Over time, it becomes evident that the decisions made in boardrooms carry their greatest weight in those very moments. It would take years to understand it fully, but these moments were not isolated. They were the foundation for something I would later try to give voice to.

The Day the Ordinary Disappeared

In January 1975, I was traveling through Paris on my way to the United States. What should have been a routine journey became something else entirely. Terrorists fired two RPG shells at our plane. They missed us but struck a Yugoslav Airlines JAT aircraft on the tarmac nearby.

The randomness of it all was almost impossible to process. One moment, you are a traveler moving through the world, the next, you are told to hug the floor of the aircraft, confronted with how easily that world can be altered or taken away. I did not have the language for it then; however, I carried the feeling forward. Life is not guaranteed. It is a gift given to us to deploy.

In 1978, I was leading the first Think Tank Peace Mission to Egypt and Israel. There were no direct flights between the two countries. From Cairo, we flew to Cyprus, then to Tel Aviv.

An Air Cyprus flight had landed just before ours. It was overtaken by terrorists. An Egyptian Entebbe-like rescue was attempted. It failed. When we landed hours later, the aftermath was still there — the remains of the Egyptian military C-130 sat on the tarmac, destroyed and covered. It reinforces the adage, “that timing is everything.”

You do not process it fully in the moment. You carry it. An appreciation for what lies beyond our control. A respect for those who act with purpose, regardless of outcome. An understanding that we plan for the future, yet we live in the moment.

Years later, during my military service as a paratrooper and combat medic, that lesson was no longer abstract. It was immediate, urgent and often unfolding before me. I served six frontline combat tours in Lebanon, in places where the noise of conflict was constant and the margin between survival and loss was measured in inches.

I tended to friends and foes under fire. In those moments, there was no room for theory. Care was not a matter of courage or a concept; it was an instinctive action. Communication was not a strategy; it was survival. A word, a look, a clear instruction could steady someone, guide them and save them.

Where Care Is Action, Not Theory

War has a way of stripping away everything except what matters most. You see clearly how dependent we are on one another. You understand that courage is not the absence of fear; it is the determination to act despite it. You learn that presence, simply being there for another person in their most vulnerable moment, is one of the most powerful forms of care.

I thought I understood risk. I thought I had come to terms with uncertainty. Then life reminded me again.

On a flight to visit my parents in the United States, the Tower Air jet I was on caught fire over the Atlantic. Two engines on the left side were burning. We needed to find a place to land quickly or hit the ocean. There is a particular kind of silence that fills a plane in that moment. It is not panic. It is something deeper, more introspective. You feel time stretch. You think about the people you love. You consider what has mattered and what has not.

As we made our emergency landing in Gander, Canada, I remember not relief first, but reflection. Once again, life had placed me in a moment where its fragility was undeniable.

These experiences did not turn me away from the world. They pulled me closer to it. They shaped how I see people, how I listen and how I respond. They taught me that every interaction carries weight, that every conversation can matter more than we realize.

In recent years, I have traveled to Ukraine annually before and during COVID and now during the war, supporting friends and spending time in a small community facing circumstances most of us can only imagine from afar. There, I saw the same truths I had encountered earlier in life. Community becomes everything. Information becomes lifeblood. People look to one another not only for physical support, but for clarity, reassurance and meaning. Even in the darkest conditions, communication is not secondary to care. It is part of care.

Most in the business world know me through my work at FINN Partners as a health communicator, through my writing, speaking and advocacy as a champion of health innovation and a more human-centered health system. They see my professional journey. What they do not always see is the foundation beneath it. Decades of lived experience that have reinforced, time and again, that life is precious, that it can change in an instant and that how we show up for one another in those moments defines us.

At FINN Partners, I have found a community of colleagues who reflect these same values. There is an understanding that our work carries responsibility, and that we are capable of more when we challenge ourselves to rise to it. It is a culture that encourages each of us to think beyond the immediate and contribute to something more enduring.

That understanding became even more personal through my family. My wife and I have walked alongside our child as she navigates the complexities of a rare disease. There are highs and there are lows. There are moments of hope and moments of uncertainty. In those experiences, I have seen health care from another vantage point, not as a cohesive system, but as a series of human interactions that can either comfort or compound the challenge.

When you are a parent in those moments, you listen differently. You look for clarity in every word. You hold on to empathy when it is offered and you feel its absence when it is not. You come to appreciate that communication in health is not an accessory. It is essential. It shapes understanding, trust and the ability to move forward.

The Human Thread Through Every Moment

All of these experiences converge into a single, enduring belief. Communication is not separate from care. It is how care travels along its continuum. There are moments when that truth reveals itself outside the settings we expect.

On a transatlantic flight in 2001, turbulence turned severe. At one point, a call came over the intercom: “Are there any doctors aboard?” No one responded. Minutes later, the request broadened to “any health professionals.”

My wife looked at me and quietly suggested I press the call button.

I was escorted to a passenger, pale and wrapped in a blanket. He had lost and regained consciousness. I introduced myself warmly and began with simple questions to assess his awareness. His name. The President of the United States. The day we had taken off. He answered each one without hesitation. His vitals were stable.

I explained that I was not a physician, but a former military EMT. Given the turbulence and the length of the flight, dehydration and stress were likely contributors. I reassured him and suggested that he follow up with his physician upon landing and, if he needed me, not to hesitate to hit his call button.

As I returned to my seat, a man two rows behind called out, “I’m a neurologist. I would have handled that exactly as you did.”

It was meant as an affirmation. I received it that way. Yet it lingers differently. In that moment, the instinct to act had been replaced by the comfort of waiting. The systems we build, even when grounded in expertise, can condition us to hesitate when action is needed most.

In moments like these, care is not a title or a credential. It is the willingness to engage, communicate, and act.

