Existential Threats....

 

Mapping Existential Threats in the Medical Literature

 

I heard President Trump and several right-wing politicians complaining about the term “existential threat” in the press the other day.  Some of the clips were a few months old but the overall message was first – “I didn’t know what it means”, second – the people using the term (in this case former President Biden discussing climate change) don’t know what it means, and third you are an elitist if you use the term because the average family in American does not use the term and you should learn to talk like them.  Like most statements uttered by the current President and his unquestioning party I found it rhetorical, not useful, and decided to see what the medical literature said.  This is what I found.

On PubMed, there are 248 references to the term dating back to 1979.  As seen in the table most of the scenarios listed like climate change, COVID and other pandemics (in this case HIV), diseases, antibiotic resistance, artificial intelligence, and other threats to life are the commonest threats listed in medical literature.  By definition, an existential threat puts the future of some group (humanity, specified individuals) or person at risk.  The worst-case scenario is an extinction event like the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg extinction) event that occurred 66 million years ago.  That was caused by an asteroid strike and it led to the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs and 75% of all plant and animal species. 

The tables contain existential threats to humanity, many subgroups including physicians and the afflicted, school and businesses, other animals, and plants, as well as ecosystems.  It also includes the psychological component where the perceived threat is experienced as a threat to existence, but more at a symbolic level.  Yalom’s text (1) on existential psychotherapy breaks those threats down to death anxiety, freedom, isolation, and meaninglessness.  Other psychoanalytical writers point out that existential crises are more likely to occur at various points in human development.  In psychiatric practice it is common to see people experiencing crises in these areas across all settings.  Existential crises can exist at the level of group or individual psychology depending on the nature and scope of the threat. Some scientists hypothesize that we are currently in the midst an extinction event.  They describe this as the sixth mass extinction event and verify it by estimating the number of vertebrate species that have gone extinct and compare it to previous mass extinctions (3).  Human culture is a critical factor in this extinction and the conclusion are a massive effort is needed to head off this event and much of that effort needs to be directed at reducing overconsumption, transitioning to environmentally friendly technologies, and an equitable path to those transitions (2).  These authors point out obstacles to these changes including most people being unaware of the changes required to prevent ecosystem damage by human culture, the scope of the problem, and the necessary solution of scaling back human impact – both the scale and processes.

The political use of the term “existential threat” has been applied to the Trump administration and this is probably why Trump himself is trying to spin the term in his favor. He is focused on blaming the opposition party, but at this point it goes far beyond the Democrats.  The non-partisan Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has posted that the well know extreme budget cuts of the administration pose an existential threat to the next generation of scientists. Various publications around the world have written about Trump as an existential threat to democracy, the American economy, former American allies, Social Security, freedom, black Americans, American colleges and universities, public health, science, and critical international food and medical aid.  In many of these areas the facts are clear.  I can think of no better example than USAID and the PEPFAR program.  Just defunding those programs could lead to as many as 14 million deaths if none of these changes are reversed by the courts.  

Paranoid people do not do well with existential threats.  They lack the ability to assign probabilities. They cannot see a car on the street and just see it as another car.  They get the idea that all cars or all red cars are threats to them. The defined threat may be elaborated as surveillance by Homeland Security to being attacked by microwaves being transmitted from these cars.  In some cases, everything is seen as a threat.  The anxiety is real but the threat assessment is wrong.

If you do not know what an existential crisis is – you should.  Most students in the US start reading existential themed literature in middle school and early high school.  The average person needs to know at what level the threat exists (personal, group, civilization-wide) and what can be done about it.  That means that it makes sense to break down the specific threat, adequately assess it, and not leave it hanging there as ill-defined.  For example, nuclear war, a massive asteroid collision, and climate change threaten all human, animal, and plant life on the planet.  Not being able to get a job in an area where you were trained in college or losing your first significant relationship can be existential crises at an individual level.  That can be life changing at a personal level and the good news is most people find their way back on track with the help of family, friends, and the occasional therapist. 

The outcomes of existential threats can lead to unexpected action.  When I was in college, one of my jobs was working in the local public library.  It was a multi-county library and the main part of my work consisted of mailing out books and films to all the co-operating libraries. One day the chief librarian came in and told me it was now my job to dismantle the fall-out shelter in the basement.  The year was 1972 just 10 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis. The library had two Fallout Shelter signs like the one at the top of this post.  I went down into the basement and found about 100 steel drums.  They were all about 30-gallon capacity. According to the instructions on the side they were supposed to be used for water storage.  When empty they were supposed to be used as latrines.  None of them contained water.  I guess the planners thought there would be time after a nuclear attack to fill them all. When I asked my boss what I was supposed to do with the drums he said:” I don’t care just get them out of here.”  I took them back to my neighborhood and handed them out to anyone who wanted them.  Apart from the steel drums there was no food or medical supplies.  Just a very large room full of steel drums.

It took me a long time to figure out what happened to the fallout shelters and how they went from a national priority to complete disrepair and abandonment in a decade.  The only explanation is that the planners knew there would be no survivors. A few groups here and there would survive the blast and radiation but nobody would survive the nuclear winter.  Even a limited nuclear exchange kicks enough dust up into the atmosphere that makes food production impossible. That marks the end of humanity – the ultimate existential crisis.

Shouldn’t the man with the power to end civilization quickly or slowly know something about this?  Shouldn’t everyone know the real existential threats we are facing?  Shouldn't we all be facing these threats realistically instead of denying they exist or pretending that we can survive them?

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

 

References:

1:  Yalom ID.  Existential Psychotherapy.  Basic Books.  New York, 1980.

2:  Dirzo R, Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR. Circling the drain: the extinction crisis and the future of humanity. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2022 Aug 15;377(1857):20210378. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2021.0378. Epub 2022 Jun 27. PMID: 35757873; PMCID: PMC9237743.

3: G. Ceballos, P. R. Ehrlich, A. D. Barnosky, A. García, R. M. Pringle, T. M. Palmer.  Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253 (2015).

Supplementary:

I thought I would list a few references to existential crisis as they occur:

Ford L.  Seymour Hersh Issues Grave Warning in Venice: “Trump Wants to Be Commander of America — He Wants to Not Have Another Election”  The Hollywood Reporter.  August 29, 2025.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/seymour-hersh-issues-grave-warning-111210675.html

“There’s still integrity in America right now but as somebody said recently, we’re in existential crisis right now. And the president is a man who wants to be here for life. He wants to be commander of America. My belief is that’s his absolute sole mission. He wants to not have another election, because under the Constitution he cannot…. That’s what he’s going to be doing for the next three years.”

