Select Page
Suicide: The Final Act of Mental Illness.

Suicide: The Final Act of Mental Illness.


Here is an article and POV that presents a clear set of ideas that are supposedly going to address a suicide problem. According to the way it is written, suicide is not primarily an inherent mental health problem, but a situational problem.

With all due respect to Dr. Barnhorst’s sympathies, I find it hard to accept her position.

Take this sweeping statement of hers:

“We need to address the root causes of our nation’s suicide problem — poverty, homelessness and the accompanying exposure to trauma, crime and drugs.”

I’m not a doctor, nor have I delved deeply into the study of suicide. I do however, possess a deeply felt core belief on the causes of suicide. I refer to causes NOT involving religious fanatical or martyrdom scenarios, assisted suicide of terminally ill, suffering patients, and cases of exceptionally damaging early childhood abuse.

With these exclusions, my belief on suicide causes and attempts is grounded mostly in biological mental illness. Whether it starts, or ends, in a profile of poverty, homelessness, unemployment, or broken families, the final act, or attempt, of taking one’s own life, can not be responsibly assessed outside of a serious mental illness that lives in its own vacuum.

Dr. Barnhorst makes some good points about the complexity of suicide prevention, citing the frequent lack of clear advance signals, the dearth of community mental health resources, and need for more research, but she also implies that health providers are guilty for understating the risk by writing…

“…mental health providers perpetuate the narrative that suicide is preventable, if patients and family members just follow the right steps.”

I believe this is an unfair overstatement without supportive data. It is, after all, only her opinion. I do not believe mental health providers as a whole, perpetuate this narrative. Its not that easy to categorize their settled positions, with such a tidy statement.

She also writes:
“If we ignore all this, and keep telling the story that there is a simple solution at hand…”

Again, this is an unfair assessment of the professionals in the field underestimating a complex problem with simple approaches.

There’s also this piece of data she draws from: “According to a 2016 study, almost half of people who try to kill themselves do so impulsively. One 2001 study…found that roughly a quarter considered their actions for less than five minutes.”

Does this mean they are free of pre-existing mental illness? I think not. In cases where they thought about it for less than five minutes. So what? Five minutes, Five hours, Five days. Five months. The logical profile is that they are pre-disposed to begin with. Just because they survive and function to that point, doesn’t mean there’s not an underlying problem waiting for the right trigger

While it is simple to prescribe medication and hope for the best, I don’t believe the vast majority of professionals treating mental health, think there is a “simple solution” to suicide. Its an exaggerated statement that is guilty itself of simplifying the situation

Dr. Barnhorst’s essay wanders off its own intended focus. Several paragraphs can be taken independently as a counter argument to the paragraph preceding it, or the one following. One could swap the sequence of them, and come up with a different conclusion and final headline.

In digesting the entire piece, what the good doctor ironically does, is illustrate just how easy it is to make arguments for addressing mental illness to prevent suicide before going on to societal causes.

Suicide prevention is a tough subject to tackle, precisely because it doesn’t make sense to rationally thinking people. Any more so than explaining a cold blooded murder. This is not to say that life is not difficult, tremendously difficult, for some people, who live with chronic depression, or manage levels of desperation o a day to day basis.

What I think happens sometimes, in all of us, is to try and explain destructive human behavior with reasoning, where no reasoning exists. Arguably, that is why mental illness is not easy to treat in the first place. You can’t have a brain swapped out for a fresh one. You can’t pull out and plug in a defective gene or brain part as needed. It’s mental illness.

Many of Dr Barnhorst’s observations are on target, but, the brains and minds that trigger suicidal thoughts and actions, on their own, with or without, external triggers, do exist. They are their own thing. They are part of the mix of the same humanity that, thankfully, gives us far far more who choose to go on living, in spite of hardships, or challenges.

After reading this article, I spoke at length with two people on the subject. One who had lived through a close friend’s attempted suicide, and another who has studied statistics on the odds of attempted suicide. I learned how complex the road to vulnerability can be in people who contemplate, or carry out their suicide. The question of determining a pre-existing mental illness feeding that vulnerability, is loaded with risk of unfairly labeling people, or worse, missing high risk individuals entirely.

Maybe, the conversation is better served by not describing mental illness to assess risk, but, by describing vulnerability instead. Hard enough.

Article link>

For those without a subscription, article pasted in below.


The Empty Promise of Suicide Prevention

Many of the problems that lead people to kill themselves cannot be fixed with a little extra serotonin.

Via NYTimes, By Amy Barnhorst

April 26, 2019


SACRAMENTO — If suicide is preventable, why are so many people dying from it? Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States, and suicide rates just keep rising.

A few years ago, I treated a patient, a flight attendant, whose brother had brought her in to the psychiatric crisis unit after noticing her unusual behavior at a wedding. After the ceremony, she quietly handed out gifts and heartfelt letters to her family members. When her brother took her home, he noticed many of her furnishings and paintings were missing. In her bathroom he found three unopened bottles of prescription sleep medication.

He confronted her, and she admitted that she had donated her possessions to charity. She had also cashed out her retirement account and used the money to pay off her mortgage, her car loan and all of her bills.

When I interviewed her, she said that for the last four months, doing anything — eating, cleaning her house, talking to her neighbors — had taken colossal effort, and brought her no joy. She felt exhausted by having to live through each day, and the thought of sustaining this for years to come was an intolerable torment.

After evaluating her, I told her that I thought she was experiencing an episode of bipolar depression, and needed to be committed to the hospital while we started treatment. She shrugged and gave me her most troubling response yet: “I don’t care.”

