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.

If It Was 1968 – I could get a New Car for $2400….

 

Odd statement for a psychiatric blog?  I decided to address my favorite economic fallacy of election season and that is the effect of the President.  It came up as recently as four days ago in the Presidential debate.  During that debate – Trump claimed that he created the “greatest economy” and made the following statement:

“When I had it, I had tariffs and yet I had no inflation. Look, we've had a terrible economy because inflation has --which is really known as a country buster. It breaks up countries. We have inflation like very few people have ever seen before. Probably the worst in our nation's history. We were at 21%. But that's being generous because many things are 50, 60, 70, and 80% higher than they were just a few years ago.”

It was not clear to me if his statement abut 21% was supposed to be under his administration or Biden-Harris, especially when he makes the claim that “I had no inflation.”  That brings me to economic fallacy #1 in the Presidential race:

1:  Inflation is a fact of life in the American economy and there has never been a recent President with “no inflation”:

You don’t have to believe me. The evidence is abundant starting with retirement savings.  All the retirement advice you get gives you strategies on how to keep pace with inflation over the next 30 years.  There will be additional advice on how to keep up with inflation during your retirement years.  There is no advice that you can forget about inflation because it does not exist at times.  The title of this post refers to an ad for the Ford Mustang in 1964 that ran constantly on television with the title “$2,368 F.O.B Detroit.”  The starting price for a Ford Mustang today is $30,920. 

You don’t have to rely on those kinds of memories.  There is actual economic data tabulated.  The only problem is that it is not typically tabulated by Presidential term.  You must add that yourself.  I used the Bureau of Labor Statistics purchasing power calculator that uses a broad index of consumer goods to look at the last 7 administrations:

President	Years	Inflation
Biden	2021-2024	20%
Trump	2017-2021	12%
Obama	2009-2017	15%
Bush	2001-2009	22%
Clinton	1993-2001	24%
Bush	1989-1993	12%
Reagan	1981-1989	42%

 Inspecting those numbers – most people can come up with explanations for the variability.  Explanations of policies under any President responsible for the numbers is doubtful.  Reagan and his “trickle down” economic policies were a mainstay of Republican rhetoric for decades and he has the worst inflation rate.  The most likely difference between the Trump and the Biden figures was decreased demand and unemployment under Trump creating less demand and pricing pressure and then increased employment, financial incentives, and pent-up demand as the pandemic improved under Biden.

The rhetoric of the economy often leads people to come up with lists of commonly purchased items and how those prices have been affected.  First off – price inflation is expected irrespective of who is in the White House, but I encourage anyone to not take these lists at face value and do an easy recheck.  Here is one I did not too long ago after somebody posted their list of inflated items on Facebook.

Note that the GOP version in the first two columns does not match the prices I got off a Walmart web site on May 7, 2024.  The GOP version shows uniform increases in all prices between 2020 and 2024 and that is not the case.  Half of the items are less than they were in 2020 (see sparklines in last column).  Anyone can do this exercise when they see these postings about price increases of common items over time.  Secondly, there are factors that affect these prices that no President or country could conceivably control.  A good example is coffee.  Brazil and Vietnam are the largest producers and their production is currently affected by drought and climate change. Despite the current decreased production coffee prices are not as high as they were in 1976-1977 when over 70% of Brazilian coffee was affected by a frost and coffee prices doubled to $4.19/pound or $19/pound corrected to 2022 dollars. 

Do these lists really prove anything in terms of the candidates?  Not really because once again inflation is expected.  The political rhetoric is such that the GOP is portraying the current inflation as catastrophic.  Certainly, the higher end of the range that Trump describes has not happened.  A much more reliable index of inflation is available from the Federal Reserve.

The only relatively flat spot on that curve was at the peak of the COVID pandemic with decreased demand for goods and services. As demand increased the CPI increases and the Biden administration took over at that point.  The commonly quoted inflation numbers are consumer prices defined as: “Inflation as measured by the consumer price index reflects the annual percentage change in the cost to the average consumer of acquiring a basket of goods and services that may be fixed or changed at specified intervals, such as yearly. The Laspeyres formula is generally used “

2:  The most direct and sustained effects on inflation are initiated by the non-partisan Federal Reserve Bank:

The Federal Reserve Bank has been independent of political influence since 1951.   Between 1935 and 1951  “monetary policy would basically be dictated by Congress and the White House…”.  Even after that period, the Fed has come under pressure from the executive branch.  The Fed actions are a potent driver of the economy and check on inflation as evidenced by the following graphic on interest rate adjustments.  These interest rate adjustments are done based on macroeconomic rather than political considerations and many administrations have disagreed with them because they did not seem politically expedient.  Note the differences in interest rates over the past 2 administrations.  It is also generally agreed that the US economy has recovered post pandemic better than other high-income countries. Should an administration take credit for that or the Fed?

