This latest blog entry by Dr. Breggin (A personal hero of mine for the past eighteen years) has some damning information about the Anthrax Murderer Bruce Ivins.

“It was recently disclosed that two murderers, one extremely notorious, were probably taking antidepressants at the time of their crimes, but hardly anyone is taking notice.

On August 7, 2008, a few newspapers mentioned that newly released government papers showed that bioweapons scientist Bruce Ivins had been taking the antidepressant Celexa during the time he developed and carried out his plan to send letters laced with anthrax through the mail. Ivins killed himself with an overdose with other pills on July 29 after learning that the FBI was going to indict him. His terrorist attack killed five people.

Within a week after his suicide, the government made public the information that Ivins had a history of mental instability and that he had been taking Celexa (citalopram), a Prozac knockoff. According to the August 7 Los Angeles Times, a U. S. Attorney reported that Ivins was taking Celexa in the summer and fall of 2001 — the time period during which he was planning and carrying out his anthrax letter assault, which began with poisoned letters postmarked September 18, 2001.

Continue reading “HuffPo: Peter Breggin: The Anthrax Perpetrator and the Arkansas Shooter Were Taking Antidepressants” →

Sanders Turns Blind Eye To Victims, Sponsors Deadly MOTHERS Act
Go Here to read the PDF version of this article.
Amy conducted an email interview for this article. Here is the portion that mentions my story:

“In 1988 Jenny Hatch was placed in a Michigan state mental institution for postpartum psychosis and drugged with Haldol. She stayed there for nine days until she could be transferred to a private hospital, where she says she fought back with the staff on the medication issue for two weeks.

Ultimately the private hospital sent Jenny back to the state hospital and she fought medications for six more days, telling everyone that she was breastfeeding a baby and could not take their drugs. A judge then ordered “90 days additional incarceration in the hospital and forced meds.” She was sent back to a private hospital where they forced Lithium, Stelazine, and Prozac.

When she became extremely suicidal on Prozac, the Stelazine was withdrawn and the Prozac was doubled. Ultimately after finally leaving the hospital, Jenny located a doctor who helped her wean off all medications over a six-month period. She also followed up by beginning a full body detoxification and then went on to have four more children, fortunately with zero psychiatric pills to follow.

Over the past 18 years Jenny has advocated against forced drugging and her story has been publicized in various magazines and books. But for psychiatry, old habits die hard.

In a recent blog entry, Jenny wrote about two women who had contacted her who had a history of psychosis and were told that if they ever had any more children, they would be ordered to take antipsychotic drugs for two full years following the births in order to “prevent” PPP.

Similarly, New Jersey’s “MOTHERS Law,” passed in 2006, has already resulted in mothers being forcibly taken to the hospital by police simply for mentioning to their doctors they were depressed or calling a PPD hotline. Force is certainly nothing new in psychiatry, and in fact it has been central to the field for its entire history. It seems that the drug pushers care only about maintaining income at all costs. Those caught by psychiatry cannot be called patients at all but rather, victims.”

URGENT! Sign the petition against the MOTHERS Act at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-the-dangerous-and-invasive-mothers-act
Visit http://www.uniteforlife.org
Jenny Hatch

I would like to point out to my readers who are liberals that this legislative fight is one of the reasons I am a republican. If you will carefully read the final portion of the article from World Net Daily you will see that the vote in Congress came down to near perfect split between democrats and republicans. With republicans siding for freedom and choice and the democrats led by Harry Reid siding for compulsion and force.
I have been in contact with two women who experienced post partum psychosis after the births of their first babes, just like I did. Both were told that if they chose to have a second child they would be forced to take anti psychotic medications for at least two years upon the births of those children. I wonder if their doctors have ever read the research that proves those who take anti psychotic meds long term have a higher incidence of recurring mental illness than those who stop taking the meds?
Here is the final quote from the article:
A very close call?

Sen. Robert Menéndez, a supporter of NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood, is the leading sponsor of the Melanie Blocker Stokes Mother’s Act. The senator represents New Jersey, where many of the world’s pharmaceutical companies are located.

