The Real Lesson of January 6th – How Fascism Works

 

Yesterday was the third anniversary of the Insurrection at the Capitol.  This event remains prominent in the news due to ongoing civil and criminal litigation and the overall meaning to culture and politics in the United States.  At the level of accountability there are striking discrepancies between those who were physically at the Capitol and many who orchestrated the event. The most striking discrepancy and controversy is former President Trump. He has currently been removed from the ballots in 2 states pending what will likely be Supreme Court decisions.  The Supreme Court is clearly stacked in his favor and one of his attorneys stated an explicit quid pro quo this week as in “this President appointed you - better get him back on the ballot.”  There have also been threats that Republicans would remove Biden from the ballot to compensate for Trump being removed from ballots as a 14^th Amendment insurrectionist.

There is striking video footage of Republican legislators calling the initial event an insurrection and clearly stating that Trump was responsible – but years later walking all of that back and saying the Insurrection was just a protest – nothing to see here.

Former President Trump continues to promote The Big Lie whenever he has access to an open microphone despite overwhelming evidence being frequently recited that it is a lie. He continues to portray himself as a victim of politics even when partisans from his own party and administration recite why it is a good idea that he never be elected again. Since I ascribe to the Goldwater Rule, I will avoid any psychiatric speculation.  At an overt level, it is obvious he can keep going and continue to attack and alienate people even when it is not in his best interest. Many of his interviewed followers describe this as his best trait.

I happened to be watching a popular television show the other night and they put up a recent poll about the Insurrection and whether it was initiated by the FBI. Quite surprisingly 25% of the respondents were convinced the FBI initiated it and 26% were unsure or did not comment. So even though at this point 1200 people have been charged and 890 convicted of federal crimes associated with the Insurrection – over half of Americans are either certain that this was an FBI conspiracy or uncertain that it was not.  What is happening here?

Although much of politics is an irrational appeal to emotion – it is clearly at an all time high in the United States.  A recent Foreign Affairs article describes this trend as coinciding with the US now being a major exporter of white supremacist terrorism. Most Americans probably do not know that President Grant created the Department of Justice to counter white supremacist terrorism by the Ku Klux Klan in 1870.  A group who spread recruiting literature across Twin Cities suburbs in 2022 also promoted antisemitism.  Just the act of dispersing that literature is a clear sign that something in the US has gone horribly wrong.  What is the problem?

Listening to many of the supporters of these processes it is easy to attribute the support for autocracy, the Insurrection, and the MAGA movement to ignorance.  They see the former President as a strong man who speaks his mind and that is all that they are interested in. They do not care about the book length criticisms of people with worked closely with him during his Presidency.  Many of those criticisms have been severe – questioning his depth of knowledge and decision-making ability. They don’t care about public remarks he has made that were basically false or dog whistles.  They say they care about the economy but the Biden economy is clearly superior to the Trump economy and easily exceeded any warnings Trump had about not re-electing him.  They don't care about the fact that Trump does not campaign on relevant domestic or foreign policy issues.  

The lack of a rational basis for supporting Trump and MAGA suggest that other factors are at play. First and foremost is partisan politics.  Practically all the Republicans that were skeptical or critical of Trump have fallen in behind him – not wanting to provoke the ire of his MAGA loyalists.  Their affiliation is with a seriously compromised Republican party rather than the republic itself.  Better to have a good career and government job and let the Insurrection cards fall where they may.  The Republicans walking away rather than make that compromise are a small minority and deserve our gratitude.

Nihilism is a significant factor.  Nihilism is a vague term, I am using the existential meaning.  In other words, meaninglessness is pervasive both in terms of the truth being relative rather than absolute and the same is true for institutions. This is a large part of what Trump does on almost a daily basis.   Using a shotgun approach he has attacked just about every aspect of the government, military, public health, educational, and judicial systems and continues to do so.  Many of the attacks have been personal and directed at people who have distinguished government service. These attacks are unprecedented by any American president and unquestionably erode the authority of these agencies – not just with his followers but in general.  Some have endangered the people attacked and their families.  Many of his supporters clearly want to burn “the system” down and not replace it. Nihilism also reinforces many right-wing conspiracy theories like the secret Deep State or the FBI orchestrating the Insurrection.