Killing Us Slowly…..

 

I became aware today of a Brown University study that estimates the current Trump tax cut bill will close about 580 nursing homes. Since the average nursing home has about 109 beds that means 63,220 people will be out on the street or worse.  Where do politicians (more specifically the Republican party and their constituents) think these people will go?  And why don’t they seem to care?

Over the course of my career – I have probably been in at least 50 different nursing homes in Wisconsin and Minnesota.  The care I have observed in most of those places is managed to be adequate to barely adequate.  By that I mean like all businesses they are managed to make money.  Unless they are privately financed by a foundation or high paying patients, that typically means there is minimal staffing and the most qualified people are typically RNs who spend most of their shift managing medications and medical problems.  That can mean long waits for medicines or care.  It can also mean that behavioral problems like agitation or overt aggression are allowed to escalate to a dangerous point.

When I first started doing assessments in nursing homes it was 1986.  In those days, there were very few diagnoses of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) or vascular dementia (VaD) since the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria were not widely known.  Most of the people I was seeing had diagnoses of arteriosclerotic dementia, arteriosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries. At some point very early in this timeline, there was an initiative to make sure that old people with psychiatric diagnoses did not get admitted to nursing homes.  But like all political initiatives it was not always an either-or situation.  I would frequently see people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder who had developed AD, VaD, Parkinson’s plus syndromes, or tardive syndromes in addition to the primary psychiatric disorder.  In many of those situations a subsequent rule about tapering antipsychotic medications to prevent oversedation and associated morbidities became a problem because of the need for maintenance medication.

Psychiatric services are needed in nursing homes for all of those reasons but they are rare.  The reason they are rare is funding – specifically rationing psychiatric services by both Medicare and Medicaid. I ran a Geriatric Psychiatry and Memory Disorders Clinic for a decade and we eventually closed because we could not maintain an adequate work quality and get adequate reimbursement. For a time, my clinic nurse and I decided to go out into nursing homes and see patients there to make it more convenient for patients, families and staff and see if it made a difference. We were reimbursed at an even lower rate for those efforts.  My speculation is that most of the psychiatric care and treatment in nursing homes is done by nonpsychiatrists and probably nonphysicians.  This in part is an additional reason for low quality care in most nursing homes.

Let’s consider the impact of all of these nursing home closures. First, it will greatly add to the current burden of emergency department (ED) congestion.  There is always a steady influx of nursing home patients to the ED with new diagnoses (pneumonia, urinary tract infections, cellulitis, etc). With further reductions in staffing, it may be more difficult to get them back.  I can recall one of my social work colleagues calling 22 different nursing homes one day to discharge one of our stable patients.  None of them would accept that patient. We were under intense pressure from the hospital at the time to discharge that patient because we needed to admit patients from the ED.  That whole chain of events will get worse – not the least due to the fact that far fewer nursing homes will accept people who have been admitted to an acute care psychiatric unit. There will be backups all around – on inpatient units and in the ED.  The same chain of events will occur on medical and surgical units who often put pressure on psychiatry to take their “stable” nursing home patients who may have a psychiatric disorder.

There will also be a steady-state of patients bouncing in and out of the ED-inpatient psychiatry or medicine-discharge sequence.  This is a familiar pattern in many hospital subpopulations that usually occurs because of a lack of adequate housing.  Expect to see more elderly nursing patients captured by this cycle.

Will there be excessive mortality and morbidity?  Of course there will be.  In the course of my career, I had to discharge patient to nursing homes where I knew they could not get the level of care they got on my inpatient unit.   I worked with highly skilled RNs – 4 on the day shift, 3 on the evening shift, and one on nights with 3, 2, and 2 nursing assistants respectively covering 20 beds. We cared for patients with complex medical problems that required frequent monitoring and intervention.  I knew there was no nursing home that I could discharge them to where they would get the same level of care and that would be a problem for them.

I have also walked in to a nursing home and seen the results with my own eyes. I recall visiting a 92 yr old woman with congestive heart failure and hypertension.  She was obtunded, cyanotic, and barely responsive.  When I asked the staff to check her oximetry and start oxygen they produced a nursing supervisor instead for a discussion.  When the oximetry was finally done it was 60% and she regained a normal conscious state with oxygen.  The assessment I made only required knowing this patient’s baseline state and asking what had happened given her chronic conditions.  Is that too much to ask in the case of nursing home staff?

In another more recent case – a 92 yr old man had C. difficile colitis following extended antibiotic therapies for post COVID-19 pneumonia.   During that time his body weight went from 130 to 87 lbs (he was 5’11” tall).  He was weak and barely able to ambulate. Despite the C. difficile diagnosis there were no infection control precautions and he shared a bathroom with 3 roommates.  Despite his clinical status (barely able to walk unassisted, not able to eat, BMI of 12.1) the insurance company paying for his care insisted that he be discharged home under the care of his family where he died the next day.  

Both of these cases are examples of low-quality care.  Rationing care is the most likely reason.  In one case the rationing is implicit (low staffing based on the need for profits from reimbursement) and explicit (inappropriate utilization review decision).   It all comes back to reimbursement.

A final consideration is that the funding cuts go far beyond nursing home care.  The most conservative estimate I have found is that the cuts would increase the number of uninsured by 7.8 million people and reduce Medicaid enrollment for 10.3 million.  Hospitals are legally obligated to treat all people with acute care conditions whether they have insurance or not. That means that many of these people will be in the ED-inpatient-discharge steady state cycle taking up beds.  They will also more likely be acutely ill and spend more time in the hospital.  All of that care is unreimbursed.  That means higher health care costs and premiums for everyone.  One projection is a doubling of premiums.  This is essentially another tax on the average American who is just trying to break even.  All of that is to provide tax cuts for billionaires and businesses while still incurring a 3-5 trillion dollar deficient.

It also means less access to hospital beds when you need it.  I have illustrated on this blog what can happen when you don’t have timely hospital bed access for what is considered a routine condition.