Menéndez sponsored the Mother’s Act on May 11, 2007, but it was stuck in committee until Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced an $11 billion omnibus package called Advancing America’s Priorities Act, or S. 3297. He brought the Mother’s Act back to life July 22 by burying it in the omnibus and asking that the Senate pass the measure without debate.

In addition to the Mother’s Act, the omnibus package contained 36 unrelated bills and created 77 new federal programs. It featured a variety of provisions including: health care, environmental conservation, homeland security, foreign relations and other legislation.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who delivers babies when he’s not in Congress, successfully put a hold on bills in the omnibus due to excessive spending. Reid’s motion for cloture to bypass Senate debate on S. 3297 failed to get the required 60 votes yesterday – 52 Democrats for and 40 Republicans against, with 8 not voting – but opponents warn the battle against the Melanie Blocker Stokes Mother’s Act has just begun. Some say it will only be a matter of time before lawmakers cave and consent to government-imposed mental screening and antidepressant drugs for new mothers.

“They’re just going to keep trying, so we need to raise awareness of the bill and the problems with it and educate Congress about how extremely controversial it is,” Philo said.

“Melanie Stokes would be extremely dishonored by this bill because if it hadn’t been for all of the drugs and electroshock she was given, she wouldn’t be dead today. Her child would have a mother.”

And here is another quote from the article:
Fighting the Mother’s Act
Amy Philo and baby
Philo is now one of the leading opponents of the Mother’s Act. She she says it is the government’s way of pandering to drug companies and forcing dangerous medication on new moms.
“It is pretty obvious to me that this bill is to get more women to take drugs,” she said. “The groups that are pushing this also frequently talk about how the drugs are safe for mothers who are pregnant or breastfeeding. They just totally downplay it.”
Antidepressants contain FDA warnings for everything from doubling suicide rates to birth defects and spontaneous abortions. The FDA has also received reports of the drugs causing mania, psychosis, hallucinations, homicidal ideation and rendering birth control pills ineffective. Yet, despite such warnings, antidepressants are still prescribed for pregnant women and would be authorized under this legislation.
“They want to screen every woman that they can find,” Philo said. “It’s really frightening. They even mention case management and transportation services in the bill. It sounds like they will send out social workers to your house to ask you questions. It’s really frightening to think that they could use their subjective tests and determine that you are an unfit parent.”
Jenny Hatch

Go Here to read this excellent CBS story.

Drug Companies paying doctors?
Jenny Hatch

Drugmakers and College Labs: Too Cozy?
Medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford have failed to disclose millions in payments from Big Pharma, an Iowa senator charges

“Grassley serves as the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. In early June, he released information alleging a group of Harvard psychiatrists received more than $4 million from drug companies that they didn’t report to the university. On June 23, he singled out another prominent psychiatrist, Dr. Alan Schatzberg of Stanford, saying the university should have demanded more stringent disclosure from its faculty member.

The senator alleged in the Congressional Record that Schatzberg failed to report to Stanford some payments from 2000 to 2006 from Eli Lilly (LLY) and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) for consulting and other services. Grassley also chastised Schatzberg for not fully informing the university about the value of his personal stake in a drug development company he co-founded—although the psychiatrist appears to have followed Stanford’s disclosure rules.

“I am concerned that Stanford might not have been able to adequately monitor the degree of Dr. Schatzberg’s conflicts of interest,” Grassley said in a June 23 letter to Stanford President John Hennessy that was published in the Congressional Record. The senator suggested the university reexamine its disclosure policies.

Concerned about the influence of drug industry money on patient care, Grassley began investigating physicians at research universities across the country last year. The senator believes his findings will help generate support for a bill he is co-sponsoring that would require drug and medical device companies to report any payment to a physician exceeding $500. Doctors’ names and details about the payments would be posted on a Web site. “The public relies on the advice of doctors and leading researchers,” Grassley said in an e-mail to BusinessWeek. “The public has a right to know about financial relationships between those doctors and the drug companies who make the pharmaceuticals prescribed by doctors.”

Amen and Amen.
Jenny Hatch