3:  Academic comparisons of the impact of Presidents on the economy show little effect.

The best-known study of the issue was done by Blinder and Watson (3).  They conclude that by all measures the economy does much better under Democrats in Congress and the White House.  It is not even close.  But they did not leave it there and went on to see if there was any clear explanation for this phenomenon at the policy level or based on the make-up of administrations and there was not.  They take it a step further and look at whether the economy was just poised for rapid growth at the time Democrats were elected and that was also not an explanation.  They consider various luck factors that are shocks to consumer expectations and find that makes up part of the difference.  In the end they find no complete explanations but suggest more favorable international conditions and consumer optimism may have something to do with it.  In short, the economy does better under Democrats but there is no clear explanation why that is.  Why then is it a top priority for the election?  The answer is that it is purely emotional appeal rhetoric with no basis in reality. 

Conclusion:

If you are really basing your vote for the President on the economy – find a different issue.  There is very little to no evidence that the President has much of an effect.  If you do your own research - there is a ton of information on this that is as accessible as doing a simple Google search on: “Does the President have any effect on the economy?”   There are papers, podcasts, blogs, interviews, radio programs, and more academic papers that say the same thing – probably not much if any of an effect. When I hear that polls suggest that most Americans think one party or another can manage the economy better – what is that based on?  A candidate saying that during his term he had the “best economy ever.”?  There is absolutely no evidence for a statement like that.

So “its not the economy stupid.”  Move on to another issue.  If you vote based on that issue – you are voting on unsubstantiated rhetoric,

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

 

References:

1:  Overview: The History of the Federal Reserve.  September 13,2021:  https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/federal-reserve-history

2:  de Soyres, Francois, Joaquin Garcia-Cabo Herrero, Nils Goernemann, Sharon Jeon, Grace Lofstrom, and Dylan Moore (2024). "Why is the US GDP recovering faster than other advanced economies?," FEDS Notes. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 17, 2024, https://doi.org/10.17016/2380-7172.3495

3:  Blinder AS, Watson AW.  Presidents and the US Economy: An econometric exploration.  National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 20324, July 2014.  http://www.nber.org/papers/w20324

4:  Bilen C, El Chami D, Mereu V, Trabucco A, Marras S, Spano D. A Systematic Review on the Impacts of Climate Change on Coffee Agrosystems. Plants (Basel). 2022 Dec 25;12(1):102. doi: 10.3390/plants12010102. 

 

The Circular Logic Argument

 

I thought I would do a quick post on this because I am interested in rhetoric and this is mind-numbingly simple rhetoric.  It goes like this:

Being depressed means that you have major depression and you are depressed because you have major depression…..

Having motor restlessness means that you have attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and having ADHD means that you have motor restlessness

This has been presented as though it is an indictment of psychiatric descriptive diagnosis – but you don’t have to think about it too long to figure out why this is a fallacy.  By analogy

Having a cough means that you have COVID and having COVID means that you have a cough.

The circular logic fallacy obviously does not consider the biological complexity of medical and psychiatric diagnoses.  We can rewrite them more accurately using that knowledge.  For example:

Being depressed means that you may have one of hundreds of medical, neurological or psychiatric conditions causing depression or that you may have completely normal mood reactivity or you may have one of thousands of pluralistic causes and having any one of hundreds of medical, neurological and psychiatric conditions or normal mood reactivity or one of thousands of pluralistic causes means that you have depression.

In other words – there is no 1:1 mapping of clinical depression onto the symptom of depression.  The diagnostic process returns a hypothesis about a condition that may be responsible for depressive symptoms.  I hope that illustrates how fallacious this argument is. The problem with rhetorical arguments like this is that they are generally advanced by people who have not gone to psychiatry school or who may have done it but poorly. It is reinforced by business practices and what I would call the necessity of low-quality research.

Starting with the research issue first.  Practically all studies of depression in the literature do not consist of psychiatric diagnoses of depression. Large GWAS studies typically use a ratings scale like the PHQ-9 as the depressive phenotype of interest.  There is no assurance that the patient would be diagnosed with depression by a psychiatrist or have had any of the other thousands of causes of depression considered.  In some of those studies there is a more general diagnostic screen administered to research subjects by non-psychiatrists and if screening criteria are met – the inclusion criteria for the study are met. None of this is assurance that the subjects’ studied would be diagnosed with depression (and not something else) by a psychiatrist.  The low-quality diagnosis in this case is necessitated by massive databases.  For example, the UK Biobank has data on a half million individuals and that would require at least a million hours of interviews by research psychiatrists to make a clinical diagnosis of depression.  That would probably require several hundred full-time psychiatrists working their entire 35 year career to complete.

