No Mercy For Those Who Invent Facts
Few things cheese me off more than people who just make stuff up to promote their agendas. I understand spin, and I understand misinformation spread through ignorance. But just making stuff up either to cover one's own ignorance or to discredit the other side has no excuse. Religion is hard enough to figure out when dealing with facts: we don't need this sort of childishness.
Kirstie Alley and Scientology's Citizens Commission on Human Rights are protesting The MOTHERS Act, which is meant to provide more information about postpartum depression to new and expectant mothers. It also pushes for greater research into the condition.
Scientologists do not agree with mainstream medical treatments for postpartum depression, and they generally dismiss any medical advice that smacks of psychiatry. That's their right. if they feel that women would be given bad information through this bill, they certainly have a right to speak against it.
According to the Daily Kos, however, that's nowhere close to what Kirstie Alley is doing. Instead, she's been twittering messages about the MOTHERS Act such as insisting it involves forcible drugging of both mothers and babies.
This isn't an issue of mere misunderstanding. This is, at best, passing along rampant, unfounded, and unresearched rumor; at worst, deliberate misrepresentation.
To be fair, a quick search of the Internet will bring up several other groups protesting this bill. However, they are generally concerned with increased prescriptions of antidepressants for new and, especially, expectant mothers as more mothers are screened for mental conditions.
Whether a doctor decides to recommend medication is his choice. Whether the mother decides to take that advice is her choice, and offering choices and information simply does not equate to forcibly drugging someone.
Image courtesy Frederick M. Brown/Stringer / Getty images
Comments
Thank you, thank you, thank you. It has been very frustrating to those of us who are advocates for women with perinatal mood and anxiety disorders to see the complete false statements and misrepresentations being spread around. There is NO mandate that women be screened in the Senate Bill (S324 – Google it and read it for yourself, people). There is NO requirement that anyone be drugged. Therapy, for instance, is shown by research to be an effective treatment for PPD. We’ve been shouting this to the rooftops, and now, thanks to Ms. Alley’s tweets, the mainstream is beginning to recognize what’s going on.
That you Katherine for the actual bill number! I wasn’t previously able to find a link for the actual text of the bill. Anyone who wants to read it can find it here:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s324/text
The tactic of targeting Scientologists as whackos because they object to the profit-driven disease mongering involved in the bogus invention of an epidemic of mental disorders in this country is getting old.
There are many groups involved in the campaign against the passage of the Mothers Act and given the number of pharma funded front groups that we’re up against we are going to stand together.
I have written numerous article pointing out that this bill is not what it purports to be. If the bill was really aimed at only conducting research to help the relatively few women who suffer from true postpartum depression and psychosis you would not hear a word from me.
It’s the sick and obvious plot to reel in all pregnant and nursing mothers with screenings for a whole slew of mood and anxiety disorders that has me steaming.
The poster above, Katherine Stone provides the best example of what is going to happen to all these women when she explained on her website how she ended up taking “Effexor, Celexa, Seroquel, Risperdal, Wellbutrin, Luvox, Cymbalta, etc.” for a simple diagnosis of postpartum obsessive compulsive disorder.
And furthermore, she said she was still on meds five years later. Deceptively, after I wrote the article, she removed the above list of drugs from her website page and claimed her doctor didn’t know what he was doing.
I have been covering the development of this bogus epidemic by the psychopharmceutical cartel since 2004 and the same off-label drug marketing scheme that targets subgroups for mental illness screening has been used too many times to count.
The latest Mothers Act scam is certainly nothing new to those of us who cover the pharmaceutical industry.
Evelyn Pringle
As a MOTHER who is not a Scientologist (I’m Episcopalian), but has spent the past four years warning others about the deadly risks of psych drugs, and about 15 months nonstop fighting the MOTHERS Act, as I was one of the women drugged through mental health screening, I want to point out what is missing from your article:
A. The previous bill did say all women would be screened {{click here http://tinyurl.com/oak9l4}} There’s no invention of facts going on with Kirstie Alley. What Kirstie didn’t realize is that last year’s language has been changed for the new session. It’s an honest mistake.