One of the reasons I remember this woman so well is that, of all the patients I have evaluated for suicide risk, she was an anomaly. She had a sustained and thought-out commitment to ending her life. Fortunately, that allowed her to be discovered, and her family was able to quickly get her into emergency care. She responded well to lithium, one of only two psychiatric medications shown to reduce suicide (the other is an antipsychotic, clozapine). Her depression lifted slowly and she began to remember the things that made her life worth living.

She was exactly the kind of suicidal person that psychiatrists are set up to help — someone with an undiagnosed but treatable mental illness who just needs to be kept safe from herself until an effective medication kicks in.

Most suicidal patients I see follow a different pattern, like the one a resident presented to me recently. A middle-aged woman with no psychiatric history was brought in after overdosing on ibuprofen. She had recently become homeless. After seven years of sobriety, she had relapsed, taking methamphetamine to stay awake at night after she was sexually assaulted in the park where she had been sleeping. She had no supportive family, no insurance, no source of income and no education beyond high school.

She didn’t see a way out of her situation. So she walked into a pharmacy, grabbed a bottle of ibuprofen and went into the bathroom, where she choked down as many pills as possible before someone walked in.

I asked the resident how he planned to help her while she was in the hospital. After a pause, he suggested meekly, “Start her on an antidepressant?”

I could tell he knew how ridiculous it sounded.

As doctors, we want to help people, and it can be hard for us to admit when our tools are limited. Antidepressants may seem like an obvious solution, but only about 40 percent to 60 percent of patients who take them feel better. And while nearly one in 10 Americans uses antidepressants, there is very little convincing evidence to show that they reduce suicide.

This is because many of the problems that lead to suicide can’t be fixed with a little extra serotonin. Antidepressants can’t supply employment or affordable housing, repair relationships with family members or bring on sobriety.

Suicide prevention is also difficult because family members rarely know someone they love is about to attempt suicide; often that person doesn’t know herself. The flight attendant’s extensive planning is unusual; much more common is the grabbing of whatever is at hand in a moment of despair.

According to a 2016 study, almost half of people who try to kill themselves do so impulsively. One 2001 study that interviewed survivors of near-lethal attempts (defined as any attempt that would have been fatal without emergent medical intervention, or any attempt involving a gun) found that roughly a quarter considered their actions for less than five minutes. This doesn’t give anyone much time to notice something is wrong and step in.

Nonetheless, mental health providers perpetuate the narrative that suicide is preventable, if patients and family members just follow the right steps. Suicide prevention campaigns encourage people to overcome stigma, tell someone or call a hotline. The implication is that the help is there, just waiting to be sought out.

But it is not that easy. Good outpatient psychiatric care is hard to find, hard to get into and hard to pay for. Inpatient care is reserved for the most extreme cases, and even for them, there are not enough beds.

Initiatives like crisis hotlines and anti-stigma campaigns focus on opening more portals into mental health services, but this is like cutting doorways into an empty building.

And yet there are things we can do to prevent suicide. One of the few tried-and-true strategies is reducing people’s access to lethal tools, so that if they do sink into hopelessness, any attempt they make most likely won’t be fatal. If my first patient had had a gun in her house, she wouldn’t have made it to me. If my second patient had grabbed acetaminophen instead of ibuprofen, she might not have either. Averting death in that impulsive moment of despair is crucial to reducing suicide rates. Contrary to popular opinion, only a small fraction of people who survive one serious suicide attempt go on to die by another.

The decision to stop living is one that people arrive at by different paths, some over months, but many in a matter of minutes. Those people won’t be intercepted by the mental health system. We certainly need more psychiatric services and more research into better, faster-acting treatments for severe depression and suicidal thoughts, but that will never be enough.

We need to address the root causes of our nation’s suicide problem — poverty, homelessness and the accompanying exposure to trauma, crime and drugs. That means better alcohol and drug treatment, family counseling, low-income housing resources, job training and individual therapy. And for those at risk who still slip past all the checkpoints, we need to make sure they don’t have access to guns and lethal medications.

If we ignore all this, and keep telling the story that there is a simple solution at hand, the families of suicide victims will be left wondering what they did wrong.

[If you are having thoughts of suicide, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 (TALK) or go to SpeakingOfSuicide.com/resources for a list of additional resources.]

Amy Barnhorst  is the vice chairwoman of community psychiatry at the University of California, Davis.

Again…Measles

Again…Measles

Measles Cases Surpass 700 as Outbreak Continues Unabated

The outbreak is now the worst in decades. Children under age 5 account for about half of the cases.

Via NYTimes, By Donald G. McNeil Jr.


In New York, an epicenter of the outbreak, city officials closed two more schools for Orthodox Jewish children for failing to comply with an order to exclude unvaccinated children.

In California, hundreds of students and staff members at two universities remained under quarantine following possible exposure to the virus.

And with measles spreading globally, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have urged Americans traveling abroad to make sure they are immunized against the disease. On Monday, the agency renewed an urgent call for parents to get their children vaccinated.


Heidi Clarke held her son, Micah Risner, 5, as a nurse, Ann Rowland, administered immunizations in Portland, Ore. Federal officials now fear that measles may regain a foothold in the United States.Credit: Alisha Jucevic for The New York Times

“The outbreaks in New York City and New York State are the largest and longest-lasting since measles elimination in 2000,” Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the C.D.C.’s director for immunization, said at a news conference.

“The longer this continues, the greater the chances that measles will again get a foothold in the United States,” she said.

More than 500 of the 704 cases recorded as of last Friday were in people who had not been vaccinated, the C.D.C. reported. While there have been no deaths, 66 people have been hospitalized, a third of them with pneumonia.