Across the health ecosystem and in responsible business settings, success is often measured by growth, scale and financial performance. These are necessary markers of progress. They enable innovation, access and reach. However, there is a deeper measure that often goes unspoken. When we understand our role within the continuum of care and recognize the connection between balance-sheet decisions made in boardrooms and people’s experiences felt at the bedside, our work takes on greater meaning. It moves beyond what can be counted to what ultimately counts.

Over time, I came to understand that moments are not separate. They are connected. Each one revealing, in its own way, what happens when people are seen, heard and cared for, and what happens when they are not.

That understanding became Healing the Sick Care System: Why People Matter.

A life of observing, listening, engaging and caring was the kindling. The moments themselves were the spark. Together, they revealed a simple truth: when we lose sight of people, the system falters. When we honor them, it begins to heal.

That truth asks something of us.

It is not simply about words. It is about presence. It is about accountability. It is about the choice to act when action is needed. This is how humanity shows up in systems, and how those systems, in turn, earn the trust of the people they are meant to serve.

The post The Moments That Shape Us: Why Life and People Matter Most appeared first on Medika Life.

One example would be pain. Research published in the Journal of Neuroscience found that when people didn’t know how much a painful heat stimulus would hurt — when they watched a group of others who disagreed wildly about it — they felt more pain than when the group agreed. The heat itself didn’t change. Only the uncertainty did. That single finding opens a door onto something much bigger: the way the brain interprets incoming signals doesn’t just affect physical pain. In fact, it shapes every experience, every emotion, and every belief we form about the world around us.

The Brain Is a Prediction Machine, Not a Camera

Your brain doesn’t work like a camera, passively recording what’s in front of it. It works more like a detective — making its best guess about what’s happening based on past experience, context, and whatever signals it can pick up in the moment. In fact, this is the way AI works the same way because it guesses what you intend when you are dictating to it. That’s based on what you have known to use before. It’s not original; it’s from something you’ve already said or thought.

Scientists call this predictive processing. Fancy words for something that’s simple. The brain is constantly generating a model of reality and checking it against what the senses report. Most of what you experience isn’t raw sensory data. It’s the brain’s best guess, already processed and interpreted before you’re even aware of it.

This has enormous consequences. Because your brain fills in gaps with guesses, your perception of any situation is shaped as much by what you expect as by what’s actually there. Research on how emotions are built in the brain confirms this same pattern. Feelings aren’t simple, automatic reactions that arise out of nowhere. They’re constructed — assembled by the brain from past learning, bodily signals, and whatever the surrounding context suggests is happening — all woven together into something that feels completely immediate and real. Fear, hope, dread, excitement — none of these are just responses to the world. They’re interpretations. And like all interpretations, they can be mistaken.

This might be unsettling to hear. But it’s also genuinely freeing, because it means your perception of reality isn’t fixed. It can be trained.

The Brain’s Thumb on the Scale

Here’s the catch. The brain doesn’t interpret experiences evenly. It has a strong, built-in bias toward the negative. This explains why negative information is so strongly entrenched in our minds. Negative information is stored more vividly in memory and carries more weight in the decisions we make than equivalent positive information does. This isn’t a character flaw. It’s an evolutionary feature.

Our ancestors survived by treating ambiguous situations as dangerous — if a rustle in the bushes might be a predator, it was safer to assume the worst and run. The cost of a false alarm was low; the cost of missing a real threat could be fatal.

In modern life, that same wiring creates serious problems. We’re exposed to more alarming information than any previous generation — not necessarily because the world is more dangerous, but because we carry a device in our pockets that streams us the worst of humanity around the clock. Research on how news consumption affects perception found that a steady diet of threatening content actively cultivates a distorted view of the world, pushing people to overestimate danger (The Scary World Syndrome) and feel a constant sense of impending doom that doesn’t match their actual circumstances.

In one study on risk perception during a health crisis, people overestimated their personal risk of dying from a disease by more than 270 times the actual probability. Their brains weren’t computing risk. They were amplifying fear.

Uncertainty makes all of this worse. Much worse. The same research that revealed how uncertainty increases physical pain also showed that not knowing what to expect activates a specific brain region — one that amplifies the intensity of an experience, for better or worse. And this effect isn’t limited to physical sensation.

Research on stress and health outcomes has found that the threat of losing a job can actually be more damaging to physical health than losing it outright, because the brain treats an uncertain threat as something to brace against continuously — a draining, exhausting posture that takes a real toll on the body over time. Sounds like burnout, doesn’t it? It isn’t just pain that uncertainty turns up. It’s almost everything the brain interprets as potentially threatening, which, given the negativity bias, covers a whole lot of ground.

What makes this particularly important in today’s world is that this feedback loop isn’t passive. The beliefs we form — shaped by perception, fear, and repeated exposure to alarming information — circle back and filter what we’re willing to notice next.

Research on how beliefs affect the brain’s processing of sensory information suggests that what we expect to see and feel actually controls what reaches our conscious awareness. Our beliefs aren’t just conclusions we reach. They become part of the filter that determines what evidence the brain even considers. This is like throwing the wheat away with the chaff.

What You Can Actually Do About It

Understanding how the brain constructs experience isn’t just interesting. It points directly to what we can do differently.

The first step is recognizing that your interpretation of a situation isn’t the same thing as the situation itself. When you feel dread about a conversation you haven’t had yet or are certain something’s going to go wrong, your brain is filling in a gap with a guess — shaped by past experience, current stress, and the negativity bias — not delivering a reliable preview of the future. That awareness alone, when you can genuinely hold onto it, changes your relationship with the feeling. You don’t have to argue with it or push it away. You just don’t have to treat it as truth.