B. The current bill is just as dangerous and the previous bill… It’s amazing to me that Katherine Stone says she is concerned about women with “perinatal mood and anxiety disorders” yet the groups pushing this bill do not promote informed consent. Their websites are full of promotions of pharma spin, claiming that the benefits outweigh the risk for treating pregnant and nursing mothers with drugs. Watch the videos on my youtube channel if you want the truth: http://tinyurl.com/r9l9k2
C. We currently have 45 groups on our organizational coalition, 1786 members of our Facebook coalition against the bill and 11,235 signatures on our petition. Like myself, many of these people are survivors but some have lost children or spouses to psych drugs.
Align yourself with psych drugs if you want to, but keep in mind that the FDA has issued dozens of warnings on psych drugs. This includes a black box suicide warning for antidepressants and warnings about the risks for the unborn babies and nurslings of mothers on these medications.
Unlike PSI and the numerous other mental “health” groups who promote drugs, none of us on the coalition has pharma conflicts of interest. http://tinyurl.com/q8w23h
If anyone is interested in the truth about our coalition and the facts about the MOTHERS Act, visit http://tinyurl.com/newfaxstopMA.
Don’t you think it’s funny that you wrote this article on The MOTHERS Act without having read the actual text of the bill?
Here are the reasons the bill is doomed: http://tinyurl.com/newfaxstopMA
It’s from an article by Kelly O’Meara who led several Congressional investigations during her tenure as a Congressional staffer. Maybe you should read the bill before writing, Catherine.
Hmmm, maybe I was wrong. Maybe you did read the text but just didn’t have a Thomas link. Oh well, either way your article needs more information.
A quick note to thank you for writing on this topic of what is unfortunately such a huge debate but really shouldn’t be. As I’ve written on my own blog, we should be embracing the opportunity to bring this country out of the dark with respect to perinatal mood disorders…progress way overdue. We don’t need outrageous statements being made by celebrities to incite outrage through misleading statements. The mere mention of the word “screening” doesn’t mean all mothers will be forcibly screened beyond their wishes. The mere mention of the word “treatment” doesn’t mean all mothers will be forced to take an antidepressant. Those in opposition to the bill may call me naive all they want. Do these anti-pharma people realize that women with perinatal mood disorders need help, which means a need for an increase in research efforts, alternative treatment options, postpartum support services, etc. Most of all, it will mean an increase in education and public awareness. Which means fewer women will suffer in silence.
Catherine, sorry, but instead of pointing your fingers at alleged bias of Kirstie Alley you should look at yourself. Recently your reporting turned into a biased, clearly uninformed rant about anything that seems to smell “scientology”. If you are so unable to keep your head above the noise level of a highly polarized debate you should decide to write about flower pots or bees.
I just find it interesting that you have yet to post my original comment, despite the fact that I resubmitted it after you posted my subsequent two comments, and emailed you to ask if it would be posted and included a copy of the comment. And depsite the fact that you then went on to publish more comments hours later. All that means is that this blog has zero credibility whatsoever and that you’re unwilling to post the information I provided. Seems like you don’t want people to know about the language from last year’s bill at all.
OK here is one solid fact. I contacted the FDA about approved therapies for PPD. Of course, they regulate medications. This is what they said: “Currently there are no medications approved by FDA specifically for the treatment or management of post-partum depression or post-partum psychosis.” That is one fact Scientologists and psychiatrists can agree on. That one fact means any medication recommended then is “off-label.” Why would gov fund a bill that would set up a national “off-label” push knowing the FDA has NO treatments for the disease showing safety or effectiveness? They wouldn’t! And, that is why they haven’t. It is for safety reasons. To claim these medications “are safe,” “will help,” “will prevent,” or “will treat,” is NOT an FDA approved statement and is misleading. Claiming early diagnosis and treatment will prevent or treat it is also unsubstantiated by the FDA. Any research or group promoting claims of effectiveness is not supported by the FDA and puts patients in harms way. People do have choices, but they need to be fully informed. Both sides can agree there cannot be any claims towards medication being safe and effective, when there is no FDA claim to back that up. Doctors have their opinion and it is just that, opinion, when it is not FDA approved. A bill wanting to fund promoting doctor opinions about treatment is not effective therapy, it is guess work. Promoting this widely when we cannot give complete and accurate information about the treatment is lack of informed consent. Government investigates “off-label” activities, they do not promote it. I understand that is hard to swallow. But, safety does come first.