In the final analysis, nursing home care in the United States is seriously rationed care. Although there are some high-end nursing homes that require additional reimbursement and provide more supportive environments - most are not operating at that level.  They provide the basic function of providing care on a 24/7 basis to a severely disabled person that the family cannot care for.  Even that is a recent concept in American society.  As an example, one of my elderly ancestors had a closed head injury as a result of blast injury. He lived at a time when there were no nursing homes in his area only a poor farm, that cared for the indigent and poor elderly.  He had a problem with severe aggression and would routinely wreck all of the furniture in the house. I never learned how they were able to contain this behavior, but the modern question is whether this is an acceptable standard for families.  Can family members be expected to contain severe aggression from a family member with dementia and keep everyone safe?  I don’t see how.      

Severe rationing of health care in the bill being debated hurts us all…

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Photo Credit:  Thanks to Rick Ziegler for the thunderstorm photo. 

The Demon Haunted World – A Survivalist Counterfactual

 

The Demon Haunted World – A Survivalist Counterfactual

 

I found myself watching survivalist videos last night.  I had just completed a blog post and was working on another (that is becoming a thesis rather than a blog) and decided to take a break.  I have dabbled in that literature on and off over the past 30 years and found that it does not add much. The end games are typically played out in popular movies and fiction. You either find yourself in an impregnable underground shelter or wandering semi-aimlessly over a barren and hostile landscape.  Both scenarios have their problems.

In the impregnable fortress there are the inevitable power struggles, equipment breakdowns, outside attacks, functional and dysfunctional alliances, and lack of planning.  Good recent examples include The Silo and Fallout.  In the wandering scenario there seem to be a plethora of hazards including violent psychopaths, cannibals, various zombies, diseases, natural disasters, and the ever-present lack of food and water.   Examples include The Road, The Walking Dead, and The Last of Us.

Survivalists are more realistically focused. The brief series that I watched emphasized escaping detection by any means.  The implication was that you were in a secure remote location with adequate food and water.  The assumption is that there are many people who were not prepared for when the shit hits the fan or WTSHTF for short.  Four days of starvation is enough to make most people desperate and at that point they cannot be trusted.  A corollary is that once they get skilled at taking what they need from others – you may be the next target.

The first video discussed the importance of smoke. A poorly constructed fire can lead to a smoke signal for people to see for miles.  That signal translates to shelter, warmth, food, and resources to any desperate person who sees it.  The author emphasized methods to minimize smoke production. Elaborate underground survival shelters not only minimize smoke but also heat signatures to avoid infrared detectors and missiles.

 The second avoidable signal to the post-apocalyptic miscreants is gunfire. You might be thinking hunting, but the emphasis was on interpersonal conflict rather than hunting.  There may be better ways to resolve a dispute and secondarily gunfire WTSHTF is not necessarily a red flag. It is a sign out there that somebody has food and resources they want to protect.   The zombie mindset is “even if you do not have a gun – you might be able to hang around in the darkness long enough to get what you want.”  No other ways were discussed about how to avoid gunfire.

The final avoidable signal was light.  Even as little as a candle represents somebody with enough resources that they can and want to see in the dark. It represents the last vestige of civilization.  For that reason, it must be blocked at all costs. Curtains were emphasized as a practical measure but black out screens were preferable.  It reminded me of the subtitle to Carl Sagan’s classic book The Demon Haunted World (TDHW).  That subtitle is: Science as a candle in the dark.  It seemed like a perfect metaphor for what is currently happening in the world. To anyone who has not read the book – the subtitle is from Thomas Ayd’s 1655 treatise on witchcraft A Candle In the Dark where he described witchhunts as a way to delude the people about what was otherwise unexplainable.  Sagan sums up the progress against witchmongering this way:

“Microbiology and meteorology now explain what only a few centuries ago was considered sufficient cause to burn women to death.” (p. 26).

The title is a metaphor for reason and truth in the context of dire superstition and this is captured by Sagan’s summation.

Many reviews of TDHW suggest that Sagan’s views are formulaic – a few rules about how to assess facts and be skeptical along with listing logical fallacies. That minimizes the context he provides about the founding fathers and how they were impacted by The Enlightenment and science. Sagan’s thesis is more complex. He is the first to acknowledge that science is not perfect but that the method of science encourages and produces self-correction. To capture reasoning that is strictly outside of formal science, Sagan suggests that all matter of human endeavor like politics, economics, and even specific policies can be subjected to scientific reasoning and scrutiny and it will result in better results and prevent primitive biases.    

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic there has been an almost continuous attack on science and scientific experts.  The first Trump administration attacked public health officials, physicians, scientists, and anyone affiliated with them.  They promoted ineffective and potentially harmful treatments for COVID, suggested vaccines were problematic, said that COVID-19 was no worse than the flu, and that case and death rates were overstated.  Several conspiracy theories were promoted suggesting that HIV was a planned bioweapon, that NIH officials were corrupt, and that the “planned” HIV epidemic was paralleled by the “planned” COVID epidemic.  If the COVID epidemic was not planned it was supposed to have originated from a lab leak in China despite all the evidence pointing against that.  The problem is not merely a lack of training in science and the scientific method.  The problem is that we have a large segment of the population that really does not care about their ignorance of science and a large segment who seem to happily take advantage of that on social media.

Sagan has a famous quote that is considered prophetic by many:

“…Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking.  I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time – when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide almost without noticing, back into darkness and superstition.”   (p. 25).   

Much has been made about manufacturing in the US and there is an active debate.  Specifically – is it a feasible solution for whatever economic problems you claim it will solve?  I have seen business experts interviewed who say it is not and others who have their own specialized supply chains within the country as being a solution. How will it be compounded by tariffs and an attempt to resuscitate the coal industry? The technological power is concentrated at the monopoly level according to several court decisions.  And what about artificial intelligence? There are daily predictions that AI will replace not only truck drivers and assembly line works but also doctors and teachers.  There are grandiose claims that AI will "cure all diseases" in less than the time I have been writing this blog.  Those aspects of Sagan’s prediction seem too uncertain to be useful.

The lack of knowledge in both the general population and at the highest levels of government is also on display.  Scientific knowledge and thinking is lacking and that it is not enough.  Any reasonable analysis of population wide policies needs to include a scientific dimension, a rational thinking dimension, and a moral/ethical dimension.  This is the real current failure.  As an example, the divisive rhetoric used around the COVID-19 issue.  There was a lot of uncertainty about the best way to stop the pandemic. As physicians and public health officials were learning about this and saving lives – the counter response was that no measures were necessary including vaccinations.  In the end public health officials were being blamed for lockdowns and school closings that could only have been done by local elected officials. That rapidly evolved to conspiracy theories that led to threats of physical harm and legal action against some of the top scientists.  The culmination of this rhetoric was recently evident when the Trump administration replaced a government webpage providing scientific information on COVID-19 with one that presents a combination of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience.  None of this sequence of activity included science, rationality, or ethics.