The second step involves what you feed your brain. Because the brain builds its models of the world out of the patterns it encounters most often, the information environment you live in genuinely shapes how you perceive things — including things that have nothing directly to do with that environment. Heavy exposure to alarming content trains the brain to scan for threats even in neutral situations. Seeking out different perspectives, sitting with ambiguity instead of rushing to resolve it, and spending time in environments where uncertainty is met with curiosity rather than alarm — these gradually reshape the models your brain is running.

The third step is learning to treat uncertainty itself differently. That’s harder than it sounds, because not knowing really activates stress responses that narrow attention and make everything feel more urgent and more threatening. But evidence consistently shows that people who can stay open when they don’t know what’s coming — who can resist the pull toward premature conclusions — think more flexibly, solve problems more creatively, and make sounder decisions. The ability to hold more than one interpretation in mind at once isn’t a fixed personality trait. Like any other cognitive skill, it responds to practice.

None of this is an argument for forced optimism or pretending that hard things aren’t hard. Negative emotions carry real information and serve genuine purposes when they’re in proportion to what’s actually happening. The goal isn’t to replace one distortion with another. It’s important to notice when the brain’s interpretive machinery is running hot — turning not-knowing into catastrophe, amplifying uncertainty into doom — and to remember that what feels like reality is always, to some degree, something the brain has made.

The world you live in isn’t the world as it is. It’s the world your brain has built for you, piece by piece, out of everything it expects, fears, and has learned to look for. That’s not a reason for despair. Actually, it’s an invitation to get curious about the builder — and to ask whether the story it’s been telling you still has to be the only one.

The post Reality Isn’t What You Think: It’s How Your Brain Builds Everything appeared first on Medika Life.

This story also ran on NBC News. See below.

West Virginia’s Public Employees Insurance Agency enrolls nearly 215,000 people — state workers, as well as their spouses and dependents. The new law, which will take effect June 10, will allow plan members who have been approved for a course of treatment to pursue an alternative, medically appropriate treatment of equal or lesser value without the need for another approval from the state-based health plan.

“This legislation is rooted in a simple principle: if a treatment has already been approved, patients should be able to pursue a medically appropriate alternative without being forced to start the process over again — especially when it does not cost more,” Gov. Patrick Morrisey said in a statement after signing the bill into law on March 31.

“This is about common sense, compassion, and trusting patients and their doctors to make the best decisions for their care,” he said.

Delegate Laura Kimble, the Republican from Harrison County who introduced the legislation, told KFF Health News the measure offers “a rational solution” for patients facing “the most irrational and chaotic time of their lives.”

From Arizona to Rhode Island, at least half of all state legislatures have taken up bills this year related to prior authorization, a process that requires patients or their medical team to seek approval from an insurer before proceeding with care. These state efforts come as patients across the country await relief from prior authorization hurdles, as promised by dozens of major health insurers in a pledge announced by the Trump administration last year.

The West Virginia law was inspired by Eric Tennant, a coal-mining safety instructor from Bridgeport who died on Sept. 17 at age 58. In early 2025, the Public Employees Insurance Agency repeatedly denied him coverage of a $50,000 noninvasive cancer treatment, called histotripsy, that would have used ultrasound waves to target, and potentially shrink, the largest tumor in his liver. His family didn’t expect the procedure to eradicate the cancer, but they hoped it would buy him more time and improve his quality of life. The insurer said the procedure wasn’t medically necessary and that it was considered “experimental and investigational.”

Related coverage

After Series of Denials, His Insurer Approved Doctor-Recommended Cancer Care. It Was Too Late.

Eric Tennant’s doctors recommended histotripsy, which would target, and potentially destroy, a cancerous tumor in his liver. But by the time his insurer approved the treatment, Tennant was no longer considered a good candidate. He died in September. Read More

Becky Tennant, Eric’s widow, told members of a West Virginia House committee in late February that she submitted medical records, expert opinions, and data as part of several attempts to appeal the denial. She also reached out to “almost every one of our state representatives,” asking for help.

Nothing worked, she told lawmakers, until KFF Health News and NBC News got involved and posed questions to the Public Employees Insurance Agency about Eric’s case. Only then did the insurer reverse its decision and approve histotripsy, Tennant said.

“But by then, the delay had already done its damage,” she said.

Within one week of the reversal in late May, Eric Tennant was hospitalized. His health continued to decline, and by midsummer he was no longer considered a suitable candidate for the procedure. “The insurance company’s decision did not simply delay care. It closed doors,” his wife said.

Had the new law been in effect, Kimble said, Tennant could have undergone histotripsy without preapproval, because it was a less expensive alternative to chemotherapy, which his insurer had already authorized. The bill was passed unanimously by the state legislature in March.

U.S. health insurers argue that most prior authorization requests are quickly, if not instantly, approved. AHIP, the health insurance industry trade group, says prior authorization acts as an important guardrail in preventing potential harm to patients and reducing unnecessary health care costs. But denials and delays tend to affect patients who need expensive, time-sensitive care, studies have shown.

The practice has come under intense scrutiny in recent years, particularly after the fatal shooting of a health insurance executive in New York City in late 2024. Americans rank prior authorization as their biggest burden when it comes to getting health care, according to a poll published in February by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Samantha Knapp, a spokesperson for the West Virginia Department of Administration, would not answer questions about the law’s financial impact on the state. “We prefer to avoid any speculation at this time regarding potential impact or actions,” Knapp said.

In a fiscal note attached to the bill, Jason Haught, the Public Employees Insurance Agency’s chief financial officer, said the law would cost the agency an estimated $13 million annually and “cause member disruption.”

West Virginia isn’t an outlier in targeting prior authorization. By late 2025, 48 other states, in addition to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, already had some form of a prior authorization law — or laws — on the books, according to a report published in December by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Many states have set up “gold carding” programs, which allow physicians with a track record of approvals to bypass prior authorization requirements. Some states establish a maximum number of days insurance companies are allowed to respond to requests, while others prohibit insurance companies from issuing retrospective denials after a service has already been preauthorized. There are also a crop of new state laws seeking to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in prior authorization decision-making.

