RodISHI
Platinum Member
- Nov 29, 2008
- 25,786
- 11,297
- 940
Big Pharm at work once again.
The Bitter Pill
The Official Blog of UNITE uniteforlife.org
In fact, of the 415 rat pups born to mothers who received Paxil, Healy testified that, One in every ten or actually maybe more like possibly one in every eight or so were born dead.
As far as he could make make out, all the rats were not autopsied, Healy said, so the question was why the pups died.
Its clearly the drug that has caused the death, he told the jury.
One of the possible reasons for their death is theyre born with birth defects that lead to them actually dying early in infant life, he testified. A responsible approach to data like this is to investigate it further and find out just what the cause is.
Why The MOTHERS Act Should Not Be Passed
Please go to MAFaxMay15probs.pdf - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage and print a PDF that you can fax to the Senate: HELP Committee Flyer.pdf - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage
Here is the text of the fax if you want to format your own letter:
WHY THE MOTHERS ACT SHOULD NOT BE PASSED
On the surface, The MOTHERS Act (S. 324) reflects its sponsors compassion for mothers suffering from postpartum depression and psychosis. But when one looks closely at the important sections of the legislation, it is clear that this costly and sweeping mental health legislation not only fails the mothers of America, its intended to inflate the balance sheets of Big Pharma.
* The bill omits language clearly stating there will be an evaluation of the large amount of data available on the known risks of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications currently being prescribed to pregnant women and nursing mothers (including birth defects, heart defects, spontaneous abortions, and infant deaths). See May 9, 2009 Vogue article, Pregnant Pause: With a flurry of recent reports challenging the safety of antidepressant drugs for unborn babies, doctors and concerned mothers-to-be are rethinking the guidelines by Alexis Jetter at May09 Vogue Article.pdf - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage
* The bill defines postpartum condition as only postpartum depression (PPD) or postpartum psychosis. The danger is that per these DSM-extracted terms to label women with mental disorders, this is only psychological, not physiological conditions which will be checked for, ruling out discovery of any real physical causes, such as hormonal imbalances or vitamin and mineral deficiencies, and neglecting the treatments thereof. This relates to the issue of screening tools in development cited in the bill. Are these merely psychological questionnaires, and who is developing them? Are they pharmaceutically funded?
* The bill cites various entities that will be eligible for grants and for participating in research and/or development of screening methods and/or treatments and delivery. Who or what are these entities? Are they pharmaceutically funded? Do they have conflicts of interest? There are ongoing investigations of various non-profit organizations who heavily promote or conduct screening. For example, Screening for Mental Health, Inc., and its sub-organization Signs of Suicide, who heavily promote and conduct mental health screening, received $4,985,925 from pharmaceutical companies prior to 2008. The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) receives 56% of its funding from pharmaceutical companies. Ten leading psychiatric researchers (many from prominent universities) have been exposed in the last year for failing to disclose millions of dollars in pharmaceutical payments yet this bill contains no provisions for full disclosure of conflicts of interest for any entity receiving federal taxpayer funded grants.
* Given that the Senate Finance Committee recently exposed the financial conflicts of interest of the top ten psychiatric researchers in the U.S., it is no small issue that The MOTHERS Act provides no research guidelines for public disclosure.
* Under The MOTHERS Acts current language, research will be conducted without peer review no checks and balances, no one to validate the integrity of the research which then will be used to determine a womans mental health status.
* Simultaneously, without allowing any checks and balances whatsoever on the research, it promotes a national public education campaign to include Public Service Announcements and television and radio advertisements, essentially giving Pharma an opportunity for free, federally-funded advertising.
SUMMARY: Without a fully completed, published, and publicly disclosed investigation of the dangers of current methods of treatment (drugs), efficacy of non-drug treatments, and discovery and disclosure of the causes for these conditions, clearly defined and available for review by the medical/scientific community and consumers, there should be no endorsement of a national educational or advertising campaign. There must be no new or massive utilization or promotion of any screening tools without first disclosing the researchers, entities, and methods used to develop these screening tools.
Therefore, as a concerned citizen and voter, I urge you to vote NO on The MOTHERS Act (S. 324).
Stress Testing The MOTHERS Act
by Kelly Patricia OMeara
May 7, 2009
It seems these days that everything is a test. Yes, the powers that be have decided that taxpayer benevolence now is contingent upon passing a stress test. But much to the dismay of those being tested, the results may reveal, for example, that the nations financial wizards and auto giants are actually bankrupt midgets and unworthy of Americas support.
Given that officialdom has embraced the stress test as a barometer of future viability and success and a determinant for public financing, it seems reasonable to request that other important issues that very personally impact the health and welfare of the American people be subjected to similar stress tests. There is none more deserving of stress testing than the proposed MOTHERS Act.
On the surface, the MOTHERS Act reflects its sponsors overwhelming compassion and empathy for women suffering from alleged mental health disorders resulting from childbirth often referred to as Postpartum Depression. But when one conducts a brief stress test on important sections of the legislation, taxpayers may find that this costly and sweeping mental health legislation actually fails women of America, but goes a long way in inflating the balance sheets of one of the most lucrative industries in the nation big Pharma.
For instance, the MOTHERS Act legislation that currently is pending in the U.S. Senate states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services may make grants to eligible entities to deliver essential services to individuals with a postpartum condition. What the legislation doesnt delineate is who and what entities may receive these grants. Are these entities funded by pharmaceutical companies? Lawmakers have not specified what constitutes an entity so it will be impossible to know if there are conflicts of interest between those who develop the screening tools and conduct research and the pharmaceutical companies who most certainly will benefit financially from the increased diagnosing.
Furthermore, no research guidelines have been provided for public disclosure. This is no small issue, given that the Senate Finance Committee recently exposed the conflicts of interest of the top ten psychiatric researchers in the U.S. who had received millions of dollars in pharmaceutical funding. Where is the guarantee that the entities are not pharmaceutical front-men?
Continued at link
The Bitter Pill
The Official Blog of UNITE uniteforlife.org
In summary, Healy told the jury that all the rat pups born to mothers who received Paxil were dead four days after they were born, while eighty-eight percent of the pups not exposed to Paxil were still alive on day four.Cold Case Files Paxil Birth Defects
by Evelyn Pringle
Almost like an episode of the TV show, Cold Case Files, the first Paxil birth defect trial was dominated by a story about what happened to the rat pups that died around 1979 and 1980, involved in a study in which Paxil was being tested on pregnant female rats.
The animal studies giving Paxil to rats and rabbits were conducted by a Danish company called Ferrosan before the drug maker, that later became part of GlaxoSmithKline, purchased the drug.
The familys lead attorney in the case of Kilker v Glaxo, Sean Tracey from Houston, brought in the world-famous neuropsychopharmocology expert from Wales, Dr David Healy, to testify extensively about rat pup study 295............. continued at link
In fact, of the 415 rat pups born to mothers who received Paxil, Healy testified that, One in every ten or actually maybe more like possibly one in every eight or so were born dead.
As far as he could make make out, all the rats were not autopsied, Healy said, so the question was why the pups died.
Its clearly the drug that has caused the death, he told the jury.
One of the possible reasons for their death is theyre born with birth defects that lead to them actually dying early in infant life, he testified. A responsible approach to data like this is to investigate it further and find out just what the cause is.