The symbols of nihilism were prominent at the January 6 Insurrection and included a Confederate flag, a gallows and a noose, militia gear and paramilitary tactics.  Since then, at least one Republican candidate offered support for Lost Cause rhetoric that revises history to suggest that aggressive northern states fought the Civil War to suppress states’ rights in the south rather than end slavery. The idea of a rebellion is also suggested rather than an insurrection and an attack on the legitimate government of the United States.  The Civil War was really a war between the Confederacy and the United States rather than the North versus the South. All that rhetoric is designed to render the real history of the Civil War meaningless.  It was no accident that the Confederate flag appeared in the Capitol carried by insurrectionists.  There is nothing more nihilistic than vigilante law as evidenced by the threat of hanging rationalized as “so the traitors know the stakes” initially and then a site where insurrectionists chanted to “Hang Mike Pence!” while searching for him in the Capitol Building.

“Nihilistic hooliganism” or “striving to create the atmosphere of a street battle or barroom brawl” was a tactic used by Goebbels in the Nazi propaganda paper Der Angriff because at the time he knew it appealed to supporters (2). It seems obvious that several individuals and factions in the Republican party are intent creating this kind of atmosphere.  Late in 2023 it extended into Congress with threat of physical violence against a witness in a hearing and alleged physical contact between Republican members of Congress in the hallways.

In the vacuum of nihilism, the right does not hesitate to dictate how people should think on culture war or hot button issues like guns, abortion, LGBT issues, separation of church and state, control over education, climate change denial, and pandemic denial.   They cast attempts to remove overt misinformation as censorship and a return to rational gun control as a denial of Second Amendment rights.  In many cases there is a “doubling down” on any political gains made in these areas.  This level of cynicism and disingenuousness keeps the threat of gun violence very real for most Americans and has had a clear negative impact on women’s health where abortion access is considered essential health care by experts. This doubling down to the point of criminalization is characteristic of autocracies that consider winning cultural issues crucial for the survival of their ideology.

Trump and his supporters are using very well-known propaganda techniques.  The first is to establish Trump as a cult of personality. He has certainly done this himself by marketing himself as a superhero. Any search on superhero Trump merchandise brings up pages of this stuff.  He also markets himself as being a genius and being tough and ruthless if necessary. Practically all the drama surrounding the current court cases, including sustained attacks on court officials is all part of that image. An average citizen watching this unfold can only wonder why he can get away with behavior that would cause anyone else to get contempt charges and incarceration. Since this is also unprecedented behavior it is reminiscent of other negatively charismatic leaders like Hitler who cultivated mythical images:

“Hard, ruthless, resolute, uncompromising, and radical, he would destroy the old privilege - and class-ridden society and bring about a new beginning, uniting the people in an ethnically pure and socially harmonious 'national community'.” (1)

The entire MAGA movement and its associated “drain the swamp” mottos are consistent with Trump’s cultivated image that has successfully obliterated the fact that he has had far more privilege than practically any other person in the MAGA movement.

As in the case of Hitler, it takes more than a self-cultivated mythical image to establish a following that will ignore obvious deficits and vote for you no matter what. In the case of Republican politicians – self-interest is the obvious motivation.  If any other candidate has a chance in the national elections, they would not all be in lock step behind Trump. The fall out from that process has been astounding including continuing to support the Big Lie strategies and making the original January 6^th Insurrection out to be a picnic.

A pillar of the autocrat playbook is to attack everything in the existing government and suggest all these problems will be solved when the superior human being is elected.  That involves significant distortion at three levels.  First – it devalues clear accomplishments of the existing government.  Most serious students of government would describe the Biden administration as one of the most successful in modern history.  Some of that success depended on correcting the damage done by the last Trump administration.  Second - direct attacks on the opposition, unfounded accusations, and name calling.   Third – it depends on a distortion of the abilities of their ideal candidate.  In the case of Trump there is a long list of deficiencies provided by members of his own party and people who were in his own cabinet. Many of them are clear that he should never be re-elected.  That stands in sharp contrast to the hyperbole candidate Trump and his dedicated followers.   

The real lesson of January 6, 2021 is that American democracy is under attack from one of the major parties and a former President who is combative to the point of alienating members of his own party, never admits he is wrong, is hypersensitive to criticism, and is not honest with the American people.  A significant part of the electorate finds that attractive even though it is not clear what would happen if their candidate is reelected.  His stated first order of business is to get revenge on those who he feels have slighted him. That image should give any rational voter pause.  The only thing scarier is what happens when autocrats implode (and they all do).  It is typically as a colossal failure – negatively impacting the entire country for years.  In the United States there is a good chance that fall will be far greater than any other country.