The business practice of treating depression has similar problems.  It is almost a universal experience today to take anxiety and depression rating scales in primary care clinics.  The primary care experience may be even more crude than the research experience because the PHQ-2 may be administered instead of the PHQ-9.   The PHQ-2 consists of the following 2 ratings over the past 2 weeks:

1:  Little interest or pleasure in doing things

2:  Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless

These screening methods were initiated to show that managed care plans were interested in treating depression.  Since there will never be enough psychiatrists to assess and treat depression, these proxy screenings were felt to be an adequate replacement for psychiatry and they generally result in a diagnosis and treatment of depression even though (once again) there is no guarantee that a psychiatrist would have made that diagnosis.  Just from a purely rhetorical standpoint – it is a syllogistic fallacy to conclude that 1 and 2 above are adequate premises to establish a diagnosis of depression.  The debate at that point may be: “Well the clinician seeing the score will engage in a more elaborate diagnostic interview to make the diagnosis.”  If that is the case – what prevented them from doing that in the first place?  There is an expected paucity of data related to this practice – but I suspect there are many cases of antidepressant overprescription and “treatment resistant depression” based on the wrong diagnosis.  I recently offered to analyze the data from a large health plan for free and they were not interested in looking at it.

The most recent commentary on circular reasoning apparently came from a paper (1) claiming that causal language about psychiatric disorders is the result of a logical error and leads to a confused public and intellectual dishonesty.  The authors make several errors along the way as they develop this argument including:    

Ideally, a medical diagnosis both provides a precise term for a given condition and identifies its etiological mechanism

This is a rhetorical construct that ignores what has been known for decades and that is according to Merskey (2): “Medical classification lacks the rigor of either the telephone directory or the periodic table.  It is exceptionally untidy but it is taken to reflect in some way “the absolute truth” or at least the wonderful truth as it is known to its best practitioners.”  Merskey elaborates on how the medical classification system has several conceptual parameters – most independent of etiological mechanism. In fact, if etiological mechanisms were known – all categories would be mutually exclusive and that is another property that does not exist in medical classifications.  The medical terms "diagnosis" and "disease" are anything but precise and that leaves them open to attack by anyone providing a restricted definition.

“By contrast, diagnostic categories in psychiatry are currently defined only by symptoms.”

The DSM classification has a significant number of disorders where the precipitating and etiological factors are known. The hundreds of causes of organic mental disorders are a case in point as well as an entire section of neurocognitive disorders where the pathology is at least as precise as examples that the authors give.  There is a universe of medical and neurological disorders that are polygenic quantitative disorders with no specific etiology like psychiatric disorders.  Psychiatric disorders are also comprised of clear reproducible signs including sleep and appetite disorders and motor disorders that produce measurable results.  

“While it would be entirely correct to say that the human experiences that the diagnostic criteria describe can feel like an illness, it is different from claiming that an identified external biomedical pathological entity is really causing the symptoms.”

The authors trivialize depression as a mere feeling. I have never seen a person who came in for an assessment based on a mere feeling. They are typically experiencing a disruption in many aspects of their life and have difficulty functioning on a day-to-day basis.  Most patients seeing psychiatrists also have considerable medical comorbidity.

“By contrast, psychiatric diagnoses are not conceptually independent of their respective symptom lists.”

 The authors contrast psychiatric disorders and their symptoms with a lung tumor and a cough and suggest that because psychiatric diagnoses “cannot exist” without symptoms and this is proof that a purely descriptive syndrome cannot be a “cause” of the symptoms.  They also make the error in suggesting that a person must “meet criteria” for depression to be diagnosed with depression.  The problem is that depression, mania, and psychosis existed for centuries before there was a DSM.  These conditions existed long before there were psychiatrists.  They are obvious to non-psychiatrists (the authors apparently excepted).  The only reason psychiatry exists today is to treat syndromes that have been systematically observed and recorded by both psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists.  The medical side of things is described well by DeGowin and DeGowin in their physical diagnosis text (3).

"For several thousand years physicians have recorded observations and studies about their patients.  In the accumulating facts they have recognized patterns of disordered bodily functions and structures as well as forms of mental aberration.  When such categories were sufficiently distinctive, they were termed diseases and given specific names.”

To this day – medical practice is largely based on recognizing sufficiently distinctive categories and not pathophysiology.  There is always a lot of speculative pathophysiology and I have witnessed that all changing over the course of my career.  The pathophysiology learned in medical school – even if based on Nobel Prize work – is not the pathophysiology that applies today.  These diagnoses were independent of symptom lists for centuries and to this day they still are - in that no experienced psychiatrist is treating depression based on symptom lists or “meeting criteria”.

“Some authors therefore emphasize that depression can be described as an adaptive response or a functional signal to adverse circumstances.  Contrary to the erroneous causal beliefs that circular claims promote, this approach underlines that low mood and/or loss of pleasure are often meaningful reactions to life events, and that they can be meaningfully understood.”