Not sure how the wording from last year’s bill is relevant. We should be focusing on this year’s bill. Which does not mandate screening or meds, period. Even if a doctor were to screen someone by asking a few questions, simply to see how she’s feeling (and for her own benefit), the woman has the right to decline, just as she has the right to declind meds prescribed to her. What we need is education. Would those opposed to the bill like to take the lead on helping to educate the pubic about postpartum depression?
Amy,
Stop thinking everything is a conspiracy theory. Most posts are published automatically – I have nothing to do with it. Occasionally the spam filter holds one for review, which is what happened to your missing post (and the copies you sent of that post). Believe it or not, I don’t actually sit at my computer every moment of the day checking the filter. You submitted it yesterday. I just approved it today, when I found it.
It’s not a giant plot against you or your cause.
Thank you Amy for your links to your sources. I find it very important that anyone having a view cites where they get their information from and found that you were able to provide not only facts but documentation to support it and I do appreciate that. On the other hand, I have not found any supporting evidence from Catherine or Katherine (with all due respect), except criticism towards a religious group for their views. And, looking at Catherine’s website, I was looking for some official link to the groups websites she criticizes and there was none. Only her opinions about them. I found that harmful, as she is a college professor, and wonder if they know that she is speaking condescendingly of a religion being in humanities. It was a bit of religious intolerance. I found that disappointing to say the least and would not want my children fed this intolerant propaganda (of any religion) from any teacher at their university. The school may want to consider that too. I found Catherine did not give ANY specific points that the groups were “misrepresenting.” I was able to follow easily though Amy’s points. As a nurse, I know that doctors have a right to prescribe whatever they want. I also know that patients are put at a disadvantage because they are not told “this drug is not FDA approved for your condition/age group/ect…but we want to try it out on you instead.” And we also know that pharma reps will sell meds to any condition they can…OH the lunches!!!! When Catherine states “Whether a doctor decides to recommend medication is his choice” it is sort of a cop out and negligence of the fact that so many pharma companies DO pervert the information to promote more sales and doctors are easily paid off with lunches to prescribe off-label. When doctors are paid incentives – medicating IS “mandatory.” That is an understood, you do not even need to write it in a bill. So, again, how does that protect the integrity and information, and informed consent of any pregnant woman out there? It does not. And, you fall very short in showing how you are going to protect these moms from this type of abuse. And thanks to Amy (because she was able to present her points so well) I did check out the pro-Mother’s Act groups’ websites. These groups receiving pharma funding, then trying to say the bill has nothing to do with increasing or enforcing medication, really takes away from their credibility and intention for supporting the bill. I am not sure how you are able to wiggle your way out of that one unless these pharma supported groups post they will never receive any pharma funding ever again. Until then, their opinion IS tainted, and any barking toward any group opposing the Mother’s Act will fall on deaf ears, quite frankly.
Alheli,
Really, you looked all over my site? How about this one?
http://altreligion.about.com/od/alternativereligionsaz/a/scientology.htm
You can get to it by clicking a link provided in this very blog post. The page is called “Introduction to Scientology” and there are links to three official Church of Scientology sites.
I will check them out!
Any claim in this debate that no one will end up forcibly drugged ignores the most important victims, the fetus in the womb and the nursing infants who will have absolutely no say over what chemicals get dumped into their bodies.
These helpless, voiceless babies are the ones that need to be protected most against the Mothers Act marketing scheme.
Evelyn Pringle
Catherine, your comment to me to “stop thinking everything is a conspiracy theory” is funny. Considering that I have lived through forced drugging and I am in contact with women whose babies died from psych drug exposure, there’s no need for either the term theory or the term conspiracy. Thank you for finally approving my original comment and moving it to #4 instead of #8 or wherever it would have been in chronological order.
You should change the name of your post from No Mercy For Those Who Invent Facts to “No Mercy For Vulnerable Women and Their Children”
By the way – how do you invent a fact? And how do you think something is a conspiracy theory?
As to the writer who posted that last year’s bill does not matter – the reason last year’s bill does matter is because a lot of people are still basing their opinions on the fact that last year’s bill said “to ensure new mothers are screened” a la mandatory. People get confused by the constant spin and changing and hiding that goes on with the proponents of the bill. You can’t blame Kirstie Alley or any other opponent of the bill for not keeping up with the latest psych cartel recovery argument. All of the proponents of last year’s bill were fine with it even though it had the langauge to establish screening of every woman. Just in case you need to see what was in last year’s bill one more time, here it is: http://tinyurl.com/oak9l4
See:
http://tinyurl.com/inmemMatthew
http://tinyurl.com/IndiVid
http://tinyurl.com/l3c6ll
Furthermore, even without the word mandatory in the bill, people like me get forced all the time. If you support the bill, you support the expansion of forced treatment and death. When women go crazy on the meds they wind up in the psych ward forcibly treated. It’s not that complicated.