That is why the lessons of January 6 at the Capitol should never be forgotten.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

 

Supplementary 1:  How the FBI started the Insurrection Conspiracy Theory got started was discovered and debunked in January 2022.  An Arizona man named Ray Epps was filming the insurrection and apparently encouraging people to enter the Capitol.  Assuming he was an FBI agent provided the basis for the conspiracy theory.  When he was questioned by the January 6 Committee – Epps stated he was not working for law enforcement or a member of the FBI.  As the linked article states prominent Republicans including Sen. Ted Cruz promoted this theory. 

The actual story:

".....Fox News Channel and other right-wing media outlets amplified conspiracy theories that Epps, 62, was an undercover government agent who helped incite the Capitol attack to entrap Trump supporters. Epps filed a defamation lawsuit against Fox News last year, saying the network was to blame for spreading baseless claims about him...."

Kunzelman M.   Ray Epps, a target of Jan. 6 conspiracy theories, gets a year of probation for his Capitol riot role.  Associated Press January 9, 2024.  https://www.yahoo.com/news/ray-epps-target-jan-6-164800399.html

References:

1:  Kershaw I.  The Hitler Myth.  History Today. 1985; 35(11): 23-29.  https://www.historytoday.com/archive/hitler-myth

2:  Lemmons R.  Goebbels and Der Angriff.  1994.  University of Kentucky Press. Lexington, Kentucky. p. 128-131.

 

Graphics Credit:

1:  Main Graphic is: DC Capitol Storming by TapTheForwardAssist, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons. 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DC_Capitol_Storming_IMG_7947.jpg

Note the original was altered by me with the superimposed transparency.

2:  Transparency is:  WWII, Europe, Germany, "Nazi Hierarchy, Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, Hess", The Desperate Years p143 – NARA by National Archives and Records Administration, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WWII,_Europe,_Germany,_%22Nazi_Hierarchy,_Hitler,_Goering,_Goebbels,_Hess%22,_The_Desperate_Years_p143_-_NARA_-_196509.jpg

 

 

 

The True Big Pharma Backers Show Themselves

 

Here is a hint – they are not psychiatrists or even physicians.  They are Republicans.  That may come as a shock to those of you who have absorbed all of the pharma conflict of interest stories about physicians over the past 20 years. Psychiatry in general was selected for much of that criticism. The average physician in the US had no significant conflict of interest even when trivial compensation like meals during continuing medical education (CME) courses were tallied. Some members of Congress even went so far to investigate some psychiatrist’s personal employment arrangements to point out any potential conflicts of interest when it came to pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Today we finally have some clarification on who really backs Big Pharma and wants to assure their large profits.  It should come as no surprise that it is Congress – specifically members of the pro-business GOP.  For years, Congressional conflict-of-interest has been sanitized by their disclosures as if that somehow prevented them from passing pro-Pharma legislation and regulations. For the record the amount of lobby money to the major parties varies from year to year.  For 2022 a total of $26,297,445 was donated from the pharmaceutical industry with $15,175,518 to the Democrats and $10,994,723 to the Republicans. That is an average donation of $29,159 to $105,910.  By contrast the Open Payments site recording payments to health care professionals claims that drug and medical device companies gave physicians $12.59 billion in 2022, but they are counting funds used to pay for research as well as profits from ownership of patents and medical devices (a total of $8.87 billion).  Looking at general payments alone, the physicians receiving any type of reimbursement averaged about $441. The current reporting rule is that any amount exceeding $10 or an aggregate of $100 in the case of meals must be reported.

I previously asked the question whether a slice of pizza given to a doctor at grand rounds was more likely to get results for the pharmaceutical industry than the average donation to Congress ($46,579 at the time).  I made the point that despite the continuous criticism of psychiatrists, they happen to be way down on the list of physicians getting these donations with about 37% receiving general payments and 3.6% receiving payments totaling more than $10,000.

But all the corruption by trivial payments discussion was based on shaky research. It is quite easy to demonstrate that physicians want to try new drugs as they come into the marketplace and show that marketing efforts correlate with prescriptions. We had a No Free Lunch movement to prevent corruption by pizza slices. We had a great deal of agitation about ghost writers, pharmaceutical companies not publishing negative studies, faulty research, side effect reporting, etc. Almost all of that involved psychiatry and often several self-appointed critics from the field.  There are undoubtedly problems with clinical trials in all specialties, but during that 20-year span from about 1998-2018 it seemed as if there was an active conspiracy to sell psychiatric medications.  To some extent that continues but it has less legitimacy in the field particularly since drug detailing and sales have been eliminated from most clinics and hospitals.

