Furious Seasons

April 23, 2009

PsychCentral.com Slams Me, I Reply

It's been an interesting last two weeks or so around here: I get interviewed by Psychology Today's website two weeks ago and last week none other than the great CL Psych noted:

"After a very interesting interview with Philip Dawdy, and now one with David Healy (and other interesting posts), I am really glad the Psychology Today has Christopher Lane on board. I'm sure some people are not pleased with Lane interviewing two of the more prominent critics of modern psychiatry."

Flattering to say the least. Last week, too, I wrote a post noting the controversy around the MOTHERS Act, expressed my view that post partum depression is real, that it's treatment (as with all "depressions") is fraught with problems and then offered a few skeptical observations about PPD now as compared with the past. As some of you know, I got knifed up very hard by some of the supports of the ACT, even ones who claimed I had denied the very existence of PPD. Among the critics was John Grohol, the founder of PsychCentral.com who emailed me to complain about one bloody graf in my post. We exchanged emails and the other day Grohol wrote a post attacking skeptics of the MOTHERS Act and singling me out in particular.

Sometimes I ignore criticism of my writing on the Net, but a lot of people read PsychCentral and its blogs, including some of my colleagues in the media, so a non-response on my part isn't possible.

"It is estimated that postpartum depression (PPD) affects from 10 to 20 percent of new mothers. In the United States, there may be as many as 800,000 new cases of postpartum conditions each year. The cause of PPD isn’t known but changes in hormone levels, a difficult pregnancy or birth, and a family history of depression are considered possible factors.
"Sounds good to me. But Philip Dawdy over at Furious Seasons remains skeptical:

"'Here’s the thing that makes my scratch my head, however: women have given birth for many thousands of years and many have experienced “baby blues,” until recently without mental health screenings or psych meds of any kind and without a bunch of arm waving about post-partum depression (the advocacy on this issue is a phenomenon of the last decade). Broadly speaking, the lack of such supposed benefits does not seem to have harmed society a bit, although there are obviously individual exceptions.'

"With that same logic, Philip could be scratching his head about a lot of disorders where, prior to their “invention,” people seemed to get along just fine in society — attention deficit disorder (ADHD), PTSD, panic attacks, autism, Asperger’s syndrome, etc. It’s no surprise to anyone who’s studied women’s history to understand how repressed their voices have been in society until the past few decades. So is it any wonder that history isn’t filled with their accounts of grappling with postpartum depression? A woman would be an outcast from their own family for admitting such a thing even 50 years ago. Even possibly disowned or institutionalized. It just wasn’t said or discussed much."

Where do you even start with this kind of shit? To begin with, the whole feminist line, which Grohol accepts, that all women were oppressed at all times in American history prior to say 1980 to the point where they couldn't speak about anything is excessive on its face and pretty much sexist propaganda. It's also a cheap shot considering that some women have publicly criticized the Act. And instead he goes after a guy? Nice.

But, anyway, yes, in 1946 approximately 4 million women gave birth (the same number as in recent years but with less than half the 300 million or so Americans that there are now), so if you believe Grohol about 800,000 women would have had PPD (note: Grohol and I aren't talking about postpartum psychosis or so-called baby blues). It is a big stretch to assume that that many women could be muzzled about having depression. But, in revisionist American social history, all men are rapists, wife beaters, neer-do-wells and raging alcoholics who silence their women folk for fun. Look, there are plenty of lousy men now and there were then, but for all of them to successfully silence the women is the kind of a claim that sets by bullshit detector off. I find it truly odd that before our age of medicalizing absolutely everything about our lives (for the profit of Big Pharma and doctors of course) that some kind of data, literature, cultural anecodotes or family histories from that time hasn't trickled through to ours on PPD.

More importantly, what I wrote in my original posting and what I tried to express in several emails to Grohol is that I was curious about what has changed about childbirth and being a new mom (indeed with being a woman) now as opposed to 1946 and if there might not be some clues there to help us address PPD (many things have changed about child birth and being a new mom over hte last 60 years). Because if 800,000 women a year are being laid low by PPD, then you'd want to leave no stone unturned in looking for answers and treatments, especially given the well-known problems with depression treatment. It'd pay to be a bit skeptical in such an environment and that's what I was trying to do as gingerly as possible. Besides, I didn't even deny the existence of PPD. In fact, I said it was real.

What's also cute is that Grohol ignores the fact that many of the critics of the MOTHERS Act are women (Evelyn Pringle is a good example) and that there are many, many examples of anti-depressants damaging new moms and causing birth defects. They want to be heard, they want a voice in all this, too. Would Grohol support an act of Congress for them? Or would the pharma ads on his website reduce his interest in assisting them?

