In Memory of Matthew Schultz (Effexor Baby Pregnancy Infant Death MOTHERS Act)

http://twohours.wordpress.com/
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-the-dangerous-and-invasive-mothers-act
Please go to http://www.box.net/shared/810kj0b8g7 and print a PDF that you can fax to the Senate: http://tinyurl.com/HELPSenate

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 http://www.box.net/shared/deulxo16fp
* 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).

Sincerely, Address:
http://www.abs4mom.com/2017/06/07/in-memory-of-matthew-schultz-effexor-baby-pregnancy-infant-death-mothers-act/
#Health
ABS For mom