This is what Sagan is referring to in his quote. The current web page on COVID is emblematic of sliding into the modern version of darkness and superstition. Like the old version the new one is as out in the open and accepted by many. There is an army of celebrities, podcasters, media networks, social media bots, and writers supporting it. Some of the wealthiest people in the country claim they were “censored” because they opposed some suggested COVID measures or supported anti-science rhetoric – even though there was no formal censoring. The dark narrative is very present and it continues to take its toll in terms of cabinet appointees who promote it and some who seek vindication against scientists and officials who were making a good faith effort.

As far as science goes, whether that is hard science or the dismal science of economics – we have a choice to stay in darkness and superstition or move toward the light of science and facts.   Not caring about the smoke is the difference between surviving and living.

 

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

 

 

Graphics Credit:

Campfire in the forest by Crusier, CC license BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0&gt https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Campfire_in_forest.jpg

References:

1:  Sagan Carl.  The Demon-Haunted World – Science as a Candle In The Dark.  Ballantine Books 1997.

2:  Ayd Thomas.  A Candle in the Dark.  Smithfield, London. 1655.

Norovirus - Avoid It If You Can

 

Norovirus is an Increasing Problem

Norovirus is a non-enveloped single strand RNA virus.  One of the critical features of Norovirus is infectivity.  Infected individuals secrete the virus in feces, saliva, and oral mucus.  Virus can be detectable in the saliva for up to 2 weeks after infection even though most of the guidelines for food preparers suggests that they can go back to work 2-3 days after the acute illness has passed.  The infective dose for Norovirus is as little as 18 viral particles (1).  An infected person is excreting billions of these particles. For comparison, influenza virus requires a dose of about 1.95-3.0 x 10³ infectious particles, and most common respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV-2 are on par with Norovirus. 

The clinical syndrome develops rapidly after exposure resulting in abdominal cramping, vomiting and diarrhea.  It creates significant mortality and morbidity causing an estimated 213,000 deaths world-wide (2).  In the US 900 people die per year out of 21 million infections. Most of the fatalities occur in the elderly and immunocompromised. Rapid fluid loss and dehydration is most likely a causative factor especially in the case of pre-existing medical problems. There is a bias toward advising all people like they are healthy young adults and that this syndrome is a self-limited 2-3 day episode of stomach flu.

There is an asymptomatic carrier state with anywhere from 11.6-49.2% of measured populations carrying the virus. This also extends to 1-3.4% of food handlers.  Humans were previously the only known reservoir for this virus, but a recent review looked at modern data and concluded that it may be a reverse zoonosis with human to animal transmission in lab animals and the wild (3, 4). 

Outbreaks of the virus are getting more common especially in environments where there is close contact and contact with contaminated surfaces like schools, universities, elderly homes, and cruise ships.  In the US there are about 2,500 outbreaks per year and poor granularity in terms of geographic locations. In other words, unless a local news channel picks up the story of an outbreak – you probably will not know until you get there.  The distribution of outbreaks over the calendar year for the last 4 years is given at the top of this post.  Outbreaks tend to intensify in the winter months where there is more aggregation.   

The most common advice given to prevent Norovirus infection is hand washing and cleaning contaminated surfaces.  The virus remains physically stable in pH 3-7 condition and temperatures up to 60 degrees C (140 degrees Fahrenheit) but that conventional wisdom may not be enough.  The virus is aerosolized presumably by coughing, sneezing, and toilet flushing and has been detected in the air around hospitalized patients (8). The particles detected were in the droplet nuclei/aerosol range but that may be an artificial dichotomy (9).  The main point in this research is that the droplets detected contained sufficient virus to cause infection. Current CDC precautions for Norovirus do not include masking except where there is a risk of “splashes to the face during the care of patients, particularly among those who are vomiting.”  This is reminiscent of the reluctance to declare respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV-2 and influenza airborne. 

6.6% of the US population are immunosuppressed based on taking immunosuppressant drugs or having a health condition that affects immunity and that number is increasing (10).  Women are more likely to be affected than men. In addition to the immunocompromised - 39% of the population has at least one serious chronic illness any number of which can affect innate immunity (11).  In addition, many of these diseases or their management can end up compromised by severe acute gastroenteritis.  Common examples would be blood glucose management in diabetes mellitus and electrolyte and fluid management in hypertension, arrhythmias, and renal disease.  Since 42% of the population has 2 or more chronic conditions it is highly likely that recommended management of rehydration will need to be personalized to that patient.  

There are also nebulous recommendations about the quarantine necessary following an episode of this illness.  The CDC web site provides an example, in order:

“Most people with norovirus illness get better within 1 to 3 days; but they can still spread the virus for a few days after.”

“You can still spread norovirus for 2 weeks or more after you feel better.”

“Stay home when sick for 2 days (48 hours) after symptoms stop.”

Apparently, Norovirus has been detected in saliva for up to 2 weeks after infection – leading to this mixed recommendation. There is some additional information at a public health link – but not much more. This link has interesting information on clinical criteria without biological confirmation that a probable Norovirus outbreak is occurring. In a 2013 review, Norovirus was the second most common infection disease outbreak affecting psychiatric hospitals (13).  This review looks at infection control procedures that may be unique to psychiatry as well as those that address the difficult to destroy nature of the virus.  It is resistant to common hand sanitizers and the need for contact cleaning with hypochlorite while masked and gowned to prevent infection of staff.  The reference on the possible airborne nature of the virus also applies. A description of a psychiatric hospital with 4 previous Norovirus outbreaks and how that was stopped by a specific infection control program is also described (14).

That is currently the state-of-the-art on Norovirus. I have some additional information posted below.  The best defense at this point is to know that this is a highly infectious virus that is nothing to fool around with, especially if you are elderly, have chronic medical conditions, or are immunocompromised.  I don’t think it is my place to make specific rehydration recommendations because of the complexity I describe in the above paragraphs – but your personal physician certainly can.  No matter what you read – avoiding dehydration is the most important aspect.  Your physician can best describe how to do that given any other medical conditions. 