But what really tears it for me is when Grohol asserts: "With that same logic, Philip could be scratching his head about a lot of disorders where, prior to their “invention,” people seemed to get along just fine in society — attention deficit disorder (ADHD), PTSD, panic attacks, autism, Asperger’s syndrome, etc."

Grohol knows quite well that I scratch my over ADHD, bipolar disorder 2, social anxiety disorder, depression and the like (in some cases their validity, but mostly about questions of prevalence, diagnosis and treatment), so it's not clear to me what he's saying here. But if he's going to bang on me for being skeptical about mental disorders, then he really ought to extend his attack to Healy himself who is deeply skeptical about what's gone on with bipolar disorder over the last two decades. I'd really, really, really like to see that. Maybe he can also go after CL Psych for his all skepticism over diagnostic criteria.

What really PO's me about some in the MOTHERS Act crew is that they support an act named after Melanie Blocker Stokes, who experienced post partum depression and committed suicide despite several psych hospitalizations, several different medications and several rounds of ECT. Do they not wonder--just a little--if her treatment weren't as detrimental as her depression?

Even more, Act supporters are pushing legislation that will create a federal government program that will seek to raise awareness of PPD in our culture. Fair enough. Unfortunately, federal government programs to address this or that mental health crisis do not exactly have a glorious record of success. In 1999, Healthy People 2010 set as one of its big goals the reduction of the suicide rate in America by 50 percent. Today we have roughly the same suicide rate as in 1999. In 2004, Congress passed the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, which has clearly ended teen suicide as we know it in America (if only it had).

If passed, I hope the MOTHERS Act and the many moms with PPD fare far, far better.

Posted by Philip Dawdy at April 23, 2009 12:01 AM

del.icio.us Digg it reddit

Comments

I wrote this in the last thread and I will again, based on my own experience of 3 pregnancies, and having no depression or any other significant after event from childbirth (and no casserole laden parents etc helping me, etc)I would be completely outraged if just because as a pregnant woman I would be screened for depression, based on others' outcomes.

I'd like to see caregiver respite and in home mother-helper funding for all mothers with children under age 2.

Maybe it's time to REMOVE THE PSYCH CENTRAL AWARD BADGE from this blog, hell their site is so flooded with Seroquel XR ads I could barely focus to read the link you left on this story. Makes me glad to see 'therapyfirst' over there hammering away at the 'pill for all ills' thought paradigm.

There are extreme cases and this isn't to say this doesn't ruin some women's & children's lives, (obviously Andrea Yates et al) but to want to broad stroke ALL women for screening is as bad as teen screen!

I seriously despise it when there are assumptions made about me and this is a category where that would apply.

Posted by: Stephany at April 23, 2009 04:46 AM

i believe the act has picked up a little momentum recently, after some negotiations including cutting the call for systematic screening.

this is a quote from apr 20 'postpartum progress' blog:"Senator Menendez has worked hard to reach across the aisle and ensure that the language of the bill was changed to accommodate the concerns of Republicans as well as outside parties like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. There is no mandatory screening, for instance."

--The mandatory screening is the main part that sticks in the craw of many. It is very Brave-New-World. Like President George Herbert Walker Eli Lilly Bush's New Freedom Commission on Creating Expanded Markets for Pharmaceutical Cronies, we have seen and will continue to see market expansion through the guise of benevolent government-sponsored health campaigns. It is possible, and worth worrying about, that the big push for the Mothers Act has been a way for the pharmaceutical companies to sell more drugs.

Cutting out screening, and making the mothers act to simply be about research, and not screening, is good news. There is already research money out there for post-partum depression, and valid, worthy studies can get funded in NIMH etc. in other RFPs along with ppd-specific funding, whether this act finally makes it through or not.

So, opposing this Act will not end the possibility of PPD research. but if it has gotten the mandated-screening part cut out, then I am happy to find the pharmaceutical companies yet again thwarted in thir efforts to mandate Orwellian happiness.

Posted by: MedsVsTherapy at April 23, 2009 06:28 AM

Peace be with you Philip

Nice response. Keep scratching your head, it really is helping.

love eternal
tad

Posted by: tad at April 23, 2009 09:54 AM

Interesting that he puts out the 20% figure without any citations. Most of the articles suggest that the known prevalence rate for PPD is murky at best, but, at most, it's probably 15% (See, Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Apr;200(4):357-640) Yet a population study put it much lower (See, JAMA. 2006 Dec 6;296(21):2582-9). Undoubtedly, PDD exists and is real, but it does seem to matter whether the incidence rate is 800,000 or 100,000 when allocating precious research monies.

But as you note, there is a real question about whether "awareness" campaigns make any difference. Likewise, Grohol assumes that the only reason Coburn would oppose “disease-specific” legislation is because he's against funding for that disease. He very might be - I have no idea - but there are surely other reasons to oppose that type of legislation. One only has to look at arraignment of the various divisions of NIMH to see how this is so.

