,000 a year, putting her up there with all the other highly paid speakers within the new industry.
In a June 4, 2007, blog, Kleiman reported a new study that found 79% of doctors were unlikely to formally screen for postpartum depression and noted that the co-author of the study “reminds us that in addition to the Edinburgh (EPDS) Screening tool (most commonly used), healthcare practitioners can check for signs of PPD by a simple 2-question tool, developed by Whooley et al.”
Further elaborating on this quiz, Kleiman wrote: “It has been shown that these two questions may be as effective as longer instruments,” and listed the questions as: (1) “Over the past 2 weeks, have you felt down, depressed, or hopeless?”, and (2) “Over the past 2 weeks, have you felt little interest or pleasure in doing things?”
“A positive response to either question indicates a positive screen and should be followed by an comprehensive history and assessment to confirm the diagnosis of depression,” she wrote.
Kleiman is listed as a postpartum depression “expert” on another website called StorkNet, complete with her own bio page, where she posts advice for pregnant and nursing mothers to access over the internet and provides a live link to her treatment center.
In response to the question, “what are the best drugs for a breastfeeding mom with postpartum depression?”, Kleiman wrote in part:
“Keep in mind that this information is based on MY practice and will vary considerably from doctor to doctor.”
“The SSRI antidepressants (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) we are most comfortable using based on the research we have are: Zoloft (Sertraline) and Paxil (Paroxetine). Other antidepressants (tricyclics) that are used are Pamelor (Nortriptyline) and Desipramine (Norpramin), although it seems that the SSRIs are preferable these days because they have fewer side effects and are easily tolerated.”
In answering questions on “How Long to Take Medication,” Kleiman said to think of antidepressants as a “Serotonin vitamin,” and cited a recommendation from the American Psychiatric Association for staying on antidepressants for 6 to 9 months after the woman is feeling better.
“That’s not 6-9 months after you start taking the pill, it’s after you start feeling better!” she wrote. “The reason they recommend that you remain on it that long is because studies show there is a high risk of relapse if you get off the meds too early. And if you relapse, the symptoms are often harder to treat.”
“Antidepressants are one of the most efficient and effective treatments for PPD,” Kleiman tells women reading her StorkNet advice.
In another blog Kleiman wrote: “Women who experience depression during pregnancy are at an increased risk for PPD.”
“Current research supports the use of antidepressants immediately after delivery to reduce the likelihood of PPD.”
“Many women and their doctors choose this option,” Kleiman said, “to start their medication right after the baby is born, and I mean right in the delivery room!”
In a March 11, 2009, blog on Postpartum Progress, Katherine Stone plugs herself for speaking jobs, along with a study that concluded “the Internet is a viable and feasible tool to screen for PPD.”
“I’ll be adding this study to the speech I give on how women with perinatal mood and anxiety disorders use the Internet,” she reports, and then adds:
“If you’re interested in having me speak at your event, let me know!”
On March 16, 2009, Katherine posted a “Quick Survey on Postpartum Anxiety,” and wrote:
“The fabulous Karen Kleiman has asked me to ask you to participate in a short, five-question online survey on anxiety. She says ANYONE can answer it, regardless of the age of their baby(s) and regardless of diagnosis or lack thereof. ANY mother should answer the questions. It’s super quick — I know because I took it myself.”
Kleiman’s survey is a good example of the methods used to con women into suspecting they are mentally ill via the “expert” blogs.
The preface states: “The questions on this survey can be answered by a new mother of an infant or an empty-nester with good recall of the early days with her baby. Please answer as honestly as you can.”
The question, capital letters and all, reads: “When you were carrying your baby down a flight of stairs, did you EVER, at ANY time, have ANY thought, image or concern that you could accidentally drop your baby?”
The survey further tells women:
If you answered YES to the first question, please describe the type of worry you had: Scary thoughts about dropping the baby, Scary images about dropping the baby, Both thoughts and images, Other.
How much distress did this cause you? A Great deal of distress, Some distress but I quickly got over it, Some distress that seemed to linger, Not much stress
Did this thought or image occur once or did it recur? Only once, It recurred frequently, It recurred persistently, It occurred off and on, Did you ever tell anyone about the fear of dropping the baby? (Please describe why you chose to tell someone or why you chose not to)
Women who take the survey are told nothing about what the results mean at the end.
But clearly the seed is planted that something is wrong if you “EVER, at ANY time, have ANY thought, image or concern that you could accidentally drop your baby”.
In September 2008, the Postpartum Support International website ran the news flash: “3 Questions Can Spot Possible Postpartum Depression.”
A three-item anxiety sub-scale of the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale turned out to be a better screening tool than the two other abbreviated versions which are almost the same as the commonly used Patient Health Questionnaire, PSI reported.
On September 8, 2008, Katherine ran a blog with a headline of: “Researchers Find 3-Question Screening Test Effective in ID’ing PPD.”
She explained that for this sub-scale of the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale, new mothers were asked to answer “Yes, most of the time,” “Yes, some of the time,” “Not very often” or “No, never” to the following statements: I have blamed myself unnecessarily when things went wrong; I have felt scared or panicky for not very good reason; I have been anxious or worried for not very good reason.
“The subscale identified 16 percent more mothers as depressed than the original, longer questionnaire,” Stone reported, in the best news for the psycho-pharmaceutical industry.
