Dr Tracy on Post Partum Depression and The Mothers Act.

Post Partum Depression is not a difficult problem to address. Simple dietary changes along with rest cure the majority of cases. The remainder are hormonal in nature.

For those of you who have read my book you have seen the study in the beginning section which declares that science has known for decades that most mental illness is caused by blood sugar imbalances. This should not surprise us much because initially what was done to "cure" mental illness was to throw the patient into insulin shock. These drugs we are now told "cure" mental illness are designed to do basically the same thing with a pill, thus the high diabetic rate produced by them all.

Since so many women go into gestational diabetes we need to stop and think how many more must be going into the beginning stages of pancreatic malfunction which is manifested in symptoms of hypoglycemia or low blood sugar. Depression is generally one of the first symptoms we see with low blood sugar. Therefore it should be clear that the majority of the cases of Post Partum stem from exhaustion and hypoglycemia brought on by the stress of the pregnancy and/or labor and delivery.

There is great concern over Post Partum Psychosis as the blood sugar becomes even more disrupted as it is ignored as a cause, yet with the addition of antidepressants which interfere even more with the blood sugar balance, the chances of suffering Post Partum Psychosis jumps by TEN FOLD (Read the package insert)!

The drugs they are planning to give all these young mothers who are screened and show signs of depression during and/or after pregnancy are the same drugs that Melanie Stokes (the mother the Mother's Act was named after) was taking when she jumped to her death. Her death was one of four suicides by young mothers in the Chicago area in a very short time period. Of the four three were taking antidepressants which we know at least double the rate of suicide. (Data was not available for the fourth mother.)

These so called antidepressant medications also produce miscarriage and serious birth defects for which the manufacturers are facing close to a couple of hundred lawsuits currently that I am familiar with.

This law is nothing more than additional intrusion into the lives of Americans and an attempt by the drug industry to drum up more customers. Clearly they are targeting the unborn in an attempt to get them hooked on their drugs before they ever get a chance to take their first breath! They can never seem to get enough money!

Far fetched? Not at all. Look how many mothers were prescribed amphetamines in the late 60's early 70's to make sure these mothers did not gain too much weight during pregnancy. Although that is shocking to us now to hear, it happened. And now those babies are living in a world where meth=amphetamine has been of America's worst illegal drug problems.

I had a neighbor who became addicted to amphetamines in the womb in this way who has suffered from this addiction his entire life. How many more were and who has bothered to investigate? I believe that this medical practice of drugging these mothers was a huge contributor to this meth problem that has cost this country so much, not only in finances, but in lost lives and lost productive lives. Are we ready to relive that history with these antidepressants that work so similarly to LSD or PCP?

Go to "www.drugawareness.org" to learn more about the dangers of these drugs. And find below some additional information from Amy Philo who is working hard to get more information out on the impact of this bill. Then we ask that you please rush to the following link to sign the petition against implementing this act into law. The Senate is meeting on this very soon:

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


Ann Blake Tracy, Ph.D., Executive Director,
International Coalition For Drug Awareness
Website: "www.drugawareness.org" &
"www.ssristories.com"
Author: Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? - Our Serotonin Nightmare
& CD or audio tape on safe withdrawal: "Help! I Can't Get
Off My Antidepressant!"
Order Number: 800-280-0730


FROM AMY:
The Mother's Act is the new Teen Screen program but this time for new
mothers instead of teens. I found this on the ICSPP website "http://www.icspp.org/" with regard to Teen Screen. It says that 90% of Teen Screen Subjects walked out with a prescription. Now multiply that by the millions with all the new moms we have each year. CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT IF THE MOTHER'S ACT IS SIGNED INTO LAW?!!! Teen Screen is not even GOVERNMENT MANDATED...THE MOTHER'S ACT WOULD BE. CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THE MOTHERS ACT GOES THROUGH????????? GOD HELP US ALL!!!

To a New Jersey newspaper where the Mother's Act is already in place:

I am aware that the mental health screening program in your state has been an utter disaster with moms being carted off to the hospital by police when they call the PPD hotline. I hope you will alert your reporters to this news item which pertains to a federal bill introduced by your State's Senator in the US Senate, Robert Menendez:
For those of you considering who to vote for in the upcoming presidential election you need to know that the co-sponsor of this bill, The Mother's Act, is no other than Barak Obama. And no, this is NOT saying that Hillary is any better. She is on the committee voting on this bill and is all for "government health programs" so it remains to be seen where she stands on this issue.
[Note from Dr. Tracy: I will take bets she stands right beside Obama on this one!!!! The only candidate that knows what is up with the FDA, big Pharma and all this drugging and is willing to do something about it is Dr. Ron Paul.]