All of that commotion was probably good cover for Congress who was actually receiving payments that could make a difference.  And during that time pharmaceutical companies recorded record profits.

What is different now?  The Biden administration has decided that it wants to negotiate prices for Medicare Part D prescriptions. They are on solid ground. The Veterans Administration (VA) negotiates drug prices and has 399 drugs on their formulary.  A GAO study showed that they paid 54% less per unit than Medicare. HHS has already selected the drugs that will be negotiated in the initial round and as expected most of them are the high expenditure drugs in the plan.

The Republicans claim that these negotiations will decrease access to care and raise drug prices although there is no evidence that the VA negotiations have done that. They also claim that there will be reduced innovation, research and development, and job losses. They seem to have missed the overall picture that pharmaceutical companies in other countries succeed – even when there are negotiated prices with the health plan in those countries. Of the top 15 pharmaceutical companies in the world 8 are in the United States and the remainder in Switzerland, UK, France, Denmark, and Japan. The numbers given for fewer new drugs, fewer new indications, and drop in R&D spending seem highly speculative to me.  For example, the drop of $663B in R&D spending is the equivalent of about half of the total revenue for the top 15 companies.   I seriously doubt they are spending that much on R&D. During the 20 year period that I am referring to companies left entire therapeutic areas and it was common knowledge that marketing was going to drive pharmaceutical sales. There is an entire section about decreased jobs.  Are the Republicans really suggesting that Americans should pay (by far) the highest amounts for prescription drugs in order to fund a jobs program? And finally, the suggestion that the plan is “legally dubious”.  Apparently Congress is set up to help industries optimize profits rather than protect people who can’t pay a thousand dollars or more for a Medicare Part D copay.         

This post also has implications of pharmacy benefit managers or PBMs.  You remember them?  They are the business entities charged with “managing” your pharmacy benefits allegedly to make medications most “cost effective”.  PBMs make about $315 B annually for doing nothing more than managing prescription drug programs for employers and other large entities with health insurance programs. In practice they are a price multiplier rather than a price reducer.  PBMs control the spread or difference between what the insurance pays for a medication and what they reimburse pharmacies. In some cases, their reimbursement for pharmacies is lower than the actual cost of the medication. Since they are leveraging large number of patients, local pharmacies typically do not have much of a choice if they expect to do business – even though an affiliation with a PBM is draining. PBMs can own their own pharmacies and reimburse those pharmacies more than community pharmacies.   For a physician the most onerous aspect of PBMs occurs with prices for drugs and their positions on formularies for hospitals and clinics.  A formulary is a restricted list of medications available for physicians in that health plan to prescribe for their patients.  That can mean a patient has to change their prescription for it to be covered or some newer medication may not be covered at all.  During negotiations with manufacturers, PBMs can get a rebate from the manufacturer if they get their product exclusively in the formulary. That rebate is kept by the PBM rather than shared with the people paying for the drug.  

The pharmaceutical landscape is a minefield that is set up to optimize corporate profits. Pharmaceutical companies are essentially guaranteed high margins based on patent exclusivity and high prices.  PBMs generate a lot of revenue, add no value, and many pharmacists would add are a drain on their businesses. Let's face it - these businesses like most of healthcare in the US were essentially invented in Congress.  If they are not a recipe for making money - I don't know what is.  The Medicare Part D price negotiations through the Inflation Reduction Act is the first bright spot I have seen in a long time.  Republicans clearly want to maintain the status quo and that means extremely expensive medications and copays for anyone who is in the Medicare Part D coverage gap. If you were ever surprised by one of these copays like I was recently – support the Biden Administration’s attempt to control high drug prices.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Supplementary 1:  An obvious point that I forgot in the original post in terms of backing Big Pharma is the idea that any physician would back limited access to a needed medication because of financial (rationing) restrictions.  Toward the latter half of my career, if anything physicians have made extraordinary efforts to get medications for their patients including having to manage large collections of samples and try to supply some patients from those samples.  Incredibly - some critics saw that as another perk from pharmaceutical companies that was corrupting physicians.  Some politicians on the other hand who are getting very large donations from pharmaceutical companies have no hesitation in suggesting that American patients should continue to pay exorbitant costs for pharmaceuticals - even if it means not being able to afford medication and compromised health.   