Meanwhile, prior authorization bills introduced this year across the country, including in Kentucky, Missouri, and New Jersey, have been supported by politicians from both parties.

“Republicans in conservative states see health care as a vulnerability for the midterm elections, and so, unsurprisingly, you’ll see some action on this,” said Robert Hartwig, a clinical associate professor of risk management, insurance, and finance at the University of South Carolina. “They realize that they’re not really going to get much action at the federal level given the degree of gridlock we’ve already seen.”

Last summer, the Trump administration announced a pledge signed by dozens of health insurers vowing to reform prior authorization. The insurers promised to reduce the scope of claims that require preapproval, decrease wait times, and communicate with patients in clear language when denying a request.

Consumers, patient advocates, and medical providers have expressed skepticism that companies will follow through on their promises.

Becky Tennant is skeptical, too. That’s why she advocated for the West Virginia bill.

“Families should not have to beg, appeal, or go public just to access time-sensitive care,” she told lawmakers. Tennant, who sees the bill’s passage as bittersweet, said she thought her husband would have been proud.

During Eric’s final hospital stay, Tennant recalled, right before he was discharged to home hospice care, she asked him whether he wanted her to keep fighting to change the state agency’s prior authorization process.

“‘Well, you need to at least try to change it,’” she recalled her husband saying. “‘Because it’s not fair.’”

“I told him I would keep trying,” she said, “at least for a while. And so I am keeping that promise to him.”

—–

NBC News health and medical unit producer Jason Kane and correspondent Erin McLaughlin contributed to this report. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

The post After Man’s Death Following Insurance Denials, West Virginia Tackles Prior Authorization appeared first on Medika Life.

Over 987 million people around the world now use AI chatbots regularly. Research shows that nearly half of Americans with ongoing mental health conditions have turned to a chatbot for emotional support in the past year alone. That’s a huge number of people relying on a technology that’s still very new in mental health care. So what does this mean?

Is it a big step forward in making help more accessible, or are we taking a risky chance? As with most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. These tools offer real benefits, but they also come with real risks. It’s important to look at both sides honestly.

The Case for AI Chatbots in Mental Health

First, let’s look at why so many people are turning to these tools. There’s a mental health crisis, and not enough providers to help everyone who needs it. Long wait lists, high costs, and the ongoing stigma around seeking help all make it harder for people to get care. For someone who can’t afford therapy, can’t find an available provider, or feels too embarrassed to talk to someone in person, a chatbot that’s always available can feel like a lifeline.
Research supports this to some extent. Corporations are responding to this, and more TV ads are appearing that offer online therapy with or without chatbots.

A systematic review of 31 randomized controlled trials, which is considered the gold standard in research, found that AI chatbots helped reduce anxiety and depression symptoms in adolescents and young adults. Another meta-analysis of 14 strong trials found a clear positive effect on mental health outcomes, showing these tools are more than just placebos. For college students, who often face unique pressures and may avoid formal help, chatbots have shown promise in building coping skills and improving emotional well-being.

Anonymity is important, too. People are more likely to open up when they don’t feel judged. Studies show that users see the chatbot’s lack of social expectations as a big advantage. It’s easier to admit you’re struggling when you don’t have to worry about what someone else thinks. For people with anxiety, this low barrier could mean the difference between getting some support and getting none.

Mental health professionals have noticed these benefits, too. A 2025 study found that many clinicians see AI chatbots as a useful way to offer support between therapy sessions, provide education, and reach people who might not seek care otherwise. When the alternative is no help at all, the accessibility and scalability of chatbots are hard to ignore.

Where These Tools Can Cause Real Harm

This is where things get more difficult. The same qualities that make chatbots appealing, like being available, warm, and endlessly patient, can also make them risky for people in real psychological distress. We need to remember that chatbots are designed to keep users constantly engaged. It can be very hard to disconnect because the connection becomes so strong that it almost feels like leaving a friend.

Researchers have found something called a “compassion illusion” the strong feeling that an AI understands you, cares about you, and responds to your emotions in a meaningful way. An algorithm has no ability to “feel” or “care.” It feels real, but it isn’t. This gap between what people feel and what’s actually happening is where problems can start, especially for vulnerable people who may not realize they’re relying on something with no clinical judgment, no duty of care, and no way to notice if they’re getting worse.

A Stanford University study found that several popular therapy chatbots failed important therapeutic tests. They not only showed stigmatizing attitudes toward conditions like schizophrenia and alcohol dependence, but also gave dangerous responses in crisis situations. In one case, a chatbot responded to a subtle mention of suicidal thoughts by cheerfully naming tall bridges — something a good therapist would never do. Instances such as this have resulted in lawsuits related to suicides.

Another study tested ten AI chatbots using fictional teen mental health scenarios. Nearly a third of the time, the bots supported harmful ideas suggested by the fictional teens, such as dropping out of school or avoiding all human contact. None of the ten bots managed to challenge every dangerous suggestion. By any clinical standard, that’s a failing grade.

There’s also the problem of people relying too much on chatbots. Since these systems are always available and don’t make human mistakes, they can become someone’s main source of emotional support. Psychiatrists are now seeing cases of what’s called “AI psychosis” in patients, especially those with mental health vulnerabilities, who develop worse delusions or paranoia after spending a lot of time with chatbots. Because chatbots tend to agree and mirror rather than challenge distorted thinking, they can quietly make things worse over days or weeks.

This isn’t just a theoretical risk. It’s happening in clinical offices right now.