There are currently no vaccines or antiviral medications for Norovirus.  Vaccines are complicated by several factors discussed in this paper (15) that projected vaccine availability 5-10 years out from 2014.  Here we are 10 years out. Like the current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines early trials show a limited duration of immunity, but that can eliminate many cases in more vulnerable populations.

 

George Dawson, MD

 

Supplementary 1:

For 2025 – I decided to separate out my anecdotal experience from the published scientific data.   Readers of this blog know that my intent is generally to include it as additional relevant information and I have joked about trying to learn more about diseases by trying to get most of them.  That is no different with Norovirus.  The actual clinical syndrome I have seen many times dating back to my days as a Peace Corps volunteer travelling in East Africa.  It was referred to as “Traveler’s Diarrhea” and the theory was that it was caused by “enterotoxigenic E. Coli.”  Various remedies were suggested including Pepto Bismol (bismuth salicylate) or a prophylactic course of sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim (SMX/TMP) – an antibiotic that I subsequently prescribed many times as an intern and resident.  

All Peace Corps volunteers were issued a medical kit and the two primary medications were a large bottle of Lomotil (diphenoxylate/atropine) and another large bottle of Benadryl (diphenhydramine).  So most acute diarrheal diseases were treated with Lomotil.  We also got IM cholera vaccines that interestingly were discontinued shortly after my Peace Corps tour because “they were more painful than protective.”  The only currently approved cholera vaccine is an oral vaccine.

My wife recently had a complicated course of appendicitis and there was concern about the possibility of an intraabdominal abscess.  As she recovered slowly from the surgery she had residual right upper quadrant pain and suddenly developed an acute illness again very similar to the appendicitis. I convinced her to go to free-standing emergency department where she was treated for nausea and rapidly given 1 liter of normal saline in less than 30 minutes. She was hypotensive and had a lot of vomiting and diarrhea in the hours before this assessment.  A CT scan of the abdomen was negative and a PCR test of a stool sample confirmed no C. difficile toxin and positive for Norovirus (see test panel below).

Returning home she recovered over the next two days – but I contracted it and am recovering on day 3.  I will post the symptom course in this note when I am fully recovered.  I will note that my wife has had 2 episodes of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the past 3 years and I did not get them from the airborne route but was masked and using a UV air cleaner at the time.  This time I was not masked – but I was using all of the CDC recommended contact precautions, the same UV air cleaner, and handwashing.       

Supplementary 2:

Sometimes it pays to be a hoarder. I found this book in my auxiliary library today.  It was sent to me by a friend who was attending Harvard Medical School when he heard I was definitely headed to Africa.  I regaled my Peace Corps colleagues with tales of possible infections in Africa. The most interesting section for this post is that it provides an anchor point for diarrheal disease classification in 1975. It lists invasive and enteropathogenic E. coli as the primary pathogens detectable by culture and bioassay or an assay set up to detect the toxin.  Epidemic viral gastroenteritis is attributed to Norwalk virus in the same book.  The name originated from immune electron microscopy of a viral particle identified as a causative agent in Norwalk, Ohio.  Episodic viral gastroenteritis at the time was attributed to rotavirus, duovirus, and orbivirus.

Supplementary 3:

I resumed working out on day #7 and have charted the symptoms using my invention of a malaise index.  Note that APAP here means acetaminophen that I take for symptoms that are generally caused by cytokines from the inflammatory response caused by viral and bacterial infections.  The index itself is included below the graphic of the course of the illness to explain what was rated.  For research purpose a Likert scale approach for every item would probably be used.  Even though the symptom descriptions are fairly basic - the underlying pathophysiology is not.  There are also some symptoms that I experienced that were not included like a sensory lack of taste for food. 

Supplementary 4: 

The Minnesota Department of Health came out with the following release on Norovirus today.  Apparently there have been 40 outbreaks in the state of Minnesota.  No specific locations are given and the general advice has the limitations I outlined in the above blog post.

All of the details can be found at this link.

Supplementary 5:

EPA Registered Products that will kill Norovirus:  Chlorox and Lysol products are the most recognizable names but there are many (386).  Note the necessary contact time in the table necessary to effectively eliminate the virus.

https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/epas-registered-antimicrobial-products-effective-against-norovirus-feline

References:

1:  Winder N, Gohar S, Muthana M. Norovirus: An Overview of Virology and Preventative Measures. Viruses. 2022 Dec 16;14(12):2811. doi: 10.3390/v14122811. PMID: 36560815; PMCID: PMC9781483.

2:  Pires SM, Fischer-Walker CL, Lanata CF, Devleesschauwer B, Hall AJ, Kirk MD, Duarte AS, Black RE, Angulo FJ. Aetiology-Specific Estimates of the Global and Regional Incidence and Mortality of Diarrhoeal Diseases Commonly Transmitted through Food. PLoS One. 2015 Dec 3;10(12):e0142927. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142927. PMID: 26632843; PMCID: PMC4668836.

3:  Robilotti E, Deresinski S, Pinsky BA. Norovirus. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015 Jan;28(1):134-64. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00075-14. PMID: 25567225; PMCID: PMC4284304.

4: Villabruna N, Koopmans MPG, de Graaf M. Animals as Reservoir for Human Norovirus. Viruses. 2019 May 25;11(5):478. doi: 10.3390/v11050478. PMID: 31130647; PMCID: PMC6563253.

5:  Karimzadeh S, Bhopal R, Nguyen Tien H. Review of infective dose, routes of transmission and outcome of COVID-19 caused by the SARS-COV-2: comparison with other respiratory viruses. Epidemiol Infect. 2021 Apr 14;149:e96. doi: 10.1017/S0950268821000790. Erratum in: Epidemiol Infect. 2021 May 14;149:e116. doi: 10.1017/S0950268821001084. PMID: 33849679; PMCID: PMC8082124.

6: CDC.  Norovirus Facts and Stats.  (accessed on 12/15/2024): https://www.cdc.gov/norovirus/data-research/index.html

8:  Alsved M, Fraenkel CJ, Bohgard M, Widell A, Söderlund-Strand A, Lanbeck P, Holmdahl T, Isaxon C, Gudmundsson A, Medstrand P, Böttiger B, Löndahl J. Sources of Airborne Norovirus in Hospital Outbreaks. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 May 6;70(10):2023-2028. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz584. PMID: 31257413; PMCID: PMC7201413.

