This is a new thing for me, and I hope it doesn't happen often - it's exhausting!
TL:DR: There is so much BAD in this. So much.
I follow Katherine Stone on Twitter. She was aghast at a piece published by The New York Times: see it in its full glory here.
I'll take it para by para. (This is gonna be long. Have the article open in another tab and flick back and forward for best effect.)
1) yes they do, and the fact that they are medicated shows a great commitment to keeping themselves mentally healthy.
2) see 1)
3) key phrase: "UP TO". key word: "MAY". Also, not all pregnant women on antidepressants take partoxetine - so what is your actual shock figure here, eh?
4) the critics are speaking shite. There is a greater risk to LIFE from untreated depression than there is from treated depression. Shut your critical cakeholes.
5) & 6) Barbara is obviously one of the lucky women who have never suffered from depression, let alone depression during or shortly after pregnancy.
7) There is a statement made here as if it has been proven to be fact. It has not. SHUT THE HELL UP.
8) no issue with this one. Ha.
9) the actual paper again uses the key word "MAY". "In boys, prenatal exposure to SSRIs may increase susceptibility to [Autism] or [Developmental Delay]." The study was based on the results from less than 1000 mother/baby pairings and the pairings where the kids were diagnosed with autism well outnumbered the pairings where the kids were designated as having developed normally. Gief better balanced study with at least 10k participants and I'll listen to your stats with no salt.
10) first sentence: PANIC! Rest of the paragraph: actually, what we said there wasn't statistically relevant. The hell, dude.
11) translates to: it don't even matter if you take SSRIs, if you have a mental health issue your kids are just as likely to develop autism anyway. Gief stats comparing prevalence of Autism in kids from "well" moms to kids from "mentally ill" moms, please. Then we can talk.
12) correlation does not equal causation. If the mom is depressed she may not participate in activities with her child that stimulate their speech centres - this correlation may have more to do with environment than chemistry, but has anyone bothered to find out? Not for THIS article!
13) so are mentally fit mothers with gestational diabetes or pre-eclampsia. your point...?
14) not mentioned: depressed moms-to-be who are not medicated when they need to be are more likely to kill themselves, more likely to terminate their pregnancies, and more likely to do harm to themselves and their newborns post-partum than depressed moms-to-be who are necessarily medicated. Perspective, people.
15) based on a study of just over 1100 women. Again, not enough to be statistically significant in a world where the population has surpassed 7 billion.
16) the effect is transient and does not cause permanent damage, stop scaremongering. Bonus scumbag points for comparing pregnant women trying to save their sanity to drug addicts.
17) re: Apgar scores: "scores in the exposed group were typically within the normal ranges," and that is from the actual article. As for low birth weight, the article quoted is a meta-analysis and it doesn't specify if the low birth weights recorded were low for the gestational age of the baby or what. So for all we know, the sub 5.5lbers were all 36w gestation and perfectly average at that.
18) YA THINK???
19) see 18)
20) "their lives" fixed that for ya. It's not just the mom at risk.
21) it may be, it may also be time to give more much-needed support to those moms because to take away meds without offering some other treatment option is frankly irresponsible.
22) actually, I think everyone who is directly affected would beg to differ. They would be happier with the idea that they didn't need to take meds in the first place, that they were mentally healthy enough to cope without. Asshole.
23) oh look, some good advice. Who'da thunk it.
2) see 1)
3) key phrase: "UP TO". key word: "MAY". Also, not all pregnant women on antidepressants take partoxetine - so what is your actual shock figure here, eh?
4) the critics are speaking shite. There is a greater risk to LIFE from untreated depression than there is from treated depression. Shut your critical cakeholes.
5) & 6) Barbara is obviously one of the lucky women who have never suffered from depression, let alone depression during or shortly after pregnancy.
7) There is a statement made here as if it has been proven to be fact. It has not. SHUT THE HELL UP.
8) no issue with this one. Ha.
9) the actual paper again uses the key word "MAY". "In boys, prenatal exposure to SSRIs may increase susceptibility to [Autism] or [Developmental Delay]." The study was based on the results from less than 1000 mother/baby pairings and the pairings where the kids were diagnosed with autism well outnumbered the pairings where the kids were designated as having developed normally. Gief better balanced study with at least 10k participants and I'll listen to your stats with no salt.
10) first sentence: PANIC! Rest of the paragraph: actually, what we said there wasn't statistically relevant. The hell, dude.
11) translates to: it don't even matter if you take SSRIs, if you have a mental health issue your kids are just as likely to develop autism anyway. Gief stats comparing prevalence of Autism in kids from "well" moms to kids from "mentally ill" moms, please. Then we can talk.
12) correlation does not equal causation. If the mom is depressed she may not participate in activities with her child that stimulate their speech centres - this correlation may have more to do with environment than chemistry, but has anyone bothered to find out? Not for THIS article!
13) so are mentally fit mothers with gestational diabetes or pre-eclampsia. your point...?
14) not mentioned: depressed moms-to-be who are not medicated when they need to be are more likely to kill themselves, more likely to terminate their pregnancies, and more likely to do harm to themselves and their newborns post-partum than depressed moms-to-be who are necessarily medicated. Perspective, people.
15) based on a study of just over 1100 women. Again, not enough to be statistically significant in a world where the population has surpassed 7 billion.
16) the effect is transient and does not cause permanent damage, stop scaremongering. Bonus scumbag points for comparing pregnant women trying to save their sanity to drug addicts.
17) re: Apgar scores: "scores in the exposed group were typically within the normal ranges," and that is from the actual article. As for low birth weight, the article quoted is a meta-analysis and it doesn't specify if the low birth weights recorded were low for the gestational age of the baby or what. So for all we know, the sub 5.5lbers were all 36w gestation and perfectly average at that.
18) YA THINK???
19) see 18)
20) "their lives" fixed that for ya. It's not just the mom at risk.
21) it may be, it may also be time to give more much-needed support to those moms because to take away meds without offering some other treatment option is frankly irresponsible.
22) actually, I think everyone who is directly affected would beg to differ. They would be happier with the idea that they didn't need to take meds in the first place, that they were mentally healthy enough to cope without. Asshole.
23) oh look, some good advice. Who'da thunk it.
Sorry, but this really pissed me off.
No comments:
Post a Comment