What We Still Don’t Know — and Why That Matters

The uncomfortable truth is that we don’t have enough research to know how often AI chatbots help, how often they cause harm, or who is most at risk. A review of 160 studies found that only 16 percent of the newer large language model-based chatbot studies had gone through clinical efficacy testing. Most are still in early testing stages. It’s like handing out a new drug before the clinical trials are finished.

Media coverage hasn’t made things clearer. Studies looking at news reports on AI chatbots and mental health found that journalism often focuses on the most severe, emotional outcomes, like suicides and hospitalizations, and presents them as clear cause-and-effect stories, even though the real evidence is much less certain. In most cases, there were already mental health conditions, substance use issues, or major life stressors involved. AI may have played a part, but it’s rarely the whole story.

Clinicians surveyed about AI chatbots have also raised concerns that aren’t getting enough attention. These include data privacy concerns, the risk that people will rely on chatbots instead of professional care, and the fact that these tools don’t know when to stop. They can’t pause a conversation, send someone to emergency services, or alert a family member. They can’t do the most important things when someone is truly in crisis.

The truth is that we’re still in the early days. Research is growing quickly — the number of studies on mental health chatbots quadrupled between 2020 and 2024. But strong, large-scale clinical evidence is still behind the technology. Millions of people are using these tools while science tries to keep up.

So what does this mean for you? An AI chatbot might really help you get through a tough night or teach you some coping skills. But it could also mislead you, support harmful thinking, or make you feel supported when you actually need a real person to help.

Use these tools carefully. If you’re dealing with serious depression, suicidal thoughts, trauma, or psychosis, they are not a substitute for professional care, no matter how warm or available they seem. If you’re using a chatbot for lighter support or just to sort out your thoughts, notice how you feel over time. Are you feeling more isolated or more dependent on it? That’s important to pay attention to.

This technology is here to stay. What we urgently need are clearer safety standards, better regulations, and more honest conversations about what these tools can and can’t do. Until then, a bit of healthy skepticism is helpful.

The post AI Chatbots and Your Mental Health: What Should You Know? appeared first on Medika Life.

Scientific Promise and Practical Benefits

A major strength of brain organoid research is its potential to improve our understanding of neurological and psychiatric conditions. Researchers can generate organoids from people with known genetic mutations to study how specific genes affect early brain development. This method has been used to study conditions like autism spectrum disorders, epilepsy, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer’s disease. It helps scientists find cell abnormalities that might not show up in animal studies.

Brain organoids are also useful for drug discovery and safety testing. Many treatments that work in animal models do not succeed in humans, especially for brain disorders. Organoids give scientists a human-based way to test how drugs affect neural cells. This can help spot toxic effects or benefits earlier, potentially lowering the risk of expensive late-stage failures and reducing unnecessary testing on people.

Limitations, Misconceptions, and Ethical Concerns

Even though brain organoids show promise, they have important limitations that are sometimes missed in public discussions. They lack blood vessels, immune cells, and sensory input, all of which are needed for normal brain function. Because they lack a vascular system, organoids obtain oxygen and nutrients only by diffusion, which limits how large and mature they can become. Most organoids end up looking like early fetal brain tissue, not fully developed brains. Does the appearance of something mean it will have the same abilities?

Variability is another challenge. Organoids grown in different laboratories — or even within the same lab — can vary in structure and cellular composition. This makes standardization difficult and complicates the interpretation of results. Additionally, reports of electrical activity within organoids have sometimes been mischaracterized as evidence of consciousness. Most neuroscientists agree that current organoids do not possess awareness, sensation, or thought, but the debate highlights broader uncertainties about how consciousness arises in biological systems.

As the science has advanced, ethical questions have also increased. There are concerns about informed consent when donor cells are used to make neural tissue, especially if donors did not know this could happen. Other worries come up when human organoids are put into animals, which raises questions about species boundaries and oversight. Although these experiments are closely regulated, many ethicists say clearer rules are needed as the technology develops.

Future Directions and Responsible Progress

Researchers are now trying to make brain organoids more realistic and useful. They are working on adding vascular-like systems, combining different organoid types to study how brain regions interact, and making results more consistent between labs. These improvements could help us better understand complex brain disorders and lead to more personalized treatments.

At the same time, ethical guidelines are changing to keep up with new scientific advances. Many experts say that as organoid research moves forward, it should be matched by openness, oversight from different fields, and regular public involvement. Brain organoids are not miracle cures or major threats; they are powerful but imperfect tools that can help neuroscience when used carefully. The future of this research will depend on both technical progress and a strong focus on ethics and public trust.

If all of this sounds like something from a Frankenstein movie, that would be one approach to take, but it isn’t realistic. We are only at the very beginning of understanding what the potential and the problems involved are for us. The research holds great promise, but it also requires informed restrictions that will not prevent advances.

The post Brain Organoids: Promise, Limits, and What Comes Next appeared first on Medika Life.

Primary care continuity allows physicians to develop a longitudinal awareness that no episodic encounter or health tech tool can replicate. Over time, physicians learn what is normal for each patient and what represents meaningful clinical change. Subtle physiological shifts, early symptoms or emerging risk factors appear not as isolated data points from a blood exam, but as part of a social narrative unfolding across time. Early recognition allows earlier intervention, often before disease takes its profound toll.

Clinical evidence confirms the protective effect of continuity. It’s not a matter of opinion. A systematic review published in BMJ Open found that patients with sustained continuity of care had significantly lower mortality than those with fragmented care. Continuity did not just improve satisfaction; it altered survival. The physician who knows the patient can detect disease earlier and guide care more effectively.

Listening allows physicians to detect patterns that laboratory values alone cannot explain. Patients share information differently when they believe that their physician understands them and remembers their history. This sustained awareness allows physicians to identify emerging illnesses without relying solely on reactive diagnostics. Continuity transforms listening into clinical intelligence and a deeper care partnership.