Supplementary 2:  Must watch video on regulatory capture or how Congress profits from disrupting free markets and establishing monopolies. Pharma and electronic health record (EHR) companies are cited examples, but there are additional examples including broadband and AI:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9cO3-MLHOM

  

Straight Talk About the Government Dismantling Care for Serious Mental Illness

The ShrinkRap blog posted a link to an E. Fuller Torrey and D.J. Jaffe editorial in the National Review about how the government has dismantled mental health care for serious mental illnesses and some of the repercussions.   Since I have been saying the exact same thing for the past 20 years, they will get no argument from me.  Only in the theatre of the absurd that passes for press coverage of mental illness and psychiatry in this country can this subject be ignored and silenced for so long.  It was obviously much more important to see an endless stream of articles trying to make the DSM-5 seem relevant for every man.  The stunning part about the Newtown article is the commentary about what government officials responsible for policy have actually been saying about it.

The authors waste very little time examining the sequence of events in the Obama administration following the Newtown, Connecticut mass shooting.  President Obama initially stated he would "make access to mental health care as easy as access to guns." and set up a Task Force under Vice President Biden to make recommendations.  The authors argue that the agency that was consulted, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) promotes a model of treating mental illness that has no proven efficacy, does not discuss serious mental illnesses in its planning document, ignores effective treatments for serious mental illnesses and actually goes so far as to fund programs that block the implementation of effective treatment programs.  In an example of the obstruction of effective programming by SAMHSA funded programs following the Newtown mass shooting:

"But, alas, the situation is even worse. SAMHSA does not merely ignore effective treatments for individuals with severe mental illness. It also funds programs that attempt to undermine the implementation of such treatments at the state and county level. One such program is the Protection and Advocacy program, a $34 million SAMHSA program that was originally implemented to protect patients in mental hospitals from abuse. It was kidnapped by civil-liberties zealots and has been used to block the implementation of assisted outpatient treatment, funding efforts to undermine it in at least 13 states. For example in Connecticut, following the Newtown massacre of schoolchildren, the federally funded Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities testified before a state-legislature working group in opposition to the proposed implementation of a proposed law permitting court-ordered outpatient treatment for individuals with severe mental illness who have been proven dangerous. The law did not pass."  (page 3, par 2.)

In other words, a SAMHSA funded program was opposed to a law in Connecticut that could potentially reduce violence from persons with severe mental illness.

SAMHSA administrators are quoted at times in the article. Any quote can be taken out of context but the characterizations of severe mental illness as "severe emotional distress", "a spiritual experience" and "a coping mechanism and not a disease" reflect a serious lack of knowledge about these disorders.  The idea that "the  covert mission of the mental health system ...is social control" is standard antipsychiatry philosophy from the 1960s.  How is it that after the Decade of the Brain and the new Obama Brain Initiative  we can have a lead federal agency that apparently knows nothing about the treatment of serious mental illnesses?  How is it that apart from  some fairly obscure testimony, no professional organizations have pointed this out?  How is it in an era where governments at all levels seem to demand evidence based care, that a lead agency on mental health promotes treatment that has no evidence basis and ignores the treatment that is evidence based?

Having been a long time advocate for the prevention of violence by the treatment of severe mental illnesses my comments parallel those of the authors.  Inpatient bed capacity in psychiatry has been decimated.  They point out that there are only 5% of the public psychiatry beds available that there were 50 years ago.  It is well known that people with mental illnesses are being incarcerated in record numbers and some of the nation's county jails have become the largest psychiatric institutions.  Where are all of the civil liberties advocates trying to get the mentally ill out of jail?

Only a small portion of the beds available can be used for potentially violent or aggressive patients and that number gets much smaller if a violent act has actually been committed. Most of the bed capacity in this country is under the purview of some type of managed care organization and that reduces the likelihood of adequate assessment or treatment.  The discharge plan in some cases is to just put the patient on a bus to another state.

Community psychiatry is a valuable unmentioned resource in this area.  In most of the individual cases mentioned in this article, the lack of insight into mental illness or anosognosia is prominent.  It is not reasonable to expect that a person with anosognosia will follow up with outpatient appointments or even continue to take a medication that treats their symptoms into remission.  Active treatment in the community by a psychiatrists and a team who knows the patient and their family is the best way to proceed.  All of this active treatment has been cost shifted out of insurance coverage and is subject to budget cuts at the county and state level.

Civil commitment laws and proceedings are probably the weakest link in treatment.  Further cost shifting occurs and violent patients often end up aggregating in the counties with the most resources.  Even while they are there, many courts hear (from a budgetary perspective) that they are committing too many people and the interpretation of the commitment law becomes more liberal until there is an incident that leads to the interpretation tightening up again.  Bureaucrats involved often become libertarians and suggest that commitment can occur only if an actual violent incident has happened rather than the threat of violence.