Posted by: Steve at April 23, 2009 09:58 AM

I actually get dismayed when people roll out Andrea Yates as a poster mom for PPD and PPP. I'm not denying she definitely had postpartum issues but if you read the book Are You Home Alone? you may see, as I did, that her biggest problem was the treatment she got, just like Melanie Stocker Blokes. (Warning, beating of dead horse about to resume ;) The book is full of clinical details going all the way back to her first treatment with Zoloft. It gives dosages and everything. Near the end of her children's lives, she was abruptly withdrawn from Haldol and put on megadoses of Remeron and Effexor, two darn nasty antidepressants. And we are talking doses that were above the recommended therapeutic maximum. Then she was left alone in the house with her five kids. You tell me if you don't think this made a significant difference in the outcome. This is not a woman who should be used as evidence we need more awareness around PPD, PPP or even schizophrenia. It's evidence that treatment is not all it's cracked up to be and ought to be handled a lot more carefully than it typically is.

Posted by: Sara at April 23, 2009 10:16 AM

Philip,

I followed your like to Grohol's blog which I hardly ever look at anymore and got so fired up I commented over there, meanhwhile, my comment on Grohol’s blog is awaiting moderation so I thought I’d submit it to you with this first bit added:

You write:

“More importantly, what I wrote in my original posting and what I tried to express in several emails to Grohol is that I was curious about what has changed about childbirth and being a new mom (indeed with being a woman) now as opposed to 1946 and if there might not be some clues there to help us address PPD (many things have changed about child birth and being a new mom over the last 60 years).”

I just don’t get why these people refuse to look at the cultural and societal issues surrounding human despair. What an Achilles heel for a lot of well meaning people. In the below exchange I even catch myself agreeing with TherapyFirst, who makes the Road to Hell point….

Grohol writes that among other things the legislation will have the effect of:
“Requiring the Secretary of HHS to conduct a study on the benefits of screening for postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis.”
Whoah, there, shouldn’t there have been some study already conducted to determine if screening is beneficial before making screening mandatory?
How can you recommend something that hasn’t been determined to be helpful(not a rhetorical question)?
My experience is similar to that of Bob D. who writes:
“I’ve personally worked with hundreds of people who have suffered greatly from psychological problems. I know their suffering is real. But that doesn’t mean I have to buy into the notion that they have a disease. I’ve seen many helped by medication, even people who would fall apart completely without it. But that still doesn’t support the notion that people have diseases and that those diseases are being “treated” by the meds.
Until psychology and psychiatry have a sensible, comprehensive theoretical framework (and this can’t happen when the DSM, NAMI, and leading academic researchers are unduly influenced by Big Pharma) we will fall into the same ruts again and again.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Though I must confess I also agree with TherapyFirst who writes:
“… I see the same theme today as with other patients a lot: a common dynamic. especially with first time moms, is being a single parent and being overwhelmed as with few if any supports. So, is the issue a biochemical matter needing meds, or at least in conjunction with therapy and quick case management access to provide options and access to supports?”
I don’t like the idea of making women who fail a screening being forced to pay for therapy or even case management, god forbid for meds. And since even those who believe in screenings understand that the most egregious cases are the ones not picked up in screenings, uh, like Andrea Yates and Melanie Blocker Stokes, why don’t we pass umbrella legislation providing financial support for childcare and food and prenatal care for women and children, all women and children. That is something Charlotte Perkins Gilman would have wanted - not this sexist, degrading stigmatizing legislation that by the way makes institutionalization more likely than in Perkins day and of course robs, with it’s stigma, the mother of custody rights to her child. The road to hell indeed…

Posted by: Sally at April 23, 2009 10:22 AM

I'm going to say something blunt: Andrea Yates had psych issues that were aa result from bad care and poor psych med management and frankly, (here goes)shouldn't have had so many kids, so my point being when saying that is: WHAT ABOUT THE FATHER'S RESPONSIBILITY?

We read here about ppl wanting intervention from society, from drugs, from professionals, screening, etc. well the woman/women lives with a partner (most of the time)and is it too ideal to expect that relationship to help prevent Andrea Yates type of situations?

Also, while being blunt, I may as well say as far as Grohol taking his arguement from email (where it could have remained)and then writing about it like he did, well everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I'd say F-em, and ditch that endorsement badge up there, afterall it's a heavy drug ad site, but then maybe none of that matters.

I also believe that Andrea Yates should be mentioned here, because the media hypes those stories so much that IF a woman does suffer w PDD what do you think the stigma will be?

So, if anything bring her up here makes perfect sense to debunk the extremes of PDD.