The StorkNet site carried the headline “Postpartum Depression: Three Simple Questions to Ask Yourself,” for the same quiz. “A simple new 3-question test has proven very reliable at detecting postpartum depression,” it reported.
In a July 8, 2009, blog on her website, Lauren Hale reported on the latest screening tool and wrote: “This morning I discovered an iPhone app which includes the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale along with three other depression scales.”
“Chances are many new moms either have an iPhone or know someone who does,” she said. “What’s really cool about this app is that it stores the last 30 entries so you can take the results straight to your doctor.”
The above information is taken from excerpts from my past articles on the Mothers Act and my new four part series titled, “The Mothers Act Disease Mongering Campaign.”
I hereby rest my case.
Evelyn Pringle
I posted this comment on Amy’s site and will also do so here.
The practice of websites initiating debates and then blocking the posts of commentators they disagree with needs to stop.
Especially in situations where a commentator is asked for sources on a previous post, because it leaves the impression that the sources were not provided.
In my case, leaving this impression is damaging to my credibility as an investigative journalist.
I will cover this issue extensively in my next article.
Evelyn Pringle
It looks like Grohol approved the comment that you posted on my blog and over here – I am not sure what time he did so but it shows a 2:14 or so time stamp, which is probably the time you submitted it. Who knows what happened there.
I was looking for it yesterday but I stopped checking his site at some point – I can’t remember what time.
Just cuz Ms. Pringle calls herself an investigative journalist doesn’t mean she is. I can call myself an astronaut….or a pirate….or a psychiatrist….or any other fantasy vocation. Doesn’t mean it’s true! Oh wait…this is the Internet…no critical-thinking skills allowed.
A google search of my name and “drugs” will easily document my investigative reporting on the pharmaceutical industry.
I challenge Amanda Reckonwith to produce the name of a journalist who has published more investigative articles and reports on Big Pharma than I have over the last 5 years.
I rarely participate in online debates through blogging but when I do I can back up anything I say because I’ve usually already investigated and reported on the topic.
Evelyn Pringle
I am a twinkie… masquerading as a psychiatrist…
What a coincidence! I get my rocks off by eating twinkies while sitting here at my computer for between 12 and 18 hours every day masquerading as an investigative journalist.
Evelyn Pringle
Well it provides a counterpoint to the sociopaths masquerading as academicians, described in another comment somewhere else in this site.
And Evelyn, you don’t have to sign your name because it shows up automatically in the byline. Lol.
hahaha… I’m a retired 30 year old mom to a first grader… masquerading as an internet commentator.
Dr Bremner reminded me:
And Evelyn, you don’t have to sign your name because it shows up automatically in the byline. Lol.
Sorry about that. I guess I get caught up in the worry that somebody might accuse me of trying to “masquerade” as an anonymous blogger.
Dr. Bremner, just my opinion, but I suspect the reason you riled Dr. Grohol has to do with the fact that he can’t very well blame your opposition to the Mother’s Act on Scientology or Anti-psychiatry. I wish the debate over this bill didn’t have to devolve into that. It’s so tiring.
I’m not anti-psychiatry & I’m not a scientologist, but I do oppose the Mother’s Act. I consider it an invasion of privacy. I also think it tells physicians how they should practice medicine, and I would rather leave that up to the physician. Why the need to screen me for and educate me about postpartum depression, if I’m not depressed and I already know about it? That’s like doctors being told they must warn all skinny people about the dangers of obesity. It doesn’t apply to every woman, so why not let the physician decide who needs to hear about it and who doesn’t?
As for those arguing we need more education about postpartum depression, I would disagree. I am saturated with advertisements for the s/s of depression. It’s everywhere. On t.v., in magazines, etc. I would have to live in a cave not to recognize the signs/symptoms.
Another interesting thing I’ve noticed, is that those who are pro-mother’s act believe that this bill will reduce stigma. In the same breath they bring up extreme examples like Andrea Yates and Melanie Blocker-Stokes, implying that women are ticking time bombs who at any moment sans medication will flip out and kill themselves or their children. Most women do not kill themselves or their children, even those who are depressed. Yet, you wouldn’t know it from the pro-mother’s act crew. Stigma, indeed.
I fully support women who are depressed seeking help for depression and taking medication if they so choose. I do not support the Mother’s Act.
Seems Grohol may not have actually physically blocked comments, but just had them stuck in a filter for whatever reason? However here is a website that does seem to be blocking comments. As of yesterday, the comments were posted, now they are gone. I posted another.
http://blogs.musc.edu/womenspeak/post/2009/07/Can-I-Continue-to-Take-Antidepressants-in-Pregnancy.aspx
I told the lady,
“A real doctor has replied to your “article”: http://bit.ly/17cBVG Dr. Baughman, Fmr. Director March of Dimes Birth Defects Clinic, responds to @MUSChealth on antidepressants/pregnancy”
So I realize this lady is not famous but there will be a lot of women who read this blog and don’t get to see the truth because she blocks / deletes comments.
And babies could die because of it.
Bogus “news” sites don’t count, Evelyn. Did you ever work at a real paper? You know, the kind that confers legitimacy.
Can’t you read Amanda?
As stated above, I’m merely masquerading as an investigative journalist as I sit here eating twinkies.
And I certainly do not have time to respond to idiots like you inbetween bites.
The Twinkie defense has been done.
Evelyn Pringle is not defending anything besides helpless babies. “Amanda Reckonwith,” you are wasting your oh-so-precious and I am sure otherwise well-spent time.