The panel was spurred by mounting scientific evidence supporting the concern that SSRIs may harm fetal brain development and the long-term health and happiness of the newborn child.
As but one example, a study at Columbia University Medical Center found that early SSRI exposure in mice resulted in “reduced motivation, increased anxiety-like behavior … and increased depressive-like behaviors in adulthood.”
“Never before in human history have we chemically altered developing babies like this.”
Subsequent human studies revealed similar effects: Individuals exposed to SSRIs in utero later had increased rates of anxiety and depression compared to those not exposed.
“These kids look pretty normal throughout early childhood, and then when they hit adolescence, their rates of depression really started to go up, which is exactly what we see in our mouse studies,” said Columbia professor Dr. Jay Gingrich, who led a team of researchers on the Columbia study.
Another study concluded that SSRIs cross the placental and blood-brain barriers, pass into breast milk and “can then affect the functional development of the brain and the behavior of the child” as well as the “maturation of the brain.”
It warned of “a risk for neurobehavioral, emotional, cognitive and mental disorders,” with affected newborns showing “excessive crying, restlessness, tremor, feeding problems, reflux and sleep disorders.”
“The scientific community is mostly inclined not to treat depression during pregnancy by drugs,” the study’s authors said.
“Never before in human history have we chemically altered developing babies like this, especially the developing fetal brain, and this is happening without any real public warning, and that must end,” said Dr. Adam Urato, chief of maternal and fetal medicine at the MetroWest Medical Center in Massachusetts, speaking at the FDA’s panel. “There is now more than enough evidence to support strong warnings from the FDA about how drugs disrupt fetal development and impact the moms.”
“The public needs better information, and the FDA must strengthen the warnings.”
Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring, another panel member, explained that pregnant women aren’t being informed about the potential damage to their babies—damage like congenital heart malformations and neurodevelopmental problems. “They’ve never heard of these things, and they feel incredibly betrayed,” he said. “They ask, ‘Why didn’t anyone bring this up with me when I got started on this medication?’”
Yet in response to the panel’s urgent, science-backed warnings, shared in an effort to protect the health of Americans, the news media launched a full-scale, frothing-at-the-mouth assault.
“FDA panel on the use of antidepressants during pregnancy is alarming experts,” the Los Angeles Times fumed.
“The FDA held a misinformation fest about antidepressants in pregnancy,” Mother Jones ranted.
And NBC News sneered: “FDA panel promotes misinformation about antidepressants during pregnancy.”
Media even went out of their way to track down “experts” who weren’t on the panel itself, but who were all too willing to offer quotes negating the proven dangers of antidepressants.
The LA Times quoted Dr. Katie Unverferth, a reproductive psychiatrist, who said, “I was surprised and disappointed by the amount of misinformation that was presented.” She called the panel “not helpful.”
The New York Times quoted Dr. Nancy Byatt, a perinatal psychiatrist at the UMass Chan Medical School, who lamented that the panel “could cause unnecessary alarm.”
“They were really rousing concerns about safety,” said Dr. Joseph Goldberg, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. Goldberg, who is on the payroll of at least one SSRI drug manufacturer, dismissed the panel’s warnings as “not evidence-based.”
But why would the media viciously attack an FDA panel sounding the alarm to protect our children?
Because Big Pharma’s money talks—and the media listens.
In 2024 alone, pharmaceutical companies spent $10 billion on drug ads. That advertising keeps the worldwide antidepressant market booming—valued at $18.7 billion last year and expected to grow 7.5 percent annually through 2034.
Only two countries in the world, the US and New Zealand, allow direct-to-consumer drug advertising—a practice the Department of Health and Human Services has considered banning.
The prospect alone sends media outlets into a panic—which tells you everything you need to know about how to interpret their “reporting.”
As long as Big Pharma keeps shelling out billions, their mouthpieces will dominate the headlines, their critics will be dismissed, their victims will be silenced, and the hard science will be ignored—all at the expense of public health and our children’s futures.
We guarantee it.