I would LOVE to see a researcher area FINALLY look at women's HORMONES because many women have been misdiagnosed with a mental illness label as a result of hormones that were a complete mess.

Anti depressants are not a treatment for hormone imbalance, and THAT is why this is a dangerous idea...countless women can end up on a lifetime of psych meds as a result.

Posted by: Stephany at April 23, 2009 11:06 AM

there are many, many examples of anti-depressants damaging new moms and causing birth defects. They want to be heard, they want a voice in all this, too. Would Grohol support an act of Congress for them? Or would the pharma ads on his website reduce his interest in assisting them?

you hit the nail on the head there baby. I slam psych central here:

Psych Central is a pharma mill

Grohol has totally sold out.

Screw him.

the only reason I glance at his site is to keep an eye on what the latest bullshit is.

Posted by: Gianna at April 23, 2009 11:52 AM

I left this comment at Psych Central and now here in response to Grohol's article:

Let’s see if we can even fathom this delicate issue for a moment, while attempting to get past the obvious conflicts of interest involved here with “Psych Central”?

Does government have a right or even an obligation to intercede on a said person’s HIPPA protected Health Care Rights and Choices?

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights may tend to point us in a completely other direction in relation to individual’s rights and self determination in these deeply personal matters as in this case related to PPD.

If government is going to mandate intrusion upon personal liberties and choose {since you are talking “Women’s Rights” here; shall we add abortion into the foray as it relates to choice also}. The privacy issues alone make this bad legislation in fact.

I would say personally, they (The Government) better have stronger evidence and reasoning than an unconfirmed 10-20% incidence ratio, and some form of impending, looming, or emergency health crisis to build that “Mother’s Act” case upon quite frankly.

If you’re running ads for Big Pharma on a site for profit as “Psych Central” without doubt does; and then you take a stance that appears on the surface and without much debate would benefit those Advertised Interest. Then just maybe those opinions could be and should be seen as less than independent or free from being influenced by those stating them.

Ironic that this opinion that John M. Grohol, Psy.D. made here falls pretty much directly in line with those of the Pharmaceutical Industries take on this issue. Is that just a coincidental, or some serious food for thought to be added into this conversation?

We all should know by now what is going on concerning the bad science, tainted studies, poorly ran clinical trials, criminal activities, and undue influence, and as added bonus thrown into the mix, that these drugs side effects and consequences that even our own FDA has taken a back seat to as it relates to the Pharmaceutical Industry and it’s scandalous activities.

Independent evaluation -vs. - conflict of interest! Psych Central - vs. - Furious Seasons!

That argument and difference of opinions should be weighed in the light of this dialogue, or it means nothing more than continued Pharma Peddling and propaganda for dollars. Thus in reality, it would be no argument after all.

Please be aware that those opposition voices that were once called anti-medicine, anti-psychiatry, and even “Scientologist” to discredit their validity; are now becoming no longer a fringe element of distraction; but quickly becoming the majority voice among those who truly advocate, are involved with, and are living with altered mental constitutions or conditions.

The “Mother’s Act” is bad politics, bad law, bad policy, and bad for America!

Posted by: R U conflicted at April 23, 2009 12:19 PM

It seems like everyone wants their pet theory of their pain validated: "I have a chemical imbalance!!!" Okay, if that idea is productive and healing then go for it. But when others theorize differently why so many of these people go on the attack I'll never understand. Those of us who have worked with psychiatrists to correct "chemical imbalances" and have been beaten up by psych meds need alternate explanations and treatments.

Posted by: David at April 23, 2009 12:24 PM

Stephany:

Psychoneuroendocrinology is a thriving field with lots of research looking at the psychological effects of hormone imbalances in patients. Just thought you'd like to know. :)

Posted by: dguller at April 23, 2009 04:31 PM

I love how I "slam you" by pointing out your skepticism and your "scratching your head." Well, ok. If that's a "slam," I hate to see what I'd do if we didn't think your site has been a great mental health blog in the past...

You know what's also cute? Arguing countless minutiae and details and ignoring the larger picture.

Are you against the federal government funding educational programs for health and mental conditions?

If yes, no matter what the condition, then fine, I understand where you're coming from.

But if no, what criteria are you using to rule in some conditions but not others? Percentage of population affected? Likely fatality rates?

Posted by: John Grohol at April 23, 2009 04:50 PM

Yeah I know, and my daughter had more success with treatment and care from endo docs than psychiatrists. The endo doc also verified (at an elite hospital)that she has permanent Polycystic Ovary Syndrome from 6 years of Depakote use, and now a permanent increase risk for cancer and little chance of bearing children. (from Depakote per wrong bipolar child diagnosis).

An endo work up is imperative before a psychiatrist check up in my opinion, for any woman who is having "mental" or "emotional" issues.