Although Torrey and Jaffe are using the extreme situation of violence in the seriously mentally ill to make their point, the majority of the seriously mentally ill are not violent.  They need the same resources.  It has been thirty years of systematic discrimination against these people, their families and the doctors trying to treat them that has led to these problems.  I pointed out earlier on this blog the problem I have with SAMHSA and the use of the term "behavioral health".  The problems with SAMHSA and current federal policy are covered in this article and I encourage anyone with an interest to read it.  If history is any indication, I don't expect anything serious to come of the criticism.  I anticipate a lot of rhetorical blow back at Dr. Torrey.  But as a psychiatrist who has worked in these environments for most of my career, his analysis of the problem is right on the mark.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

E. Fuller Torrey & D.J. Jaffe.  After Newtown.  National Review Online.

White House.  Now Is The Time.  The President's plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence.  January 16, 2013.

Assault rifles, high capacity magazines, background checks and reverting to form

That is what it is coming down to according to the talking heads on the Sunday morning TV circuit this week.  Both the NRA and several politicians agree that there are not enough votes for an assault weapons ban.  There may be enough votes for a high capacity magazine ban but both sides acknowledge that these clips are inexpensive and there are already a lot of them out there.  The background checks issue is also debatable.  The NRA and the pro-gun factions are talking a lot about mental illness and needing to have a mechanism to prevent people with mental illnesses from getting guns.  There is minimal discussion of improved mental health services.  On CNN Sunday  morning there was acknowledgement that during tough budgetary times the line items supporting mental health treatment are the first to go.

So basically despite all of the hype about how the Sandy Hook incident was going to energize politicians to actually solve a problem – they appear to be rapidly reverting to form and not solving anything.  The NRA President seemed confident that nothing would happen (the NRA opposes any assault weapons ban or high capacity magazine ban), but cautioned that the President has a lot of political capital and might be able to influence the high capacity magazines.

I wanted to file this post tonight before the final recommendations of the Vice President because I think that there have been two recent articles in the medical literature that are very relevant. At the legislative level Jerome Kassirer, MD has a recent article in Archives of Internal Medicine. Dr. Kassirer is a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and I corresponded with him on this issue nearly 30 years ago.  He clearly has not lost interest over the years and brings several concepts into focus in his editorial. The first concerns the fundamentals of screening and how any effort to identify potential shooters would result in the false positives greatly outnumbering the true positives and how that renders screening impractical.  His primary focus has to do with countering political initiatives.  As an example the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC is currently prevented from studying gun related injuries.  He advocates for countering that.  He advocates for a comprehensive analysis of gun ownership.  He also advocates for resistance to any laws that restrict physicians being able to talk about firearms with their patients. He wants to see universal background checks from gun purchases, gun safety devices including coded weapons, and restrictions on large capacity magazines and sales of large amounts of ammunition. His article refers to firearms as "Weapons of Mass Destruction".  Small arms and light weapons are in fact a major global problem.  This Federation of American Scientists primer highlights the issue and the fact that there have been over 1 million deaths due to small arms in the past decade. Some advocacy organizations estimate that as many as 250,000 people per year are killed by small arms fire worldwide.

The second very important article comes from the Journal of the American Medical Association. The authors of this article emphasize the public health approach to curbing gun violence. This is a very important concept that people have a difficult time grasping. Whenever I bring up the issue of psychiatrists being involved at the level of primary and secondary prevention most people distill that down to whether or not psychiatrists can predict violence.  A public health approach to violence prevention is much more comprehensive and multidimensional.  The authors give several good examples in this paper including modifying sociocultural norms.  They use the example of tobacco being media symbol of “modernity, autonomy, power, and sexuality" and how that was changed.  They suggest an analogous campaign to equate gun violence with weakness, irrationality, and cowardice. The article has a table that has 18 evidence-based public health interventions that have been successful in other areas that could be applied to gun violence.  This is actually the preferred strategy that I have been advocating for the past decade and the authors of this article state it very eloquently.

At this point in time it will be interesting to see if the Vice President's recommendations include any of the interventions suggested by these two articles or the recommendations from the APA.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

1: Kassirer JP. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Dec 21:1-2.  doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.4026. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 23262523.

2.  APA Recommendations to the Biden Task Force

3.  Mozaffarian D, Hemenway D, Ludwig DS. Curbing Gun Violence: Lessons From Public Health Successes. JAMA. 2013 Jan 7:1-2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.38. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 23295618.