Around the country, there have been 13 individual outbreaks in 22 states in 2019, the agency reported. Some of those outbreaks have already been contained.

The outbreak in New York, the nation’s biggest city, has been concentrated in Orthodox Jewish communities in Brooklyn and Rockland County.

The city reported on Monday that there had been 423 cases since the virus appeared in October. State officials reported another 236 in counties north and east of the city.

Officials in New York City have now closed seven Orthodox schools for failing to comply with vaccination orders; five have reopened after providing records showing that they were turning unvaccinated students away.

The city has also issued summonses to 57 residents of Brooklyn’s Williamsburg neighborhood — where more than 80 percent of the city’s cases have occurred — for refusing to get themselves or their children vaccinated.

Each summons can lead to a fine of up to $1,000 — or double that if the person it is issued to does not appear in court.

“The longer it takes schools and individuals to comply with our order, the longer this outbreak will continue,” Dr. Oxiris Barbot, the city’s health commissioner, said.

California has had a low-intensity epidemic with a handful of new cases each week, punctuated by occasional scares about widespread exposure at airports or on university campuses.


Franz Hall at U.C.L.A.’s campus. Hundreds of students and staff members were quarantined at the university following possible exposure to measles. Credit: Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York Times

Last week, nearly 800 students and staff members at California State University, Los Angeles, and the University of California, Los Angeles, who may have been exposed to measles on their campuses were quarantined under orders to stay home and not ride public transportation.

As of Monday, more than half of them were cleared after showing proof that they had either had two measles shots or were immune because they had caught the disease in childhood.

About 370 remained in quarantine, mostly at Cal State, Los Angeles.

On Monday, signs reading “POSSIBLE MEASLES EXPOSURE” were posted at the entrance to Cal State’s John F. Kennedy Memorial Library. Anyone who visited on April 11, when a student with measles apparently passed through, was warned to check his or her vaccination records.

Aliyah Johnson, 22, a senior, said she first heard of the scare when her mother called to check on her. “Out of sight is out of mind,” she said. She has had her shots, Ms. Johnson added.

At U.C.L.A., some students were unaware that the possible exposure on their campus had been traced to the very lecture halls they were entering. Still, some said they were more worried about upcoming exams.

Gianna Jimenez, a sophomore studying molecular biology, said she and her peers were disturbed by the spread of unscientific theories, such as the notion that vaccines cause autism.

“People just believe whatever they see on the internet whether it’s true or not,” she said. “The fact that it’s 2019 and we’re dealing with this is outrageous and ridiculous.”

Universities in New York are required by state law to make sure their students are vaccinated against measles.

At New York University, incoming freshmen do not get dorm keys until they produce persuasive evidence of immunization or get vaccinated at the student health center, said John Beckman, a university spokesman.

The university, he added, has just told all students with medical or other exemptions that, if the school has a case, they may be barred from campus.

More than 94 percent of American parents vaccinate their children against measles and other diseases, Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the C.D.C., said on Monday.

About 100,000 children in this country below age 2 have not been vaccinated, he said, meaning they are vulnerable in this outbreak.

Some infants are not immunized because their parents avoid vaccination. Others cannot be protected either because they are allergic to components of the vaccine or for other medical reasons.

This year’s outbreak, the C.D.C. said, was sparked by 126 infections acquired by travelers overseas since early 2018. The bulk of them occurred in Israel, Ukraine and the Philippines, but cases have also come from Thailand, Germany, Britain and other countries.

Of the 44 cases imported so far this year, the C.D.C. said, 34 were not in immigrants or foreign visitors, but in Americans who had traveled overseas.

Even with modern medical care, the disease normally kills about one out of every 1,000 victims, according to the C.D.C.

Pneumonia and encephalitis — swelling of the brain — are the most common severe complications. Epidemics among malnourished children who cannot get modern hospital care have mortality rates of 10 percent or more, according to the World Health Organization.

Measles is among the most contagious of diseases. Virus-laced droplets can hover in still indoor air for up to two hours after someone infected has coughed or sneezed. Up to 90 percent of people who are exposed will catch the virus if they are not immunized.

The vaccine is considered very safe, and two doses are about 97 percent effective at conferring immunity. The vaccine is normally given at ages 1 and 5, but during outbreaks pediatricians may give it to healthy children as young as six months old.

Around the world, measles cases fell 80 percent between 2000 and 2016, with deaths dropping to 90,000 a year from 550,000.

But two years ago, cases began rebounding, driven by a combination of poverty, warfare, tight vaccine supplies and, in some countries, hesitation about vaccination.

Earlier this month, the W.H.O. said there were three times as many measles cases around the world this year as there were in the first three months of 2018.

Before measles vaccination became widespread in the United States in 1963, up to four million Americans got measles each year, the C.D.C. said. Of the roughly 500,000 cases that were reported to medical authorities annually back then, about 48,000 were hospitalized, 4,000 developed encephalitis, and 400 to 500 died.

The C.D.C.’s case count on Monday said 503 of the 704 measles infections were in people who were not vaccinated. Of the remaining 201 cases, vaccination status was unknown for 125 patients, meaning that 76 patients said they had been vaccinated but got sick anyway.

The agency does not yet know how many shots each of those 76 had, “but under extreme disease pressure we know there can be vaccine failures,” Dr. Messonnier said.

She suggested that adults likely to encounter the virus, including health workers, travelers and anyone in affected neighborhoods, get a blood test that can show how immune they are to measles, mumps and rubella.

Anyone born before 1957 is assumed to have had the measles as a child and therefore immune.