Posted by: Stephany at April 23, 2009 05:09 PM

something i wrote 2 years ago about hormones (from a series of 6 blog posts)

Saturday, March 17, 2007,Endocrinologist and Gynecologist needed, not a Psychiatrist; the underestimation of women's hormones, part 6

Interactions between the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis and the Female Reproductive System: Clinical Implications

"The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis exerts profound, multilevel inhibitory effects on the female reproductive system. Corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) and CRH-induced proopiomelanocortin peptides inhibit hypothalamic gonadotropin-releasing hormone secretion, whereas glucocorticoids suppress pituitary luteinizing hormone and ovarian estrogen and progesterone secretion and render target tissues resistant to estradiol. The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is thus responsible for the "hypothalamic" amenorrhea of stress, which is also seen in melancholic depression, malnutrition, eating disorders, chronic active alcoholism, chronic excessive exercise, and the hypogonadism of the Cushing syndrome. Conversely, estrogen directly stimulates the CRH gene promoter and the central noradrenergic system, which may explain adult women's slight hypercortisolism; preponderance of affective, anxiety, and eating disorders; and mood cycles and vulnerability to autoimmune and inflammatory disease, both of which follow estradiol fluctuations. Several components of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and their receptors are present in reproductive tissues as autacoid regulators. These include ovarian and endometrial CRH, which may participate in the inflammatory processes of the ovary (ovulation and luteolysis) and endometrium (blastocyst implantation and menstruation), and placental CRH, which may participate in the physiology of pregnancy and the timing of labor and delivery. The hypercortisolism of the latter half of pregnancy can be explained by high levels of placental CRH in plasma. This hypercortisolism causes a transient postpartum adrenal suppression that, together with estrogen withdrawal, may partly explain the depression and autoimmune phenomena of the postpartum period."

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/3/229

Posted by: Stephany at April 23, 2009 05:21 PM

I don't support it. I'll choose when and if I want to talk about any problems I may or may not have, and I don't need to be "screened." Frankly, it's none of their damn business unless I choose to make it their business. Most women do not go off the deep end when they have a baby. Some do. So therefore we all have to pay for that?

My sister was weepy for a while after she had her baby. She got over it. If she had been screened while she was weepy, I guess they would have rushed to offer a script. Medicating the human condition. It's what the U.S. does best.

Some mental health professionals are mentally unstable. I've met more than a couple. How would John Grohol et al feel if they had to be screened just because they belonged to that group? Let's require all mental health professionals be screened for mental problems. I bet he would change his tune, then.

Posted by: Lisa at April 23, 2009 05:25 PM

I will repeat my stance on this and as a woman who has given birth 3 times, was prepared for the hormonal fluctuations, and felt them! I would never want to be screened for something just because other people had severe outcomes!

I thought psychologists were alternatives to psychiatrists that don't push medications on people.

All psych field professionals should be screened for peanut allergies. How about that?

Posted by: Stephany at April 23, 2009 06:13 PM

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-the-dangerous-and-invasive-mothers-act

Posted by: Stephany at April 23, 2009 06:35 PM

stephany,
my multiple endo docs have been pretty much as bad as my psychiatrists giving me hormonal treatments that made me much sicker and never helped as well as unnecessary surgery.

endo can be largely controlled for a lot of women with diet. accupuncture is what finally controlled the pain...

also one of my friends who had PCOS was cured of it with acupuncture and is now pregnant with no western medical intervention (besides the depakote that gave her the PCOS to begin with which she is now free of)

Posted by: gianna at April 23, 2009 06:35 PM

Mothers Act: Bad Movie Rerun
by Evelyn Pringle / April 15th, 2009

http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/04/mothers-act-bad-movie-rerun/

Pregnant women and nursing mothers are rarely told that antidepressants take anywhere from three to six weeks to work, if they work at all. “We know that the natural history of depression means that many patients will improve within weeks whether treated or not,” says Dr David Healy, author of Let Them Eat Prozac.

“The overwhelming majority of women who are prescribed antidepressants are at little or no risk for suicide or other adverse outcomes from their nervous state,” he points out

“Treatment runs the risk of stigmatizing the person,” he says, “as well as giving them problems that they didn’t have to being with.”

---
Just a little more information and other side to the story stuff.

Posted by: Stephany at April 23, 2009 06:42 PM

Stephany:

Agreed.

Posted by: dguller at April 23, 2009 08:01 PM

I have to agree with Gianna above. PsychCentral is already swimming in pharmaceutical advertising. As a troubling example, here is the psychentral page about treating bipolar, which is plastered with ads for Seroquel:
http://i42.tinypic.com/o7mw03.jpg

It can't be lost on psychcentral that the MOTHER act will mean more drug company "land grab" as you say, and more marketing/advertising dollars to be spent on PPD.