In Healing the Sick Care System: Why People Matter, which has become a surprise Amazon bestseller, one insight repeatedly emerges: patients do not seek care only for treatment; they seek reassurance that someone who knows them is guiding their journey. Physicians who listen across time accumulate knowledge that cannot be captured in a chart alone. That memory allows earlier recognition, more accurate interpretation, and wiser intervention. Healing begins in that continuity of understanding.

Transactional Care Solves Symptoms but Sacrifices Understanding

Health has, for some time, been undergoing a structural shift toward transactional encounters. Walk-in clinics, urgent care centers, and virtual platforms provide speed and accessibility that patients value. These models address immediate symptoms efficiently and fill important gaps in care delivery. Accessibility has improved, yet continuity has weakened.

Transactional medicine treats episodes rather than trajectories. Each encounter begins without the benefit of longitudinal understanding. Clinical decisions are made with time-stamp specific knowledge of how symptoms emerged or how physiology has changed over time. Care becomes reactive rather than interpretive.

Research demonstrates the consequences of this fragmentation. Studies published in the Annals of Family Medicine show that sustained primary care continuity reduces hospitalizations and lowers healthcare expenditures. Early recognition prevents complications that require more invasive, costly interventions. Fragmentation delays recognition and increases clinical risk.

In fact, physicians in the vanguard of building relationships encourage their patients to ask questions.  In their co-authored book Let Patients Help! A “Patient Engagement” handbook – how doctors, nurses, patients and caregivers can partner for better care by “e-Patient Dave” deBronkart with Daniel Z. Sands, MD, MPH, the founder of the Society for Participatory Medicine, offer 10 suggestions that clinicians say to encourage patient engagement.

This shift also alters how patients engage with care. Connections that develop over time can be lost quickly when continuity disappears. Patients become consumers navigating isolated services rather than partners guided across time. The clinical relationship weakens, and with it the interpretive depth that makes prevention possible.

Health systems globally recognize the value of continuity. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a Paris-based international organization that promotes policies to improve economic and social well-being globally, reports that hospital admissions for chronic diseases, often preventable through effective primary care, account for a substantial share of healthcare utilization. Systems that preserve physician-led primary care continuity achieve better outcomes and greater efficiency. Relationship stabilizes care.

Innovation Requires Connection to Fulfill Its Potential

This shift toward transactional care carries life-threatening implications that extend far beyond the patient experience. It also directly affects whether health innovation fulfills its promise or becomes a compensatory tool addressing fragmentation. Innovation depends on context to generate meaningful insight. Context emerges through continuity. That context can devalue life-saving innovations.

Artificial intelligence, predictive analytics, and remote monitoring technologies are designed to detect patterns across time. These tools require longitudinal clinical awareness to distinguish meaningful change from statistical variation. Physicians who know their patients can interpret innovation correctly and act earlier. Innovation becomes transformative when anchored in relationship.

Fragmented care weakens this interpretive capacity. Data collected across disconnected encounters lacks coherence. Predictive tools lose precision when longitudinal context is absent. Innovation becomes reactive, identifying disease after symptoms emerge rather than predicting disease before it develops.

Technology achieves its highest value when it extends the physician’s ability to listen and observe. Remote monitoring allows earlier recognition of physiological change. Predictive analytics strengthens preventive intervention. Innovation amplifies continuity when guided by sustained physician leadership.

Team-based primary care models reflect this principle. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants expand access while physician leadership preserves interpretive continuity. Research published in Medical Care Research and Review confirms that coordinated team-based care maintains strong clinical outcomes. Physician oversight ensures that innovation remains integrated within longitudinal care. It also improves health professional job satisfaction and reduces burn-out.

Innovation cannot replace the relationship at the center of medicine. Algorithms detect patterns but do not understand meaning, and they do not strengthen physician/patient ties. Devices collect data, but do not know the patient behind the data. Physicians translate information into guidance by integrating technology with human understanding.

The future of health innovation depends on preserving continuity between patient and physician. Technology deployed within sustained relationships strengthens prevention and improves outcomes. Technology deployed within fragmented systems often compensates for structural weakness rather than transforming care. Continuity determines whether innovation fulfills its promise.

Health systems now face a defining moment. Transactional care offers speed and convenience. Relational care offers understanding and prevention. Innovation will achieve its full potential only when it strengthens the continuity that allows physicians to listen, learn, and guide patients across time.

Healing begins with being heard. Health technology succeeds when it helps physicians listen more deeply and act more wisely in the service of the people who entrust them with their care.

The post How Transactional Medicine Threatens the Future of Your Health appeared first on Medika Life.

I have spent more than 30 years in healthcare with one consistent mission: helping people sustain and improve their lives. That mission has guided my work across large pharmaceutical companies, entrepreneurial startups, and academic institutions. It has shaped how I view innovation—not as a luxury, but as a necessity.

We often speak about healthcare innovation as if it exists in a vacuum. It does not. Innovation only matters if patients can access it, understand it, and afford it. Today’s system too often breaks that chain.

The U.S. healthcare system has evolved to prioritize risk management over prevention, short-term cost containment over long-term health, and utilization controls over patient outcomes. The consequences are real. Breakthrough therapies are delayed or denied. Preventive medicines are underused. Patients are left navigating complexity at the very moment they are most vulnerable.

However, innovation has repeatedly proven it can change the trajectory of disease—and lives—when it reaches patients.

Earlier in my career, I had the opportunity to help build Claritin into a household name. What made Claritin transformational was not just the molecule, but access. Non-sedating allergy relief allowed people to function—to work, learn, drive, and live daily life without compromise. We paired scientific innovation with brand-building, education, and emerging digital tools to enable patients to engage with their care in new ways. That experience taught me something enduring: innovation fails when it remains trapped behind complexity.