Americans born between 1957 and 1989 are in a middle ground. Some got the early “killed virus” vaccine, which later proved to be too short-lived and was replaced by a “weakened virus” vaccine.

Until 1989, it was routine to give one shot; now children get two. One shot of the new vaccine provides 93 percent immunity in the overall population, while two shots drive that up to 97 percent, which is considered more than enough to keep the virus from spreading.

Vaccination levels vary from state to state, largely dependent on how easy state legislatures make it to get exemptions. All states permit exemptions for children who are allergic to the vaccine, have a compromised immune system or have another medical reason to avoid it.

Some states permit religious exemptions, even though no major religion opposes vaccination, and a few states also permit “philosophical” or “personal choice” exemptions.

Some states with high vaccination rates have “pockets of unvaccinated people,” the C.D.C. said. At various times, some religious minorities like Orthodox Jews and the Amish in Ohio have had low vaccination rates.

Some wealthy liberal communities, like Vashon Island in Washington State, have also had low rates. Recently conservative groups opposed to vaccines have sprung up, such as Texans for Vaccine Choice, which is associated with the Tea Party.

Julie Turkewitz contributed reporting from Denver, Jose Del Real from Los Angeles and Dana Goldstein from New York.

Measles Q & A

Measles Q & A

 

Measles Outbreak: All The Questions You Want Answers To

One in 10 children with measles gets an ear infection, which can lead to permanent deafness.Credit: Francis R Malasig/EPA, via Shutterstock

Via NYTimes, By Pam Belluck and Adeel Hassan

Updated on April 25

The United States is having its worst year for measles since the disease was declared eliminated in the country in 2000. Federal health officials said Wednesday that 695 individual cases have been confirmed in 22 states in 2019.

The growing number reflects the rise of the antivaccination movement in the country and the spread of international outbreaks that have infected American travelers.

New York has been particularly hard hit, with 200 confirmed reported cases in suburban Rockland County, and at least 334 cases in New York City, almost all in Brooklyn. This week, public health officials in Los Angeles declared a measles outbreak in the county, making it the latest metropolitan area to be hit by the illness.

Five cases of measles are being investigated there. California requires childhood immunizations to attend public or private school, with exemptions allowed if a doctor confirms that there is a medical reason to not have all or some shots. It is one of the strictest laws in the country.

Here’s what you need to know about the disease and the risk of getting it.

Measles is an extremely contagious virus. It can cause serious respiratory symptoms, fever and rash. In some cases, especially in babies and young children, the consequences can be severe. Measles killed 110,000 people globally in 2017, mostly children under 5.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in 10 children with measles gets an ear infection, which can lead to permanent deafness. One in 20 children with measles develops pneumonia and one in 1,000 develops encephalitis (brain swelling that can cause brain damage). Pregnant women with measles are at greater risk of having premature or low-birth-weight babies.

One or two in 1,000 children who contract measles will die. In countries where measles vaccination is not routine, it is a significant cause of death, according to the World Health Organization.

Measles is transmitted by droplets from an infected person’s nose or mouth. If you’re in a room with someone infected with measles, you can inhale their virus when they cough, sneeze or even talk. Infected people can transmit the measles virus starting four days before they develop a rash, so they may be contagious before they realize they have the disease. They remain able to spread the virus for about four days after the rash appears.

The virus can also live on surfaces for several hours, and is so contagious that, according to the C.D.C., “you can catch measles just by being in a room where a person with measles has been, up to two hours after that person is gone.”

According to the Mayo Clinic, people show no symptoms up to two weeks after being infected. Then they develop symptoms typical of a cold or virus: moderate fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose, red and swollen eyes.

But after two or three days of that, fever spikes to 104 or 105 degrees and the telltale red dots appear on the skin, first on the face, then spreading down the body.

Abel Zhang, 1, being helped back into his clothes by his mother, Wenyi Zhang, center, his grandmother, Ding Hong, left, and Dr. Lauren Lawler, after receiving inoculations for measles, mumps and rubella at a clinic in Seattle. Credit: Elaine Thompson/Associated Press

No. The vast majority of people who contract measles haven’t been vaccinated, and giving them the measles vaccine within 72 hours of being exposed to the virus might help — at least by reducing the severity and duration of the symptoms. The Mayo Clinic says that pregnant women, babies and people with weak immune systems can receive an injection of antibodies called immune serum globulin within six days of being exposed to measles, which might prevent or lessen the symptoms.

Extremely safe and effective. The measles-mumps-rubella (M.M.R.) vaccine causes no side effects in most children. Small numbers may get a mild fever, rash, soreness or swelling, the C.D.C. says. Adults or teenagers may feel temporary soreness or stiffness at the injection site. Rarely, the vaccine might cause a high fever that could lead to a seizure, according to the C.D.C. Contrary to misinformation that some anti-vaccine activists continue to repeat, the vaccine does not cause autism.

Children should receive two doses of the vaccine: the first when they are 12 to 15 months old; the second when they are between 4 and 6 years old. If infants who are between 6 and 11 months old are about to travel from the United States to another country, the C.D.C. recommends they receive one dose of the vaccine beforehand.

One dose of the vaccine is about 93 percent effective; two doses boost that number to 97 percent, the C.D.C. says.

People who don’t get the vaccine are at very high risk for contracting measles. “Almost everyone who has not had the MMR shot will get measles if they are exposed to the measles virus,” the C.D.C. says.

It’s not too late. In fact, if measles is occurring in your community, it’s a good idea to get vaccinated unless you are sure you have previously received two shots of the M.M.R. vaccine; or you’ve had all three of the diseases the vaccine protects against (which gives you lifelong immunity); or you were born before 1957. (The vaccine was made available in 1963 and in the decade before that, virtually every child got measles by age 15, so the C.D.C. considers people born before 1957 likely to have had measles as children.)