Attacks on Tom Cruise

From: terrylc
To: sarinasvoice@aol.com
Sent: 1/17/2008 7:36:32 P.M. Mountain Standard Time
Subj: The Attacks On Tom Cruise


The mass media is attacking Tom Cruise, again, this time over a Scientology recruitment video. See, for example, the hatchet job from liberal-when-it's-convenient-and-serves-our-corporate-masters Slate, http://www.slate.com/id/2182338?wpisrc=newsletter

Well here we go again: When you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Straight out of Joseph Goebbels, Karl Rove, and Faux News.

Why attack Tom Cruise? Because he stands up to the pharmaceutical drug cartel and their supporters like Brooke Shields. http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/articles/0523cruise.html

But some people might say, "Hey, drugs for postpartum depression are a good thing".

To those people, I invite you to ask Andrea Yates' children.

Oh wait--you can't.

TLC
______________________________________

Did Drugs Cause Mom to Drown Her Five Children?

By Kelly Patricia O'Meara

Andrea Yates' crime shocked the nation. Did mind-altering drugs prescribed to treat her depression actually drive this young mother of five to drown the children she loved?
Only weeks ago, Houston wife and mother Andrea Pia Yates methodically drowned each of her five children. One by one Yates forced her children, ages 6 months to 7 years, into the family's bathtub and held their struggling bodies under the water until each fell limp.
Whatever possessed the 36-year-old mother to commit these unconscionable acts remains murky. Depression and postpartum syndrome topped early speculation, but there has been little discussion about the possible effects of the powerful mind-altering drugs she was taking.
Although Texas District Judge Belinda Hill issued a gag order concerning the case, family members have released disturbing facts about Yates' psychiatric treatment that specialists say may account for her state of mind at the time of the murders.
During a two-year period, Yates was prescribed four extremely potent mind-altering drugs intended to help her through two episodes of severe depression that began after the birth of her fourth child.
The first of these psychopharmacological cocktails included Haldol, an antipsychotic most often used to treat schizophrenia; Effexor, an antidepressant very similar to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); and Wellbutrin, a unique antidepressant that has amphetaminelike effects.
ccording to Yates' husband, Russell, his wife appeared to respond well to this treatment regimen and, after a short time, became her "old self."
At the onset of the second episode of depression following the birth of her fifth child, and the subsequent death of her father, Yates again was prescribed a psychopharmacological cocktail. This one contained Effexor and, at the end, Remeron.
While information about the Remeron dosage was not made public, Yates' husband has said that his wife was given Effexor at a dosage nearly twice the recommended maximum limit. Just days before the murders, the Effexor was for some reason reduced to just slightly more than the recommended maximum dosage of 225 mg per day and the Remeron was added.
Psychiatrist Peter Breggin, court-qualified medical expert and author of numerous books, including Talking Back to Prozac and the recently released The Anti-Depressant Fact Book, tells Insight:
"The mixture of Remeron and Effexor would tend to be extremely agitating and certainly could lead to behavioral disturbances. The mixture of Haldol, Wellbutrin and Effexor is unpredictable in its effects. Haldol actually can cause depression, and putting the three drugs together is somewhat experimental."
Breggin continues: "Haldol is a very blunting drug. It's difficult to come to any definitive conclusions with so little data about her state of mind at the time. However, Haldol is a drug that produces what can only be referred to as a chemical lobotomy that tends to make a person more docile and robotic."
Many Americans who have read or heard reports about this case have little doubt that Yates was "out of her mind" when she killed her children. What appears to be developing, however, is an argument within the medical community about whether the mother's homicidal state of mind was triggered by the depth of her depression or by the mind-altering drugs prescribed to her.
Were these the actions of a severely depressed woman who "lost it," or did the mind-altering drugs push this emotionally distraught woman over the edge? Should the latter be established in the criminal court, it could raise an even greater issue: Who was responsible? Was it a chemically poisoned mother who carried out the crazed act, the physician who prescribed the mind-altering cocktails or the pharmaceutical companies that manufactured and marketed the treatment?
Only recently have pharmaceutical companies been held responsible for violent behavior associated with their product lines of mind-altering drugs. A case in point is a June trial in which a jury in Cheyenne, Wyo., found that the antidepressant Paxil, one of the newer SSRIs distributed by GlaxoSmithKline PLC, "can cause some individuals to commit suicide and/or homicide."
The jury said Paxil caused Donald Schell, a retired oil-rig worker, to shoot and kill his wife, daughter and granddaughter before turning the gun on himself. Schell had been on the mind-altering drug only two days.
The jury awarded surviving family members $8 million in damages, finding that 80 percent of the fault lay with the drugmaker. Andy Vickery of the Houston law firm of Vickery & Waldner, lead attorney in the Wyoming case, has taken dozens of similar cases seeking to hold responsible those dispensing and manufacturing these drugs.
"The important thing," Vickery explains, "is to lay the responsibility and accountability at the doorstep of those who ought to have it and those who could and should do something about it. Whether it's criminal or civil responsibility, there isn't a lot of difference."
As Vickery puts it, "Look, if I give you a loaded gun and for whatever reason it's likely that you're going to shoot someone, then I'm an accessory before the fact of murder. Shouldn't the drug company that's encouraging doctors to prescribe a drug and is aware that these drugs cause adverse reactions be held responsible?
No one can believe that a mother would do such a thing. It's too horrible. But the fact is these people get completely out of touch with reality because of these drugs. Unfortunately, in most of the cases that I get involved with, we never know if the people committing the violence knew what they were doing when they did it because they also killed themselves."
Although alcoholic-beverage distillers have yet to be held responsible for the overwhelming number of fatalities resulting from alcohol abuse, in many states bartenders are held civilly and criminally liable when customers get drunk and cause automobile fatalities. With the growing number of physicians and psychiatrists prescribing mind-altering drugs and the alarming data filtering out about adverse reactions to them, tort lawyers are asking if medically trained dispensers of psychotropic drugs shouldn't also be held liable.
For example, Yates' psychiatrist, Muhammad Saaed, reportedly prescribed at least one mind-altering drug (Effexor) at almost twice the maximum recommended dose as part of a cocktail of mind-altering drugs that also included Haldol and Wellbutrin during her first bout with severe depression.
A cautionary note in the Physicians Desk Reference says Effexor negatively interacts with Haldol. Apparently, Effexor hinders Haldol's drug clearance by a factor of more than 40 percent and can cause Haldol concentration levels to increase by nearly 90 percent, creating toxicity.
Did Saaed know the contraindications associated with the cocktail he prescribed? If the psychiatrist was unaware of the toxic mix, would ignorance of the potential poisoning make him any less liable than if he had known and prescribed the mind-altering drugs anyway? These are just a few of the questions Saaed may be asked should he have to defend his treatment under oath.