Site owner Dr. Grohol has written in numerous places that all of his pharmaceutical advertising doesn't affect the content on the web site. But consider that nowhere on psychcentral.com could I find any information about the recent Seroquel research, that showed the dangers of the drug, but was buried by AstraZeneca.

At the same time, psychcentral has a review of Seroquel, and give it a 2.78 out out 5, on a page that contains, yes, ads to purchase Seroquel.

Can you say "conflict of interest?"

Posted by: Betsy K. at April 24, 2009 06:40 AM

Stephany,
Thanks for that URL. I never sign online petitions but I signed that one.
Sherry

Posted by: Sherry at April 24, 2009 09:13 AM

Sherry, interestingly, I posted the same stuff at psych central and they didn't post them. I have one comment in that thread, it appears they moderate by what they want to see in their comment section, because my other comments are not there. What a crock.

Posted by: Stephany at April 24, 2009 01:37 PM

Stephany:

Perhaps the most troubling thing about psychcentral.com is that they appear to control, post-by-post, what gets posted, and rarely allow anything critical on the site. When they do, Dr. Grohol often follows a critical post with a dismissive comment, and then will post no more from the reader.

I have tried to post this on psychcentral: http://www.i42.tinypic.com/o7mw03.jpg and asked for an explanation of the widespread pharma ads on the site. But Grohol will not post it or respond to it.

It is very troubling especially when considering that 1) the site seems to cater to many people who are seeking first-time answers to their psychiatric problems (and hence are vulnerable to being told that "meds are the solution") and 2) the site presents many reviews and positive endorsements of meds, including those that are advertised on the site.

Suprisingly, Grohol has written that getting money from pharmaceutical companies doesn't influence his decisions as site editor about the content of the site. But, isn't that what doctors say about taking pharma money ("I don't let it influence my professional decisions...")? However, research shows taking pharma money inevitably does influence professional decisions, at least in the medical field, and likely for journalists. How ironic!

Posted by: Betsy K. at April 25, 2009 02:10 AM

I really don't know the ins and outs of this bill, so my comment is general. Post-partum depression is real and does occur and is serious in that it can affect attachment (bonding) between mother and infant which will impact adversely on that child's development. So it is important it be diagnosed and treated when it occurs. Treatment is more than just medication. Prevention I believe is possible but requires a society wide intervention - address poverty and isolation and overwork for mothers. Scandinavian countries know how vital this is because infant-observation science shows it is and that long term outcomes for those children will impact the future economy let alone the children's personal success or risk of a host of problems in life. So the main thing is to give 12 months paid maternity leave, support groups for nursing mothers etc. But the USA and Australia sit at the bottom and second bottom of the developed economies when it comes to providing parenting leave and funding for early childhood supports. A stone age tribe provided more support for mothers and fathers. That is the basic problem for rise in PPD - even for middle class families - we are impoverished in terms of the lack of 24/7 extended family/clan support in caring for our children and babies - compared with indigenous hunter gatherer communities and our stone age ancestors. Modern dual working parents in a nuclear family is just not what we evolved to cope with - easily at any rate. A newborn human infant is incredibly vulnerable and demanding of nurture - our primate cousins are more developed at birth, some say pregnancy would need to last 2 years for human infants to be as developed as chimps or gorilla infants at birth. This vulnerability is theorised to have driven the social intelligence and social skills of our species as a full tribe was needed to care for parents and their children. When Bush interviewed the mother who said she was working 3 jobs to support her children - that is modern society's child abuse though of course not the mother's fault - just the capitalist consumerist society at work, which has some advantages, but is unnatural in so many ways for us.

Posted by: Aussie Child Psychiatrist at April 25, 2009 03:30 AM

Betsy K.

Thanks for the interesting comment and it sure makes Grohol at psych central appear arrogant, but most importantly, one sided and closed-minded. There's a post over there about "trolls or activists" and it directly links to this blog, and has an urban dictionary definition of "antipsychiatry".

I guess us commenters here are lumped into that site's definition for what that matters.

They even give self-help tips on how to survive reading a comment section like this one!

I'd rather read this, than watered down, moderated BS commentary on a site FULL of pharma ads. I suppose Grohol doesn't see how Seroquel XR (prominently advertised on his site)can end up being a primary drug treatment for these PPD suffering women, and I wonder how many of them will know that it's an antipsychotic?