But people who received the vaccine in the 1960s should consider getting immunized again. One of two vaccines available from 1963-67 was ineffective, the C.D.C. says. The effective vaccine during those years was the “live” vaccine; the ineffective one was the inactivated or “killed” vaccine. If you’re not sure, consult with your doctor.

You are probably thinking of the concept of herd immunity, which means that if a large number of people are protected from a disease by a vaccine, the disease will be less likely to circulate, diminishing the risk for people who are unvaccinated. The threshold for herd immunity varies by disease — for a highly contagious disease, a very high percentage of people need to be vaccinated to meet that threshold.



 

Because measles is so contagious, between 93 percent and 95 percent of people in a community need to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. Remember, some people can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons: infants, pregnant women and people who are immune compromised.

During the Disneyland outbreak in 2015, a 9-month-old child whose parents were planning to immunize contracted measles from an older child who hadn’t been vaccinated, said Dr. Annabelle De St. Maurice, an expert on infectious diseases at U.C.L.A. So vaccinating your child not only protects your child, it helps protect others in your community.

In 2000, measles was declared eliminated from the United States because the country had gone for more than 12 months without any “continuous disease transmission” within its borders. “Eliminated” doesn’t mean the disease was completely eradicated; it means the United States no longer had any places where the disease was endemic or homegrown.

There have been a small number of measles cases in the United States since then, ranging from 37 in 2004 to 667 in 2014, largely among people who were not vaccinated.

Most of the American cases since 2000 have been the result of people traveling to or from countries where measles is endemic because there is little vaccination.

A small number in scattered pockets. Measles immunization in the United States is stable and high — more than 90 percent — according to C.D.C. tracking.

One way to measure is by looking at the annual assessment of kindergarten vaccinations. It shows only Colorado, the District of Columbia, Idaho and Kansas dipping below the national 90 percent vaccination rate, though in certain communities the rate can be lower.

Generally, those who do not immunize their children are demographically more white and more educated, Dr. De St. Maurice said. “In part due to the success of vaccines, people are not as familiar with these diseases, so they question their effectiveness,” she said. Conversely, when the disease reappears, as it did in Washington, demand for vaccines rises.

Every state has these laws. Three states allow only medical exemptions: Mississippi, West Virginia and, more recently, California, following the Disneyland outbreak. The rest grant exemptions for personal, philosophical or religious beliefs as well.

Signs warning patients at a clinic in Vancouver, Wash.Credit: Gillian Flaccus/Associated Press

There have not been enough cases to warrant a major survey, but Dr. Saad Omer of the Emory Vaccine Center in Atlanta warned that with a rising number of cases, that could change.

Dr. Omer, who studies immunization coverage and disease incidence, said research had shown that states that allow more exemptions have increased pertussis (whooping cough) outbreaks.

Studies have also shown that people who refuse vaccines are disproportionately represented in the early stage of outbreaks. “They’re providing the tinder that can start the fires of the epidemics,” Dr. Omer said.

Measles cases have been increasing around the world, too. Worldwide, there was an 80 percent drop in measles deaths from 2000 through 2017. But reported cases of measles have increased 30 percent since 2016, according to the World Health Organization.

Ninety-four percent of children in the United States get the recommended two-dose vaccine. According to the World Health Organization, more than a dozen countries reached the 99 percent mark, including Cuba, China, Morocco and Uzbekistan. Canada, Britain and Switzerland are a few of the Western countries that are below 90 percent.

In Europe overall, only about 90 percent of children receive the recommended two-dose vaccine. Worldwide, about 85 percent of children receive the first dose, but the number drops to 67 percent for a second dose, data shows.

Worldwide cases of measles have increased 30 percent since 2016, the World Health Organization said last year. Credit: Yahya Arhab/EPA, via Shutterstock

The M.M.R. vaccine has also greatly reduced the threat of mumps and rubella in the United States. It is not quite as effective against mumps, with 88 percent effectiveness, according to the C.D.C., and cases have increased in recent years, from 229 in 2012 to 6,366 in 2016.

Rubella used to cause millions of infections in the United States. According to the C.D.C., 12.5 million people got rubella in an epidemic from 1964 to 1965, and the disease caused 11,000 women to lose their pregnancies, 2,100 newborns to die and 20,000 babies to be born with congenital rubella syndrome, which can cause brain damage and other serious problems.

Rubella was declared eliminated in the United States in 2004, and the C.D.C. says that fewer than 10 cases are reported each year. But, as with measles and mumps, there are still many countries where it persists because of lack of vaccination, and every case since 2012 has been traced to people infected while traveling or living in another country.

Pam Belluck is a health and science writer. She was one of seven Times staffers awarded the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting for coverage of the Ebola epidemic. She is the author of “Island Practice,” about a colorful and contrarian doctor on Nantucket. 

The Problem with Teenage Vaping Lies at the Feet of the Adults in Charge

The Problem with Teenage Vaping Lies at the Feet of the Adults in Charge

“Adolescents don’t think they will get addicted to nicotine, but when they do want to stop, they find it’s very difficult,” says Yale neuroscientist Marina Picciotto, PhD. Recent and past studies show that nicotine can cause physical changes in the teenage brain. – Credit: Getty Image


Yet another “Duh” piece of news that should’ve, could’ve, been addressed properly, the moment big tobacco and vape manufacturers embraced plunged in to the market, and played down its dangers.