According to Ann Blake Tracy, executive director of the International Coalition for Drug Awareness and author of the recently updated book Prozac: Panacea or Pandora?, there is little doubt about Saaed's culpability.
Tracy, a doctor of health sciences specializing in adverse reactions to serotonergic medications, tells Insight that "when doctors start prescribing 'off label' outside the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] guidelines, they run the risk of being sued for malpractice. In the case of Yates, her psychiatrist already had her on superhigh doses, and on the Monday before the tragedy he dropped the Effexor back to almost the maximum dosage, then added Remeron.
It's well-documented that when doses are increased or decreased, patients experience negative reactions. A great many of the court cases, but certainly not all of them, are a result of the drastic change in the medication."
According to Tracy, "There's a lot of science to demonstrate that depression is the result of an inability to metabolize serotonin, but somehow the drug companies have got the world believing that an increase in serotonin, rather than an increase in serotonin metabolism, is what the depressed person needs. This is the exact opposite of what research on depression shows and, if you look at the research over the last 50 years it is clear that there has been a horrible mistake.
There is such a wanton disregard for life. Why can't these doctors at least read the package inserts so they know how to prescribe the drugs properly? They're not supposed to prescribe over the maximum doses, and they know that they are at toxic levels at that point. That's why they have maximum-dose information; that's why the Food and Drug Administration puts a maximum dose on the packaging. They do it to show that over the allowable dose level, a person becomes toxic and it's extremely dangerous."
When asked what questions she might have for Yates' psychiatrist, Tracy tells Insight: "I'd want to know how he could have ignored so many warnings and contraindications in [reportedly] giving this poor woman this dangerous drug cocktail. I'd also like to know which sleeping pill he uses to knock himself out at night when those five children's faces run over and over again through his mind?"
Harsh words? It appears this is just the beginning. Many who follow such matters say that because of the high profile of the likely trial of Yates for capital murder, it may turn into a landmark case pitting the pharmaceutical giants against the medical practitioners and vice versa, perhaps even dragging in the American Psychiatric Association.
George Parnham, Yates' attorney, has reported that he will enter a not-guilty plea on behalf of his client for reasons of insanity. After meeting with Yates and speaking with psychiatrists that had examined her, Parnham told reporters, "I've accumulated evidence in the last 24 hours that strongly suggests that the mental status of my client will be the issue."
Just what Parnham has discerned is anyone's guess, including whether he'll defend his client by challenging the pharmaceutical companies and his client's psychiatrist. In the meantime, sources close to the case report that Yates still is being medicated. Saaed has turned his files on Yates over to the court and has, to date, made no public statement.
Insight Magazine July 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Mercola's Comment:
Another sad tragedy. One doesn't need an advanced medical degree to recognize that no parent functioning properly would ever drown all their children. The timing of these powerful brain altering drugs appears more than an coincidence in causing this woman to commit such an unthinkable crime.
Another potential factor in post-partum depression could be breastfeeding, or lack thereof. It would be very interesting to find out what percentage of women who go through such depression have breastfed their infants. Unfortunately, I don't know of any studies that have even addressed the issue. But since breastfeeding has many effects on a woman's hormones, it is certainly possible, and should be studied.