9:  Drossinos Y, Weber TP, Stilianakis NI. Droplets and aerosols: An artificial dichotomy in respiratory virus transmission. Health Sci Rep. 2021 May 7;4(2):e275. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.275. PMID: 33977157; PMCID: PMC8103093.

10:  Martinson ML, Lapham J. Prevalence of Immunosuppression Among US Adults. JAMA. 2024 Mar 12;331(10):880-882. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.28019. PMID: 38358771; PMCID: PMC10870224.

11:  Benavidez GA, Zahnd WE, Hung P, Eberth JM. Chronic Disease Prevalence in the US: Sociodemographic and Geographic Variations by Zip Code Tabulation Area. Prev Chronic Dis 2024;21:230267. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd21.230267

12:  Fukuta Y, Muder RR. Infections in psychiatric facilities, with an emphasis on outbreaks. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013 Jan;34(1):80-8. doi: 10.1086/668774. Epub 2012 Nov 27. PMID: 23221197.

13: Tseng CY, Chen CH, Su SC, Wu FT, Chen CC, Hsieh GY, Hung CH, Fung CP. Characteristics of norovirus gastroenteritis outbreaks in a psychiatric centre. Epidemiol Infect. 2011 Feb;139(2):275-85. doi: 10.1017/S0950268810000634. Epub 2010 Mar 25. PMID: 20334730.

14:  Tseng CY, Chen CH, Su SC, Wu FT, Chen CC, Hsieh GY, Hung CH, Fung CP. Characteristics of norovirus gastroenteritis outbreaks in a psychiatric centre. Epidemiol Infect. 2011 Feb;139(2):275-85. doi: 10.1017/S0950268810000634. Epub 2010 Mar 25. PMID: 20334730.

15:  Gupta SS, Bharati K, Sur D, Khera A, Ganguly NK, Nair GB. Why is the oral cholera vaccine not considered an option for prevention of cholera in India? Analysis of possible reasons. Indian J Med Res. 2016 May;143(5):545-51. doi: 10.4103/0971-5916.187102. PMID: 27487997; PMCID: PMC4989827.

16:  Benenson AS (ed).  Control of communicable diseases in man – 12^th Edition. American Public Health Association. Washington, DC.  1975:  96-101, 125-129.

17:  CDC.  Confirmed norovirus outbreaks submitted by state.  Good source of data from CaliciNet updated every months.  Gives number of outbreaks per state in the past year and rough data on virus genotype.  https://www.cdc.gov/norovirus/php/reporting/calicinet-data.html

 

Social Media Discovers Managed Care and Rages - Or Not?

I watched TMZ last night and they were fascinated about the homicide of Brian Thompson the CEO of United Healthcare in New York City the night before.  The hosts could not approach that topic directly so they brought on Taylor Lorenz who they described as a social media expert.  She made some posts about healthcare companies.  She claims that the “entire internet left and right” was united in celebrating the death of this CEO because “Somebody stood up to this barbaric, evil, cruel violent system.”  Her rational is that if you see a loved one die because an insurance company denied care it is natural to want to see that person dead and this is not advocating homicide. It is a justice fantasy.  She went on to say that United Healthcare has murdered tens of thousands of Americans by denying healthcare.  She sees this as a revolution and it is a problem that should be addressed without violence.  She suggests letter writing and possibly politicians and journalists getting a clue and seeking to correct this imbalance. 

I have been aware of United Healthcare for at least 30 years.  They are renowned in Minnesota for their initial emphasis on not funding psychiatric care and moving on from there.  Physicians like me have been railing against United Healthcare and other managed care companies for decades.  And nobody - and I mean nobody cares. No politicians, nobody in the media, and nobody in physician professional organizations.  There has been an occasional activist state Attorney General suing these companies into a temporary correction that they can easily wait out.   The American Medical Association just recently came out against prior authorization one of the main forms of managed care denial – just a few years ago.  It has been in place along with utilization review – the other main form of denial for at least 40 years.

These business practices have transformed the practice of medicine into a high productivity and low-quality enterprise where medical judgment is replaced by the judgment of middle managers with no medical training and company profit in mind. Physicians have been displaced in their roles in managing the treatment environment and now it is staffed by business people concerned only about the bottom line. If a company decides it is not going to cover a medication or a procedure or a hospitalization – the general message to the patient is “you are out of luck.”  I worked at the same hospital for 22 years and during that time we went from providing care to anyone who walked in the door to care based on businesses telling us what to do.  At one point to make things less contentious (and after we were bought out by a managed care company) – the external review was replaced by the same kind of decisions made by internal staff.  Some physicians became "managed care friendly" in order to move up the corporate ladder.

How did these organizations get so much power over healthcare?  A lot of it depended on lying to gullible politicians.  The original sales job was that physicians were just too expensive.  They order too many tests.  They were going to close down or buy out the expensive specialists and greatly expand primary care.  That primary care expansion would lead to more prevention and reduce the overall costs of medicine. But once these organizations were granted all the power they wanted, they began acquiring specialists and providing their own specialty care.  They also greatly expanded middle management to micromanage staff and basically tell them to work harder.  The result is a system that is much more expensive rather than more cost effective.  Shareholder profits and CEO salaries require a lot of denied care to fund.  This article about the company is an indication of the amount of money that we are discussing. We are talking about executives that are making tens of millions of dollars in an organization that rations health care.

Of course, people are angry about the situation of rationed health care. But it is more about how things are organized and all the associated politics. I think we can all agree that there do not seem to be many bright politicians out there and that low bar took an even more precipitous drop in the last election. Even managed care companies know more than to ration vaccines or give everyone hydroxychloroquine for COVID.

 Politicians have invented this system at every step of the way and made it impossible for the average citizen to get any satisfaction when their health care is denied. Federal and state governments both side with healthcare companies to support the denial of care and (incredibly) indemnify them from liability when their denials result in bad outcomes.  Death is just one of many bad outcomes. 

The press does not get it. I am tired of writing about it for physicians.  The only bright idea that group seems to have come up with is not contracting with these companies and either charging cash or asking the patient to seek their own insurance reimbursement after paying their bill. This obviously has limited application and doesn't work if the patient needs more resources like operating rooms or rehab facilities.  So - Ms. Lorenz’s solution of writing letters certainly will not work.