Government regulators failed, and are still failing, to protect the public, and especially young people, from the absurdly obvious dangers of nicotine addiction. Corporate lobbyists, from tobacco, and the newly minted “Big Vape,” combined with ignorance, gullibility, and denial, by the users, who think there’s no harm enough to regulate, as they cite industry funded research, are the usual causes. Furthermore, the clueless argument about e-cigarettes helping conventional smokers actually quit tobacco, makes even less sense than giving Methadone to junkies for the last half century. Here’s a great piece on that: Methadone: The Good, Bad, and the Ugly.

As per usual, the U.S. FDA has dragged at a snail’s pace to catch up with the reality, despite warnings by the American Academy of Pediatricians, the American Lung Association, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and numerous qualified studies. While the FDA will be forced to face this issue, the question remains will it be enough, or will it be more of the usual PR half steps like banning only a segment of its sales, and having schools put signs in its bathrooms. The FDA needs to step up and do its job.

For a good background on how we got here, check out the link from The Verge below from 11/16/17, The three links below it are more recent news.


Read the article from Yale Medicine

More on this:

Smoke Screen: Big Vape is copying Big Tobacco’s playbook. – The Verge

FDA is failing to protect kids from e-cigarettes, American Lung Association. -CNN

FDA threatens to pull e-cigarettes off the market. – The Hill

What Foods Are Banned in Europe but Not Banned in the U.S.?

What Foods Are Banned in Europe but Not Banned in the U.S.?

I don’t wonder too much why this is the case. The U.S is famous for getting tied up by corporate lobbyists, stifling bureaucracy, and a wholly inefficient, meek FDA. Further insult to public health is the plain greed of sellouts to corporations rich enough to pay for whatever they want.

This small list is a trifle of the much larger list of banned foods, chemical, and agri products that are banned, not only in Europe, but here in our own California, stateside.

Want to know what’s likely safe for public health, and what’s likely not? Don’t look at our federal regulations. Look at Europe, and then look at California.


The European Union prohibits many food additives and various drugs that are widely used in American foods.

By Roni Caryn Rabin, NYTimes

Q. What foods are banned in Europe that are not banned in the United States, and what are the implications of eating those foods?

 

A. The European Union prohibits or severely restricts many food additives that have been linked to cancer that are still used in American-made bread, cookies, soft drinks and other processed foods. Europe also bars the use of several drugs that are used in farm animals in the United States, and many European countries limit the cultivation and import of genetically modified foods.

“In some cases, food-processing companies will reformulate a food product for sale in Europe” but continue to sell the product with the additives in the United States, said Lisa Y. Lefferts, senior scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a food safety advocacy organization.

A 1958 amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act prohibits the Food and Drug Administration from approving food additives that are linked to cancer, but an agency spokeswoman said that many substances that were in use before passage of the amendment, known as the Delaney amendment, are considered to have had prior approval and “therefore are not regulated as food additives.”

In October, the F.D.A. agreed to ban six artificial flavoring substances shown to cause cancer in animals, following petitions and a lawsuit filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and other organizations. The F.D.A. insists the six artificial flavors “do not pose a risk to public health,” but concedes that the law requires it not approve the food additives. Food companies will have at least two years to remove them from their products.

Here’s a short list of some of the food additives restricted by the European Union but allowed in American foods. Most must be listed as ingredients on the labels, though information about drugs used to increase the yield in farm animals is generally not provided.

These additives are commonly added to baked goods, but neither is required, and both are banned in Europe because they may cause cancer. In recent years, some American restaurant chains have responded to consumer pressure and removed them from their food.

Potassium bromate is often added to flour used in bread, rolls, cookies, buns, pastry dough, pizza dough and other items to make the dough rise higher and give it a white glow. The International Agency for Research on Cancer considers it a possible human carcinogen, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the F.D.A. to ban it nearly 20 years ago. The F.D.A. says potassium bromate has been in use since before the Delaney amendment on carcinogenic food additives was passed.

Azodicarbonamide, or ADA, which is used as a whitening agent in cereal flour and as a dough conditioner, breaks down during baking into chemicals that cause cancer in lab animals. It is used by many chain restaurants that serve sandwiches and buns. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has urged the F.D.A. to bar its use. The F.D.A. says it is safe in limited amounts.

The flavor enhancers and preservatives BHA and BHT are subject to severe restrictions in Europe but are widely used in American food products. While evidence on BHT is mixed, BHA is listed in a United States government report on carcinogens as “reasonably anticipated” to be a human carcinogen.

BVO is used in some citrus-flavored soft drinks like Mountain Dew and in some sports drinks to prevent separation of ingredients, but it is banned in Europe. It contains bromine, the element found in brominated flame retardants, and studies suggest it can build up in the body and can potentially lead to memory loss and skin and nerve problems. An F.D.A. spokeswoman said it is safe in limited amounts, and that the agency would take action “should new safety studies become available that raise questions about the safety of BVO.”

These dyes can be used in foods sold in Europe, but the products must carry a warning saying the coloring agents “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” No such warning is required in the United States, though the Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the F.D.A. in 2008 to ban the dyes. Consumers can try to avoid the dyes by reading lists of ingredients on labels, but they’re used in so many things you wouldn’t even think of, not just candy and icing and cereal, but things like mustard and ketchup,” marshmallows, chocolate, and breakfast bars that appear to contain fruit, Ms. Lefferts, the food safety scientist, said.

The F.D.A.’s website says reactions to food coloring are rare, but acknowledges that yellow dye No. 5, used widely in drinks, desserts, processed vegetables and drugs, may cause itching and hives.