This is a potentially erroneous causal belief and the authors apparently have no problem with circularity in this case or the potential lack of investigation of associated causes.  They also seem to misunderstand the idea that to have a disorder – there has to be some form of altered functioning beyond what would be expected.  Most people have that knowledge.  This is also a naive statement from the perspective of assessment and treatment of suicide risk. Can suicidal thinking associated with loss be explained away as a “meaningful reaction to life events” or does something more definitive need to be done?  Before anyone dismisses the idea as rhetorical - some of these same authors have suggested that psychosis is an adaptive response.  Finally – they include a quote from authors on the adaptive response theory as if psychiatrists have not been involved in theories, clinical observations, and developing therapies of these phenomena for decades (4-11).  

Rather than continuing a point-by-point analysis – a look at the rhetoric is probably a better summary.  From the diagram, the authors argue using a typical biomedical psychiatry conflation combined with controlling the premise. The top of the diagram illustrates that when all of psychiatry (in this case depression) is condensed or conflated into a monolithic nondescript biomedical model  - it is easy to demonstrate not only circularity but also how clueless psychiatrists are.  This should come as a surprise to no psychiatrist since this is really a longstanding rhetorical approach to the deconstructive criticism of the field.

A more realistic assessment can be seen in the lower graphic. I labelled it clinical depression since in this case the authors’ use of biomedical psychiatry is largely pejorative.  Every psychiatrist I worked with in acute care would not consider it to be a problem – since we were confronted with hundreds of conditions that had depressive symptoms that we had to figure out.  We were good at it and looked forward to it.  The emphasis is on multiple etiologies.  Numerous psychiatric disorders have depressive symptoms as well as medical and neurological disorders that psychiatrists need to be able to diagnose.  There are known biological causes as noted in the DSM, but many psychiatric disorders are complex polygenic disorders with no specific etiology.  With rule out diagnoses – that means that depression can cause depressive symptoms that can be addressed at the pluralistic level.  The authors suggest that “guild issues” may be a reason that biomedical psychiatry is defended as causal of depressive symptoms. Psychiatry in fact has produced a solid literature (4-11) of various etiologies of depression and how to treat them that easily encompass the authors’ suggestion that meaningful events may have a role to play. That theme has been present in psychiatry for decades prior to this paper.

Anyone reading a paper like this one needs to have an awareness of biology and human biology as a subset.  As I tried to point out in previous posts – for many reasons biological classifications will be imperfect.  That is true for biology without human constraints like speciation in all living organisms.  It is also true for disease classifications and I hope to have more on this soon. Any argument that there exists a standard for categories, diagnoses, or disorders in medicine or psychiatry that is perfect or even unidimensional should be considered rhetorical.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

 

1:  Kajanoja J, Valtonen J. A Descriptive Diagnosis or a Causal Explanation? Accuracy of Depictions of Depression on Authoritative Health Organization Websites. Psychopathology. 2024 Jun 12:1-10. doi: 10.1159/000538458. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38865990.

2:  Merskey H. The taxonomy of pain. Med Clin North Am. 2007 Jan;91(1):13-20, vii. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2006.10.009. PMID: 17164101.

3:  DeGowin, EL, DeGowin, RL. Bedside Diagnostic Examination. United Kingdom: Macmillan, 1976.

4:  Sifenos PE.  Short-term Dynamic Psychotherapy.  New York.  Plenum Medical Book Company, 1979.

5:  Klerman GL, Weissman MM, Rounsaville BJ, Chevron ES.  Interpersonal Psychotherapy of Depression, New York: Basic Books, 1984.

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

7:  Beck AT, Rush JA, Shaw BF, Emery G.  Cognitive Therapy of Depression.  New York: Guilford Press, 1979.

8:  Bennett D.  Social and community approaches.  In:  Paykel ES (ed).  Handbook of Affective Disorders.  New York:  Guilford Press, 1982:  pp.  346-357.

9:  Arieti S.  Individual psychotherapy.  In: Paykel ES (ed).  Handbook of Affective Disorders.  New York:  Guilford Press, 1982:  pp.  298-305.

10:  Stein A.  Group therapy.  Paykel ES (ed).  Handbook of Affective Disorders.  New York:  Guilford Press, 1982:  pp.  307-317.

11:  Viederman M. The psychodynamic life narrative: a psychotherapeutic intervention useful in crisis situations. Psychiatry. 1983 Aug;46(3):236-46.

Explanatory Note:  When I use the terms psychiatric, neurological, and medical diagnoses - I am referring to medical as including all internal medicine specialties (Infectious Disease, Endocrinology, Nephrology, Cardiology, Rheumatology, Allergy and Immunology) as well as general Internal Medicine and Family Medicine.  Neurology and Psychiatry generally have non-overlapping conditions but there is a considerable amount of comorbidity from the medical fields.