Oh and by the way, your quick search revealed several groups? Is 46 groups “several?”
http://tinyurl.com/kk8k6a
How about 1900 people on Facebook or 11,300 petition signatures?
Must have been a mighty quick search.
The most obvious problem with the bill is simple. There are hundreds upon hundreds of reports on file with the FDA on side effects of antidepressant and anti-psychotic drugs on pregnant women and nursing mothers, already being prescribed for women diagnosed PPD. These have been filed as official adverse reactions with the FDA’s Medwatch system by doctors, pharmacists, other health care providers and consumers. Anyone can verify this for themselves. There are numerous clinical trials showing the harm of these drugs on pregnant women and nursing mothers (conducted by scientists and researchers who were NOT getting paid by Pharma when they did their research). Considering women are already being put on these drugs for “postpartum depression” and since there is obviously a risk (which the PPD proponents never really promote…hmmm wonder why that is?) ask yourself why there is not very specific language in the MOTHERS Act stating, “Hey folks, before we go endorsing, promoting or increasing mental health screening of pregnant women and new moms, considering there are documented risks of these drugs being given to women diagnosed PPD, we are going to do the right thing by them, their unborn children and nursing infants and very, very thoroughly review ALL FDA adverse reaction reports which we have never done! We are also going to review all existing clinical trial data on the side effects of these drugs, (not the ones published by Pharma funded researchers,) which we have also never done! We are then going to publish those findings, ensure any conflicts of interest of the “researchers” are disclosed (see NIH now asking if they should INCREASE their disclosure of conflicts of interest of their own researchers), then we are going to make all this information available for consumer and peer review from the medical community to ensure we have published accurate information. Ok after we have done our due diligence, then, and only then, will we even consider any new “screening” tools being promoted or used in any medical setting (which we will also ensure are not designed by anyone receiving Pharma funds as many screening tests have been) and we certainly will not allow any national “educational” or PSA campaigns (which we should really call what they are, Pharma’s advertising dream – national TV and radio coverage of PPD with absolutely no FDA oversight on false or misleading advertising claims as they are PSAs; while their current clinical drug trials for treating PPD roll through ) we will not allow any of this considering what we already know, that the FDA has been investigated for withholding information on antidepressant dangers by Congress (2004) that conflicts of interest are rampant with numerous pharma “researchers” and or “experts” that screening tools have in the past been the brainchild of Pharma, and that there are already numerous reports on file with the FDA on the drugs being prescribed to treat women causing horrific side effects. No, we will not be party to augmenting or increasing or endorsing any of these things as we care about mothers and their unborn children.” Yep. Thats what a bill designed to protect mothers instead of Pharma would say.
Scientology is a religion and Scientologists inform all people this fact before they become involved in Scientology. This allows you to consider whether your own religious views contradict or do not contradict Scientologist religious doctrines. Other religions, such as Christian Scientists have their own opinions concerning treatment for medical problems, so why not allow Scientologists to have their opinions? Jahovah’s Witnesses also do not allow blood tranfers, yet this does not get much attention. Scientologists should be praised for their honesty and if you do not like Scientology then find another religion.
Amy,
I never said “last year’s bill does not matter.” If you have better ideas on 1) how to educate the country and bring people out of the dark on PPD, 2) how to ensure that women who need help will receive treatment they need, and 3) how we can put more research effort to improve treatment options, pls do share.
Keep talking, Amy and Evelyn. You betray your own “issues” with every word. It’s diagnostic, in fact. Scientologists and their sympathizers need to get real jobs and stop being paid by the celebrities to spread this swill. Legitimate mental health experts don’t have time to obsess all day on the Internet as you two do. And that’s what you’re counting on — outnumbering the sane people.
Give it up, Amy. We’re tired of hearing about your “forced drugging,” for which we just have your word. And really, who care? Personally, I think you need some medication NOW and probably did in the past, too.