The European Union also bans some drugs that are used on farm animals in the United States, citing health concerns. These drugs include bovine growth hormone, which the United States dairy industry uses to increase milk production. The European Union also does not allow the drug ractopamine, used in the United States to increase weight gain in pigs, cattle and turkeys before slaughter, saying that “risks to human health cannot be ruled out.” An F.D.A. spokeswoman said the drugs are safe.

What These Medical Journals Don’t Reveal: Top Doctors’ Ties to Industry

The Sarah Cannon Research Institute, based in Nashville, received nearly $8 million in payments from drug companies on behalf of its president for clinical operations, Dr. Howard Burris, largely for research work. Dozens of his articles published in prestigious medical journals did not include the required disclosures of those payments and relationships. – William DeShazer for The New York Times


“Calls for transparency stem from concerns that researchers’ ties to the health and drug industries increase the odds they will, consciously or not, skew results to favor the companies with whom they do business.”

At this point in the medical news stream, this is a big Duh, to anyone with eyes open, who has read about this subject in the last oh, I dunno, twenty years, It is why the onus of responsibility, and making an intelligently calculated risk decision of whether to take (especially newly marketed) medication, or agree to any procedure, or have surgery, is on us, the patient.
Trust your doctor, if you can, but, if you don’t know the bigger reality in the business of healthcare, you could suffer needlessly.


By Charles Ornstein and Katie Thomas, Via NYTimes
Dec. 8, 2018

This article was reported and written in collaboration with ProPublica, the nonprofit journalism organization.

One is dean of Yale’s medical school. Another is the director of a cancer center in Texas. A third is the next president of the most prominent society of cancer doctors.

These leading medical figures are among dozens of doctors who have failed in recent years to report their financial relationships with pharmaceutical and health care companies when their studies are published in medical journals, according to a review by The New York Times and ProPublica and data from other recent research.

Dr. Howard A. “Skip” Burris III, the president-elect of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, for instance, declared that he had no conflicts of interest in more than 50 journal articles in recent years, including in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

However, drug companies have paid his employer nearly $114,000 for consulting and speaking, and nearly $8 million for his research during the period for which disclosure was required. His omissions extended to the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is published by the group he will lead.

In addition to the widespread lapses by doctors, the review by The Times and ProPublica found that journals themselves often gave confusing advice and did not routinely vet disclosures by researchers, although many relationships could have been easily detected on a federal database.

Medical journals, which are the main conduit for communicating the latest scientific discoveries to the public, often have an interdependent relationship with the researchers who publish in their pages. Reporting a study in a leading journal can heighten their profile — not to mention that of the drug or other product being tested. And journals enhance their cachet by publishing exclusive, breakthrough studies by acclaimed researchers.

In all, the reporting system still appears to have many of the same flaws that the Institute of Medicine identified nearly a decade ago when it recommended fundamental changes in how conflicts of interest are reported. Those have yet to happen.

“The system is broken,” said Dr. Mehraneh Dorna Jafari, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine. She and her colleagues published a study in August that found that, of the 100 doctors who received the most compensation from device makers in 2015, conflicts were disclosed in only 37 percent of the articles published in the next year. “The journals aren’t checking and the rules are different for every single thing.”

Calls for transparency stem from concerns that researchers’ ties to the health and drug industries increase the odds they will, consciously or not, skew results to favor the companies with whom they do business. Studies have found that industry-sponsored research tends to be more positive than research financed by other sources. And that in turn can sway which treatments become available to patients. There is no indication that the research done by Dr. Burris and the other doctors with incomplete disclosures was manipulated or falsified.

Journal editors say they are introducing changes that will better standardize disclosures and reduce errors. But some have also argued that since most researchers follow the rules, stringent new requirements would be costly and unnecessary.

The issue has gained traction since September, when Dr. José Baselga, who was the chief medical officer of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, resigned after The Times and ProPublica reported that he had not revealed his industry ties in dozens of journal articles.

[Read more about doctors at Memorial Sloan Kettering and their financial relationships with companies.]
Dr. Burris, president of clinical operations and chief medical officer at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, referred questions about the payments to his employer. It defended him, saying the payments were made to the institution, although The New England Journal of Medicine requires disclosure of all such payments.

Other prominent researchers who have submitted erroneous disclosures include Dr. Robert J. Alpern, the dean of the Yale School of Medicine, who failed to disclose in a 2017 journal article about an experimental treatment developed by Tricida that he served on that company’s board of directors and owned its stock. Tricida, which is developing therapies for chronic kidney disease, had financed the clinical trial that was the subject of the article.

Dr. Alpern said in an email that he initially believed that his disclosure — that he had been a consultant for Tricida — was adequate. However, “because of concerns recently raised about disclosures,” he said he notified the publication, The Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, in October that he also served on Tricida’s board and had stock holdings in the company.

The journal initially told Dr. Alpern that his disclosure was sufficient. But after The Times and ProPublica contacted the publication in November, it said it would correct the article.

Dr. Howard A. Burris III

“The failure to disclose this information at the time of peer review is a violation of our policy,” Dr. Rajnish Mehrotra, the journal’s editor in chief, said in an email.

He later said that an additional inquiry had revealed that all 12 of the article’s authors had submitted incomplete disclosures, and that the journal planned to refer the matter to the ethics committee of the American Society of Nephrology. Dr. Mehrotra also said that the journal had decided to conduct an audit of some recent articles to evaluate the broader issue.

Dr. Carlos L. Arteaga, the director of the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center in Dallas, said he had “nothing to disclose” as an author of a 2016 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine of the breast cancer drug Kisqali, made by Novartis. But Dr. Arteaga had received more than $50,000 from drug companies in the three-year disclosure period, including more than $14,000 from Novartis.