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/04/13/troll-or-activist/

Posted by: Stephany at April 25, 2009 04:11 PM

Grohol -- Psychiatric diagnosis of Postpartum Depression is Real and stigmatized
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/04/21/postpartum-depression-is-real-but-still-stigmatized/

Postpartum Depression: Real, But Still Stigmatized By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. April 21, 2009
For decades, thousands of people in dozens of organizations have fought tirelessly to reduce the stigmatization and ignorance associated with mental health issues and mental disorders. Mental illness is not something you can just “get over,” nor is it an invention of the pharmaceutical companies (although I’m sure there are some who believe that).
Even within this dedicated group of people who are all fighting for the same things — recognition that mental illness is just as real as physical illness

Hi -
Here is an April 2009 propaganda peice by Grohol for the drug company A.P.A. psychiatric fraud version of Postpartum Depression.

In sentence three, Grohol establishes that this mysterious state that he is proposing, "mental illness," is not physical illness. His anti-rational, thought-crippling, disinformation message: "mental illness is just as real as physical illness."

For expectant mothers and new mothers this dysinformation propaganda peice by Grohol indicates to us what the situation is. Those women in the U.S.A. unfortuanate enough to be labelled with these, their nebulous, pretend-diagnoses of what -- in just three sentences -- Grohol calls, variously, quote, "ilnesses" disorders" and "issues," will be exposed to unending physical treatments (patent drugs and electric shocks to the head) for the what-ever-it-is that is "just as real" as physical disease and "does not just go away.".

Grohols disinfomation aricle is representative of an important wing of their program. They need to either indoctrinate people in their anti-rational rhetoric -- or at least they need to get it stated, out there, by these proganda mouthpeices as if it were believed by the medical profession and others so that it is there in print. Based on these activities they can then take the stance that their rhetoric is the accepted general belief and understanding, and base their operational wings of legislation, logistics and marketing on this propagandizing.

They intend to diagnose women as having postpartum conditions that are "just as real as physical" disease -- something they call "mental disorders" -- for which they would have us further believe there is only speculation as to cause (they state a need for ongoing study) and no physical curative treatment.

Susan Stone informs us that, before stopping to do pro bono, non-profit work to support passage of the Melanie Blocker Stokes, Mothers Act, she had a "six-figure" annual income in marketing at Coca-Cola. http://postpartumprogress.typepad.com/weblog/melanie_blocker_stokes_postpartum_depression_act/

As to what sort of treatment they anticipate providing to these mothers with the the diagnoses of having these their numinous diseases (disorders, depressions, conditions, issues, illnesses, whatever) -- that a person can't "get over"-- once they have their Mothers Act passed by the Senate, Susan Stone writes that, "there are people for whom medication does not work," so we can see from her words that they do not anticipate drugging everyone. That is... if they try drugging a womn a few times, and it turns out that this woman is one of the ones for whom in fact "mediciation does not work" then, they can something else. It is not all about drugs Susan Stone is telling us.

Susan Stone is not the first healthcare-focused PR professional to do pro-bono charitable work in the public interest! Rafael Casas-Don of Burston-Marsteller (a PR firm known for creating ‘grass-roots’ coalitions, extensive lobbying of legislators) "conducted pro-bono work for organzitions such as NAMI and several HIV and AIDS outreach programs." Also, during a period when NAMI, The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, found itself without a director, "Gerald Radke, Eli Lilly's marketing manager actually ran NAMI --a fact that was concealed until it was uncovered during court procedures."

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=534

Jerry Radke's role at NAMI was "strategic planning" for which he received only his usual Eli Lilly salary and nothing extra for his charitable work helping out the non-profit.

I had thought from rerading in context that Susan Stone was basicly refering to non-drug counciling, I realize now, her words point more to electric shocks across the head! ("for whom mediction does not work") -- another of their profit making items, in their inventory of physical treatments of conditions that are "just as real" as physical illness. When nerve-doping agents don't "work," well then, they're also are in the business of selling electric shocks to induce Grand Mal seizures and surgery to destroy brain tissue, i.e., the three physical treatment modalities of scientific medical psychiatry. Note: none of that dubious, post-Freudian ballyhoo anymore; now, they are "real."

Dan Burdick

"there are people for whom medication does not work" EmpowHer Susan Stone
www.empowher.com/news/herarticle/2009/04/07/melanie-blocker-stokes-mothers-act-becomes-shaky-platform-frustrated-anti

NAMI - An influential mental health nonprofit finds its 'grassroots' watered by pharmaceutical millions. Mother Jones MagazineJoneswww.heall.com/body/altmed/treatment/disease/psychological/nami.html

Examples of Manufacturing Grassroots Support
Bonner and Associates
John Davies
Burson-Marsteller

http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/envcrisis/fronts/grassroots/examples.html

Casas_Don returns to Burston
http://inbrief.prweekblogs.com/2007/11/13/casas-don-returns-to-burson-as-latin-american-heathcare-chair/ "heathcare-focused PR professionals"

Observer investigation reveals covert funding for health pressure groups.
www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-26-2004-59764.asp