Some news services seemed to connect a policy reversal by Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield (ABCBS) to the homicide. Some of the original stories claimed that anesthesia time per procedure would be limited and the patient might need to pay the balance. Subsequent stories state that the insurance company planned to pay the time allotment indicated in the estimated relative value units (RVUs) for the surgery.  They claim their reversal was based on misinformation. RVUs are another form of rationing – paying only a set amount irrespective of the complexity of the case.  It is another way that psychiatric services were also rationed by reduced reimbursement.  In some cases, it leads clinics to stop seeing all the patients from a particular insurer based on low reimbursement to the physicians and providers.  Lorenz posted a caption of the ABBCBS story with the additional line:  ‘And people wonder why we want these execs dead.'     

This is the state of medicine in the US today. We have just had an election that puts the most rational parts of the fragmented healthcare system (the ACA or Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid) at risk.  The party in power espouses gun extremism and uses political tactics that direct violence and aggression toward specific individuals or groups. The party in power favors the top wage earners rather than production or knowledge workers. That includes large healthcare conglomerates that all function by rationing care and access to medications and procedures. And in that context, we have a social media expert claiming that we now have bipartisan rage against these health care companies who have murdered tens of thousands of people by denying their care.  I certainly know many people who have been harmed by the denial of care.  In some cases, I spent hours advocating for them and trying to get the care they needed but I was simply ignored.   

At this point, the crime is being analyzed like it is just another true crime TV show. Endless analysis about the perpetrator’s behavior and possible motivations.  It is all highly speculative but made as controversial as possible.  All the analyses I have seen so far seem way off the mark – but I am not going to add mine at this point.  I am more than a little suspect about all the social media rage. Is it real or just generated by a few provocative trolls?  Will it lead to a typical Congressional show hearing where members manufacture outrage and nothing changes. One thing is for sure – the current state of events is not a good sign.  It is a sign of just how corrupt, ignorant, and not self-correcting the American political system is - and just how much those politicians collude with businesses.

In the end, Americans end up paying top dollar for a healthcare system that may refuse to treat them, an airline system that may refuse to fly them, a financial system with excessive charges and minimal interest payments on savings, and a system for workers that disproportionately pays the people who do not do any of the brain or physical work.  Is it any wonder that 4 people in the US possess more wealth than 50% and that 50% are essentially left hoping for changes that never come.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

References:

Jeremy Olsen.  Shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO revives criticism of company’s medical claim denials.  Some mourn the shooting of chief executive but still have scorn for the insurance company he ran.  StarTribune.  December 5, 2024.  https://www.startribune.com/why-unitedhealthcare-is-a-four-letter-word-to-critics/601191492

 

Addendum:

As any reader of this blog can attest – I do not consider homicide as a solution to any problem.  The two main features of homicide that I consistently observe on this blog is homicide as a primitive value and a primitive solution.  It has no place in civil society.  In the anthropological literature homicide as a solution dates to prehistoric times when minor conflicts escalated from individuals to entire villages.  Modern man has not uniformly progressed very far as evidenced by every active war in the world right now and ever.  The shooting of Brian Thompson is no exception. Given everything, I have listed in the above post – it changes nothing.  It was a cowardly, immoral act, and unlawful act. I hope that the perpetrator is caught and punished.  I hope that the privacy of Brian Thompson’s family is respected.  

Science and Politics…..With A Lesson from Psychiatry

 

I started reading this week’s edition of Science and was surprised to find several editorials about the relationship between science and politics. In addition to the editorials, news items like “Will Trump upend public health?” and “Trump picks lawyer for EPA.” Were no less alarming.

Marcia McNutt, President of the National Academy of Sciences wrote the first essay (3).  She correctly discusses science as a rational neutral process that by its very nature is apolitical.  She describes the peril of citizens ignoring scientific reality by quoting a 26% increased mortality rate in areas of the US where political leaders dismissed the importance of the COVID-19 vaccine.  She makes the point that science must define the body of information that policy should be based on - but it should not actually dictate policy.  She advocates for a role of listening to the affected people and fighting the disinformation that affects them.  Unfortunately, the process of active listening will not do anything toward fighting misinformation – especially when things get to the wide dissemination and meme stage. 

H. Holden Thorp, Editor-in-Chief of Science journals wrote the second essay (4) and it was more specific to the current political situation.  After commenting on the win for Trump he provides the following qualifier:

“Although his success stems partly from a willingness to tap into xenophobia, racism, transphobia, nationalism, and disregard for the truth, his message resonates with a large part of the American populace who feel alienated from America’s governmental, social, and economic institutions.”

The first clause in this sentence is accurate – but there are problems with the second.  Are xenophobia, racism, transphobia, nationalism, and dishonesty really symptoms of an underlying problem or do they represent the real problem of an opportunistic politician successfully scapegoating a portion of the population to gain the support of the electorate with these biases?  That has immediate relevance for the author’s proposed solutions of decreasing scientific misconduct to enhance public trust.  He points out that an animated defense on X/Twitter by scientists was not successful (how could it be based on the platform’s structure, biases and conflicts of interest?). He ends by correctly predicting that the attacks on science and scientists will go on unabated into the future and would like to see a response by the scientific community that makes them less successful.

The essay by Jaffrey Mervis (2) highlights concerns that research advocates have for the Trump agenda that is described at one point as defunding research to reduce taxes.  Any analysis of the tax plan shows that the savings are disproportionately awarded to the top 1% of wage earners.  A research physicist points out that there is no good news for science in the Trump agenda and that also translates to no good news to the tech industry that depends on government funded research for innovation.  Three areas from the Biden administration that may suffer are the Chips and Science Act, climate change, and research collaboration with China. 

The essay by Jocelyn Kaiser (1) focuses on the possible impact on the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  In this essay there is clear focus on Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as a danger to the NIH and health related basic science research.  That danger on the one hand describes him with the euphemism “vaccine skeptic” and on the other quotes former NIH Director Harold Varmus as saying: ”enormous risks especially if [Trump] placed someone as unhinged as [Kennedy] into a position of responsibility.”  There is a lot of room between skeptic and unhinged.  Trying to present an even-handed description in this case is a clear error when responding to RFK’s rhetoric. It is not a stretch to say that his rhetoric may replace science as the guiding principle behind the NIH.  That is a problem regarding the role of science advising policy makers and a boundary problem on the part of rhetoricians.  Simply put – if you are an administrator with no science background and you are making science up – stay in your lane.