In an email, Dr. Arteaga described the omission as an “inexcusable oversight and error on my part,” and subsequently submitted a correction.

Dr. Jeffrey R. Botkin, an associate vice president for research at the University of Utah, recently argued in JAMA, a leading medical journal, that researchers should face misconduct charges when they do not disclose their relationships with interested companies. “They really are falsifying the information that others rely on to assess that research,” he said. “Money is a very powerful influencer, and people’s opinions become subtly biased by that financial relationship.”

But Dr. Howard C. Bauchner, the editor in chief of JAMA, said that verifying each author’s disclosures would not be worth the time or effort. “The vast majority of authors are honest and do want to fulfill their obligations to tell readers and editors what their conflicts of interest could be,” he said in an interview.

As the debate continues, an influential group, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, is considering a policy that would refer researchers who commit major disclosure errors to their institutions for possible charges of research misconduct.

Concerns about the influence of drug companies on medical research have persisted for decades. Senator Estes Kefauver held hearings on the issue in 1959, and there was another surge of concern in the 2000s after a series of scandals in which prominent doctors failed to reveal their industry relationships.

Medical journals and professional societies strengthened their requirements. The drug industry restricted how it compensates doctors, prohibiting gifts like tickets to sporting events or luxury trips — although evidence of kickbacks and corruption continues to surface in criminal prosecutions. And a 2010 federal law required pharmaceutical and device makers to publicly report their payments to physicians.

Questioned about omissions on his disclosure forms accompanying research articles, Dr. Burris submitted new disclosures to the New England Journal of Medicine showing his ties to many drug and health care companies.

Despite these changes, the system for disclosing conflicts remains fragmented and weakly enforced. Medical journals and professional societies have a variety of guidelines about what types of relationships must be reported, often leaving it up to the researcher to decide what is relevant. There are few repercussions — beyond a correction — for those who fail to follow the rules.

For example, the American Association for Cancer Research has warned authors that they face a three-year ban if they are found to have omitted a potential conflict. But the group’s policy on conflicts of interest contains no mention of such a penalty, and it said no author had ever been barred. Dr. Baselga’s failure to disclose his industry relationships extended to the association’s journal, Cancer Discovery, for which he serves as one of two editors in chief. The association said it is investigating Dr. Baselga’s actions.

Most authors do seem to disclose their ties to corporate interests. About two-thirds of the authors on the Kisqali study, for example, reported relationships with companies, including Novartis. But the researchers who did not included Dr. Arteaga, Dr. Burris and Dr. Denise A. Yardley, a senior investigator who works with Dr. Burris at Sarah Cannon.

The Tennessee-based research center received more than $105,000 in fees for consulting, speaking and other services on Dr. Yardley’s behalf in the three-year period in which she declared no conflicts.

The Sarah Cannon institute said it switched over a year ago to a “universal disclosure” practice promoted by ASCO, the cancer group that Dr. Burris will lead. That requires doctors to disclose all payments, including those made to their institutions.

“We believe we adhere to the highest ethical standards in the industry by not allowing personal compensation to be paid to our leadership physicians,” the center said.

ASCO said it would post corrections to Dr. Burris’s disclosures in The Journal of Clinical Oncology for the past four years. The group said that in the fall of 2017 — as Dr. Burris was seeking a leadership role in the organization — it began working with him to disclose all his company relationships, including indirect payments. Dr. Burris will become president in June 2019.

“Disclosure systems and processes in medicine are not perfect yet, and neither are ASCO’s,” the group said in an email.

Dr. Burris, Dr. Yardley and Dr. Arteaga submitted updated disclosures to The New England Journal of Medicine, which posted them on Thursday.

Dr. Burris’s new corrections to his disclosure forms that were posted by the New England Journal of Medicine show payments to his employer from Novartis, among other companies, for his work.

Dr. Burris’s updated disclosure listed relationships with 30 companies, including that he provided expert testimony for Novartis.

Other studies recently published by the New England Journal of Medicine also omitted disclosures, including one on a 2018 study on a treatment for sickle cell disease and another on the recently approved cancer drug Vitravki, to be sold by Bayer and Loxo Oncology.

Jennifer Zeis, a spokeswoman for the journal, said that it was contacting those studies’ authors, and that it now asked researchers to certify that they had checked their disclosures against the federal database.

Some institutions have pushed back, arguing that the journals’ inconsistent rules make it difficult for even well-meaning researchers to do the right thing.

In a letter last month To the New England Journal of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering objected to the treatment of one of its top researchers, Dr. Jedd Wolchok. When he tried to correct his disclosures, the journal shifted its position, from saying its editors were satisfied with his disclosures to saying he had failed to comply with the rules, the center said in citing communications with the journal.

Dr. Wolchok, a pioneer in cancer immunotherapy, ultimately corrected 13 articles and letters to the editor.

To clarify reporting requirements, several publications are attempting only now to do what the Institute of Medicine recommended in 2009. The New England Journal is testing a new system in partnership with the Association of American Medical Colleges that would act as a central repository for reporting financial relationships.

This year, JAMA began requiring authors to confirm multiple times that they had nothing to disclose. ASCO has a centralized system for reporting conflicts to all of its journals and speaker presentations.

Dr. Bernard Lo, the chairman of the 2009 Institute of Medicine panel, said journals have only begun to confront some of the systemic flaws. “They’re certainly not out in front trying to be trailblazers, let me just say it that way,” he said. “The fact that it hasn’t been done means that nobody has it on their priority list.”

Charles Ornstein is a senior editor at ProPublica.