Working for Repressive Regimes www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=395

BURSTON MARSTELLER PR http://www.wnho.net/pr_firm_from_hell.htm

Burson-Marsteller Offers Journalists Cash to Attend Drug Regulator's Hearing
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Burson-Marsteller

Burson-Marsteller - "a computer-driven 'grass roots' letter and phone-in campaign"
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Burson-Marsteller_and_global_warming

Federal government launches marketing campaign for psychiatric industry
By Richard A. Warner Nov 29, 2006

www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Eli+Lilly++NAMI+++Radke+Stigma
Under the guise of combating the stigma of mental illness, the U.S. government will soon begin a massive campaign of psychiatric indoctrination, designed to increase the acceptance of psychiatric chemical imbalance theories and labeling, and to pave the way for national psychiatric screening, driving more Americans into seeking psychiatric drug treatment.

Radke interm executive direcotor www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Eli+Lilly++NAMI+++Radke+Stigma

NAMI: Big Pharma’s “Grassroots” Organization. Radke’s role at NAMI “strategic planning.”
http://wellnessgossip.com/2009/04/nami-big-pharmas-grassroots-organization/

Malcolm Peet 2003

EPA in the treatment of schizophrenia and depression: rationale and preliminary double-blind clinical trial results

“There is considerable evidence that current psychotropic drugs can have adverse as well as beneficial effects on the natural history of mental illness. The administration of drugs which have potent effects on neurotransmitters and their receptors will inevitably lead to compensatory changes in brain biochemistry." " It is increasingly recognized that some psychotropic drug side effects are not merely an inconvenience, but are potentially life threatening.” "There is no doubt that different approaches to the treatment of mental illness are urgently required and that new developments are unlikely to come from permutations of existing neurotransmitter and receptor approaces."

Essential Fatty Acids, DHA and the Human Brain

Meharban Singh

http://medind.nic.in/icb/t05/i3/icbt05i3p239.pdf

"It is recommended that the pregnant and nursing woman should take at least 2.6 g of omega-3 fatty acids and 100-300 mg of DHA daily to look after the needs of her fetus and suckling infant. The follow-up studies have shown that infants of mothers supplemented with EFAs and DHA had higher mental processing scores, psychomotor development, eye-hand coordination and stereo acuity at 4 years of age. Intake of EFAs and DHA during preschool years may also have a beneficial role in the prevention of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and enhancing learning capability and academic performance."

Indian journal of pediatrics. 2005 Mar;72(3): 239-42

Alternative Treatments for Postpartum Mood Disorders

By Sarah R. Fields

Dr. Bowman checks approximately 180 parameters. In cases of postpartum psychosis, high levels of kryptopyrroles-which indicate low levels of zinc and vitamin B6-signal that serotonin and GABA neurotransmitters are not being produced in adequate amounts. In addition, most postpartum psychosis patients exhibit elevated blood copper, which is associated with elevated norepinephrine levels and can contribute to depression, anxiety, psychosis, or violent behavior.

The Drugging of "Post Partum Depression" CCHR

http://www.granitescientific.com/granitescientific%20home%20page_files/ppd%20and%20chem%20imbalance.pdf

The Link Between Diet and Behavior

www.foodforthebrain.org/download.asp?id_Doc=96

"However, the conversion of shorter-chain EFAs to longer-chain PUFAs in humans is poor. It is also affected by many diet and lifestyle factors including excessive consumption of saturated fats, hydrogenated fats and trans fatty acids; lack of co-factors such as zinc, magnesium, vitamins B3, B6 and C; viral infections and the presence of hormones released in response to stress"

Posted by: Dan Burdick at May 22, 2009 03:25 PM

Stephany:

Apparently John Grohol got them to take down the graphic of his web site, but someone just sent me another one. Given all the news about Seroquel, this is pretty damning.

Why doesn't Furious Seasons call him out on this one? See http://www.tinyurl.com/pharmaslut

Posted by: Betsy K. at May 23, 2009 06:05 PM

Betsy that's a great snapshot page showing the Seroquel ad on Pysch Central. Those are DTC (direct-to-consumer) ads and in my opinion encourage the use of those psych meds, especially when they page up with articles on Bipolar, etc. Psych Central apparently does not understand that DTC advertising is dangerous.

Posted by: Stephany at May 24, 2009 09:30 AM

Depression is a serious problem...It leads people to focus mostly on failures and disappointments, to emphasize the negative side of their situations, and to downplay their own capabilities or worth. Someone with severe depression is unable to see the possibility of a good outcome and may believe they will never be happy or things will never go right for them again. Let's speak with people,it allows you to get help for the person, and just talking about may help the person to feel less alone and more cared about and understood.

Posted by: survivor in the news at June 4, 2009 06:16 AM