SSRI Thoughts and Observations

Never have we claimed to be experts on the subject but when researching SSRI Anti-depressants, several points become increasingly obvious:

Everyone gets depressed at some time. That doesn't mean everyone has depression.

There is no proof that SSRI antidepressants are beneficial. At least not in the manner they are purported to (increasing serotonin concentration thereby relieving depression).

All children can be hyper and easily distracted for any number of reasons. That doesn't mean all children have ADD or ADHD.

SSRI anti-depressants are not approved for use in children. They are widely prescribed to children despite not having been tested on children. The FDA has approved SSRI anti-depressants for use in adults for treating depression but they can then be prescribed to anyone for any reason. Some doctors prescribe them for chest pains, eating disorders, PMS, hot flashes, Alzheimer's or any number of unapproved and experimental uses.

Studies and use show that the benefits of SSRI anti-depressants are less than that obtained with a sugar pill. Studies also show a change in diet or a walk in the woods is much more effective than SSRI anti-depressants.

Drug companies have suppressed their own findings that SSRI anti-depressants raise suicidal thoughts by 100% (in other words doubling the number of people who have suicidal thoughts compared to those taking a placebo). They also found homicide and aggressive behavior to be side effects of their own medications. Children with obsessive-compulsive disorder taking the medication experienced hostility episodes 17-times more often than depressed patients. 1.1% of healthy, psychiatrically normal people who took an SSRI anti-depressant experienced one or more hostile episodes, while none taking the placebo did

Why do we take a medicine that is so dangerous to stop taking? This is a Pharmaceutical companies dream. A drug you're on for life. If it is so dangerous to stop these medicines (and it is) we shouldn't take them in the first place. What if you forget to take them? What if you can't afford them one time? What if insurance denies you? What if you get tired of the side effects and decide to go off of them cold turkey?

The fact that the FDA is approving these medications and actually "fast tracking" them into use goes against the general conception of what the FDA is here to do. Protect the public by being an expert Federal agency responsible for evaluating and regulating drugs. Not an agency open to the highest bidder.

The fact that doctors are allowed to prescribe SSRI Anti-Depressants for uses and to people other than those they are approved for is bewildering to me!

The fact that Doctors prescribe these medications goes against the general conception of what doctors are supposed to do. All doctors know the side effects. They might not understand the severity or turn a blind eye to the studies but they KNOW the homicidal and suicidal propensities exist. Doctors pledge to "do no harm" or something similar. Why would they overlook the hippocratic or similar oath they took? MONEY, peer pressure, it's easier, more money. Not all doctors, but many. They are only human but we expect so much more from them. They knew the responsibilities and expectations going in. If they can't "do no harm" they need to get out or be forced out of practice.