As digital channels emerged, I saw how virtual access could democratize care. Early online refill capabilities and digital front doors were not about marketing. They were about meeting patients where they were. Innovation is not only what happens in the lab; it is how solutions are delivered in the real world.

More recently, my work in cardiovascular and preventive medicine has reinforced this belief. Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death globally, yet preventive innovation often struggles most to gain access. When therapies reduce future heart attacks, strokes, and hospitalizations—but do not show immediate cost offsets within narrow budget windows—they face resistance. This is actuarial logic colliding with human biology.

But prevention works. Inflammation matters. Long-term risk reduction matters. Helping people avoid catastrophic events enables them to remain productive, engaged, and present in their lives and with their families. The value of that outcome is difficult to capture on a quarterly balance sheet, but it is undeniable.

Innovation also matters because healthcare is not static. Populations are aging. Chronic disease is rising. Demand for care will only increase. Without continued pharmaceutical innovation—new mechanisms, better tolerability, improved adherence—we risk managing decline rather than enabling vitality.

Critics often frame innovation and affordability as opposing forces. They are not. The real tension lies between short-term system incentives and long-term societal benefit. When access to effective therapies is delayed or denied, costs do not disappear. They shift—reappearing as hospitalizations, disability, lost productivity, and diminished quality of life.

I have worked inside large organizations, small startups, and everything in between. I have seen how difficult it is to bring a medicine from concept to patient—and how fragile that final step of access can be. That is why innovation must be paired with thoughtful policy, modernized reimbursement, and a patient-centered view of value.

Healthcare should not be about simply surviving longer. It should be about living better for longer. Medical innovation, particularly in pharmaceuticals, plays a central role in making that possible. Even in a system burdened by complexity and constraints, innovation remains one of our strongest tools for advancing healthcare.

After three decades, my belief has not changed: when science, access, and mission align, lives improve. That is worth fighting to achieve.

The post Medical Innovation Still Matters—Even When the System Makes It Hard appeared first on Medika Life.

Since my field of study is educational psychology, and I am especially familiar with learning sciences, I write mostly about them. I believe combining research-based evidence is always more valuable and reliable than relying solely on personal ideas, even if they are logical.

In my writings and articles, I have repeatedly emphasized that sometimes we need to look back and integrate well-established scientific theories with modernity and artificial intelligence. I combine scientific evidence, including research articles and theoretical frameworks, with my own analyses, using them as a bridge to technology.

This approach and strategy prevent many potential risks. Instead of a preachy, rigid, or purely philosophical perspective, we adopt a systematic, scientific approach to derive practical solutions. One of the issues and concerns frequently discussed these days, which I have also mentioned in my recent articles, is the “consequences of excessive ease of performance through artificial intelligence.”In my latest article, I discussed the absence of “Fraction.”

In this article, I do not intend to discuss Fraction directly but rather focus on another challenge in the same area, which is not entirely unrelated to Fraction. This topic is the “level of anxiety and arousal resulting from facing performance.”

First, I will briefly explain this concept and then examine its connection to artificial intelligence systems.

Arousal Theory in Learning Psychology

One important theory in the neurophysiology of learning is Donald Hebb’s framework, which aligns with evolutionary approaches.

According to these perspectives, the human brain needs challenges to survive. The nervous system has evolved in challenging environments, and both anxiety and an optimal level of arousal have always been essential for survival. They increase alertness against potential risks and guide humans toward growth and the adaptation of necessary skills.

Donald Hebb, a neuroscientist, studied human learning, and one of his significant contributions was explaining the role of arousal in learning.

In Hebb’s framework, “arousal” is considered the fuel for the cerebral cortex to process information. Learning depends on neural plasticity, and this process occurs under an optimal level of arousal.

From this perspective, the brain is not simply trying to reduce tension but is seeking an optimal level of stimulation. If environmental stimuli are too low, the brain may create artificial stimuli or lose part of its natural efficiency.

As a result, neural firing and synaptic strengthening occur under the influence of arousal, and when arousal decreases significantly, the likelihood of forming or strengthening these connections decreases.

In addition to Hebb’s explanation, the classical “Yerkes-Dodson Law” also supports this necessity. According to this law, human performance improves with increasing physiological or mental arousal up to a certain point. When arousal is very low (a state toward which AI tools tend to push us), individuals experience reduced focus and cognitive motivation, and learning efficiency reaches its lowest point. In fact, a certain level of pressure or anxiety is not harmful; it is a prerequisite for achieving peak mental performance.

The “Arousal Gap” Challenge in Interaction with AI

As briefly explained in Hebb’s framework, the prerequisite for the neural interactions that lead to learning, perception, and cognitive actions is stimulation and arousal.

This moderate level of stimulation, which Hebb calls optimal arousal, is neither unpleasant nor at odds with the brain’s evolutionary nature in adaptation processes.

Now, imagine that a significant portion of our tasks is performed by an artificial partner and creates no direct cognitive responsibility for the individual. In such a scenario, what challenge will arise in human thinking?

These days, many articles and writings discuss the “excessive ease” challenge posed by AI tools. However, this article specifically focuses on reducing arousal levels and achieving optimal anxiety, according to Donald Hebb’s framework. Here, anxiety is considered one form of arousal, not equivalent to it entirely.

If most daily tasks are performed without prior stimulation or anxiety and without active cognitive engagement by AI, instead of the tools being under the consumer’s control, the consumer will be under their control.

From an evolutionary perspective, under such conditions, learning and cognitive adaptation processes will not align with the brain’s natural growth patterns, and the likelihood of effective knowledge adaptation will decrease.

The manifestations of this challenge will likely be observed in longitudinal studies as changes in the quality of cognitive performance and in neural circuit activity patterns.

References

Olson, M. H. & Hergenhahn, B. R. (2020). An Introduction to Theories of Learning (10th ed.). Routledge. 

