Psych Central blog censors Dr.Doug Bremner, subject of article topic & attack

The well-known mental health blog, Psych Central has an article titled, "Bremner's False Claims about Postpartum Depression",using Dr.Doug Bremner's article from Bremner's blog, Motherhood is Not a Medical Disorder as a base for arguing for the MOTHER'S ACT, proposing all pregnant women be screened for depression. Bremner opposes the MOTHER'S ACT.

According to the Psych Central website (fully loaded with pharmaceutical advertising)says:

"Dr. John Grohol is the CEO and founder of Psych Central. He has been writing about online behavior, mental health and psychology issues, and the intersection of technology and psychology since 1992."

AND

"Psych Central continues to support the Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act because the research shows it would help in the efforts to increase education and correct mis-information about postpartum depression."

Censorship, the silencing of voices that are not pharmaceutical pimps

Ironically, but not so much--Bremner was recently censored and silenced by Emory University for using the University name on his blog. Though using the excuse that he couldn't use "company letterhead", it is fact that Emory did not promote the sale of Bremner's anti-pharmaceutical book titled "Before You Take That Pill"; so it was easy to see the censorship connection with a university that aligns itself with pharma-friendly researchers such as Senate investigation subject, Charles Nemeroff. Emory kept Nemeroff on payroll, and tenured just not "the chief", yet Bremner gets a smackdown for blogging with Emory's name. Something wasn't quite right with that, and a blogging solidarity event happened--many blogs like mine---backed Bremner's right to academic freedom-- you can click on the 'tag/label' on this post for those details and articles, Emory backed down under pressure and restored Bremner's ability to use the school name.

Now it seems that Psych Central has censored Bremner, by banning comments from him in the comment section of the article attacking his views of the MOTHERS ACT

How does one feel, when attacked by a colleague and not able to reply in the blogosphere? does one sit back and take it? Why would John Grohol, one of the most well-known pharma-funded mental health blogs blacklist the subject, the person of the attack?

Could it be to promote the MOTHER's ACT agenda? another attempt to silence Dr.Doug Bremner by censorship. Someone who speaks out against the pharmaceutical industry and the MOTHERS ACT.

What's wrong with this picture?

Do you agree with Grohol not allowing Bremner to defend himself on Psych Central's blog?

From John Grohol at Psych Central:

"So respectfully, I disagree with Bremner’s assessment of the MOTHERS act and its need in today’s society. And if you’re not going to bother to do the legwork and just make general (false) pronouncements about what the research actually shows (or worse, suggest the all research that disagrees with you must be in pharma’s pocket), then that’s a lazy person’s argument. There are too many logical fallacies at work here to list, so I’ll just suggest that I expect more reasoned and professional arguments –based upon the actual research — about such important legislation.

Psych Central continues to support the Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act because the research shows it would help in the efforts to increase education and correct mis-information about postpartum depression."-John Grohol, CEO of Psych Central

If Grohol was speaking as he wrote "respectfully", would he not want a healthy debate in his comment section with the person he attacked?

Maybe he just wants to silence the messenger.

This isn't the first time Grohol attacked a blog author for speaking out against the MOTHERS ACT last April, he went after (ironically Psych Central's top 10 "best of the web" award winner)Philip Dawdy, author of the Furious Seasons mental health news blog.

Dawdy says, in the article PsychCentral.com Slams Me, I Reply: (April 2009)

"I wrote a post noting the controversy around the MOTHERS Act, expressed my view that post partum depression is real, that it's treatment (as with all "depressions") is fraught with problems and then offered a few skeptical observations about PPD now as compared with the past. As some of you know, I got knifed up very hard by some of the supports of the ACT, even ones who claimed I had denied the very existence of PPD. Among the critics was John Grohol, the founder of PsychCentral.com who emailed me to complain about one bloody graf in my post. We exchanged emails and the other day Grohol wrote a post attacking skeptics of the MOTHERS Act and singling me out in particular". -Dawdy

~
I recommend reading the links to the posts at Furious Seasons and Before You Take that Pill, then check out Psych Central's take on the topic of the MOTHER'S ACT, and truly question the agenda of Psych Central's CEO, John Grohol.