Another clear example of potential problems with a Republican Congress is still based on the COVID-19 pandemic and insistence that the bat coronavirus research was the source of the pandemic virus.  This has reached meme status in the MAGA community fueled by rhetoric from both Trump and members of Congress who have directly attacked NIH scientists.  In some cases those verbal attacks have resulted in threats of violence to those same scientists. All of that happening even though the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are not settled science - but most recent reports suggest origins in the wild like practically all pandemic viruses. Some politicians want to reform the NIH and that is typically a code word for changing an institution to something more like the one they want.  In the case of the Trump administration that can include banning fetal tissue research and I would expect other issues related to women’s reproductive health that the religious right objects to.

The final essay by Rachel Vogel (5) is focused primarily on the implications of Trump’s threat to leave the World Health Organization (WHO). The author reminds us that Trump started this process in July 2020 based on the false claim that “WHO had helped China cover up the spread of the virus in the early days of the pandemic.”  The Biden administration came in and stopped that process.  WHO member states are bracing for a second withdrawal or a reduction in funding to key programs that many think would be catastrophic.  Cuts could also be made to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) that administers many of these programs and other agencies funded to research and treat tuberculosis, malaria, and AIDS.  Political and religious ideology may also be a factor.  A program for AIDS relief started by George W. Bush is a possible target for indirect support of abortions and the use of language that right wing religious groups consider offensive including “transgender people” and “sex workers”.  It is likely that a “gag rule” on the dissemination of abortion information will be reinstated and the penalty will be withdrawal of funding.  Like aspects of the other essays, the author is hopeful that there will be ways to compensate for the Trump worst case scenario. Reform of the NIH has been talked about in the past.  Europe and other countries could compensate for the lack of US support.  Competitive funding sources like the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) could also come to the forefront.  The amount of funding available from BRICS and what those countries would require in return is speculation at this point.    

The 5 essays highlight real problems and given Trump’s current nominations for the Director of HHS and NIH probably minimize them.  Suggested solutions to the problem seem to be the time-honored stay out of politics, present the data, and take the high road.  This is really an inadequate plan.  How do I know this?  The valuable lesson is that this is what psychiatry has done for decades.  Ever since Thomas Szasz began his repetitive rhetoric that there was no such thing as mental illness, or that psychiatric diagnoses were like drapetomania (later modified to drapetomania was somehow a psychiatric diagnosis) we have had to tolerate nonsensical criticism while major physician and psychiatric groups were silent.  The many leaders in the field who did respond and had excellent responses were eventually ignored as the neo-Szaszians continue to repeat this nonsense decades later.  An experiment by Rosenhan that was exposed as fraudulent continues to serve as an anchor point for antipsychiatrists – even though what happened clearly did not impact the field (deinstitutionalization had already started and the neo-Kraepelinians were already at work on reliable and valid diagnostic criteria).  The result of this rhetoric is significant hangover on the field. It is difficult to make a direct connection but common sense dictates that psychiatric resources probably takes a hit from all the repetitive negative rhetoric. That is the risk to all of medicine, public health, and scientific research with the current MAGA rhetoric.

Science typically considers itself above rhetoric and politics at least until the competition for grant funding heats up.  The editorials all fail to comment on this.  Instead, they suggest that leading by example, being available for consultation, and generally taking the higher ground will somehow correct corrosive politics.  That is both a naïve and losing strategy.  We currently have a party that has lied and misinformed the public repeatedly and at record levels.  It is supported by a large mainstream media organization with the same goals providing a constant diet of misinformation. It is funded by billionaires. The effects of all those dynamics are easily observed in attitudes toward real science and scientists.  Experts on autocracy and authoritarianism point out that the effect of constant lies on any group of citizens is that eventually they don’t believe anything – even if it happens to be the truth.  A standard authoritarian tactic is to attack expertise and pretend that it does not exist.   

At no recent point in history have legitimate scientists, physicians, and public health officials been threatened with violence by people who have no clear idea of what they do.  In many cases these professionals have been responsible for saving thousands of lives. That situation should be intolerable to any scientist or modern citizen who can evaluate the effects of science.  Furthermore, it should not be supported at any level by the government, but it currently is.  The same party that that supports lies also supports threats and violence at various levels up to an including an attempt to overthrow the US government. With the current election there is the expectation that attempt will be whitewashed as a protest further eroding the rule of law.

The curious aspect of this process is that it is right out there in the open. The repetitive lies are picked up by social media.  Proxies of that ideology begin to amplify them to the point that they become memes rapidly assimilated by true believers in the same ideology.  At that point they become part of that culture and resistant to change from rational arguments and additional information. There is no evidence that I am aware of that change is possible at that point and the most recent Presidential election is solid evidence.     

There is a semi rational basis to politics at best.  The current election illustrates this at many levels.  Major questions of character, intellect, and policy were ignored. The fact checking mode of the fourth estate was minimized.  Some media outlets were mere propaganda arms and provided no information for voters to make an informed decision. 

The only rational course is to continuously counter the repetitive propaganda being put out in social media.  There is no comprehensive strategy for doing this but it must be done.  It will take more than a few editors from Science journals.  A starting point may be a coalition of editors of science and medical journals with their own website dedicated to refuting misinformation and posting the real science. The time has come to stand up for what is science and what is not and protect people under attack for doing the right thing.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

 

References:

 

1:  Kaiser J. Trump won. Is NIH in for a major shake-up? Science. 2024 Nov 15;386(6723):713-714. doi: 10.1126/science.adu5821. Epub 2024 Nov 14. PMID: 39541475.

2:  Mervis J. Research advocates see 'no good news for science'. Science. 2024 Nov 15;386(6723):712-713. doi: 10.1126/science.adu5820. Epub 2024 Nov 14. PMID: 39541473.

3:  McNutt M. Science is neither red nor blue. Science. 2024 Nov 15;386(6723):707. doi: 10.1126/science.adu4907. Epub 2024 Nov 14. PMID: 39541446.

4:  Thorp HH. Time to take stock. Science. 2024 Nov 15;386(6723):709. doi: 10.1126/science.adu4331. Epub 2024 Nov 7. PMID: 39508752.

5:  Vogel G. 'America first' could affect health worldwide. Science. 2024 Nov 15;386(6723):715. doi: 10.1126/science.adu5822. Epub 2024 Nov 14. PMID: 39541476.