Schachtman, T. R. & Reilly, S. (Eds.). (2011). Associative Learning and Conditioning Theory: Human and Non‑Human Applications. Oxford University Press.

The post Constructive Arousal vs. Eliminated Anxiety appeared first on Medika Life.

Originally, I thought these certificates were intended to provide evidence of the individual’s expertise, and that’s what most patients/clients believe. I was wrong. It provided nothing more than an indication that they had paid for that certificate. One of those bought certificates was on the wall of someone who supervised interns. And this was an individual who was highly regarded by people in the field in that state.

At the time, I decided I needed to do something, and I wrote an article that was published here on the internet. I believe I called it “Beware the Strike of an Evil Therapist.” Unfortunately, people practicing in all areas of healthcare can be a danger to those who come to them for care, expertise, and help in desperate circumstances.

It’s not limited to therapists. I’ve seen psychiatrists who hallucinated because of their alcoholism. They still worked at hospitals. Another psychiatrist was addicted to specific stimulants and stole scripts from his supervisor’s prescription pad, which was conveniently left on a desk. If you think this practice has been eliminated by digital prescribing, you would be wrong.

I was also a member of a licensing board, where I gained firsthand knowledge of unscrupulous practices by licensed psychologists. Recently, I read a DOJ document online regarding one of them, who, after her license was revoked, continued to practice for two more years before she was caught again. She’s only one. How many more are out there?

Why Do I Write This Today?

I decided I had to write this article because of a comment that was made by Rob Reiner, an incredibly talented film director, regarding one of his children and a problem with addiction and rehab services. Reiner and his wife were murdered over the weekend, having their throats slashed in their home. As of this writing, their son has been arrested but not charged with homicide.

In the article’s quotes, Rob Reiner still clearly remembers specific words. After years of seeing his son Nick go through seventeen rehab centers, he finally realized what had happened. “When Nick would tell us that it wasn’t working for him, we wouldn’t listen,” he told the Los Angeles Times in 2015, as reported in The Hollywood Reporter. “We were desperate and because the people had diplomas on their wall, we listened to them when we should have been listening to our son.”

His wife, Michele, shared more: “We were so influenced by these people. They would tell us he’s a liar, that he was trying to manipulate us. And we believed them.”

The Reiners’ experience isn’t unique. It highlights a broader problem in healthcare, where certificates and impressive titles can sometimes mask incompetence, ethical issues, or even fraud.

The Diploma Dilemma

We are taught to trust signs of expertise. That’s an error on our part. Diplomas, certifications, and licenses on office walls suggest skill and trust. But sometimes, these symbols can hide problems and dishonesty. Today’s impressive digital printers can provide any diploma or certificate you require, and they do it from afar for a fee. Using appropriate AI software, you can create IDs with your photo on anything you wish.

The reality is that healthcare, especially mental health and addiction services, has a problem with credentials. This puts vulnerable patients in danger.

In 2023, federal authorities uncovered a massive fraudulent nursing diploma scheme in Florida. Over 7,600 fake nursing diplomas were sold to individuals who never completed their education. These people then passed national board exams and obtained legitimate licenses, working in healthcare facilities across multiple states.

It’s clear that across the country, 7,600 people with fraudulent nursing credentials are providing care in various facilities and treating patients without the appropriate training. The Justice Department has singled this out as a serious matter, and all of us should be aware of who is providing care for our loved ones and what credentials they possess.

Background checks are not always thorough at all facilities. Do any of you know of the case of Dr. Michel Swango? He was killing patients until one physician decided to do a more intense background check on him, and called one of the prior facilities where he said he had worked. They caught Swango as he was about to board a plane to Asia, where he had another job.

Fake credentials are only part of the problem. A bigger issue is the confusion around credentials, which makes it hard for patients to know who is genuinely qualified to help them. Of course, there’s also the matter of people who, on their letterhead, seem to indicate they have a license number when, in one case, with which I have firsthand knowledge, it was a tax ID number, not a license number. He also liked people to call him “doctor” when he didn’t have a doctorate. The sign in front of his office said “DR….”

The Alphabet Soup of Mental Health Credentials

Mental health and addiction treatment have a confusing mix of credentials. A therapist’s business card might display letters such as PhD, PsyD, LCSW, LPC, LCPC, MA, MS, PA, CAC, and many others. Each stands for a different education, training, and role. A woman who regularly appeared on television as a psychological expert had a doctorate in school administration.

Some addiction counselor certifications only require a high school diploma. Others require a doctorate and years of training. But to families looking for help, all the credentials look impressive. Therein lies one of the major issues here. Remember, palm trees and swimming pools don’t create honest-to-goodness helpful rehab.

In fact, I worked in a facility where the addiction counselors were telling the patients, who had schizophrenia, that they should not be taking any form of medication because that would continue their addiction. The contradiction at that facility between the two types of therapies patients were receiving was mind-boggling. Little was done to improve the situation. And that facility was not unique because another major addiction-related hospital facility told patients they couldn’t even take an aspirin.

A cleric with questionable expertise was also brought in to attend treatment team meetings. He wore a cleric’s collar, and no one ever questioned whether, in fact, he was an ordained minister or had any experience or education in mental health issues. He came and went on the wards as he pleased.

This confusion leaves people vulnerable. When families are in crisis, whether their child is addicted, their spouse is suicidal, or their parent is getting worse, they don’t have time to look up what the credentials mean. They see the diplomas, hear the confident words, and trust. Is “trust” a dirty word now?

The Ethics Crisis in Addiction Treatment

Ethics problems in addiction treatment go beyond fake credentials. Research shows there are ongoing issues with how care is provided to patients.

A 2011 article in Focus, the journal of the American Psychiatric Association, highlighted a troubling pattern: providers develop negative reactions when treating patients who “minimize or lie about their substance use patterns.” These issues can lead clinicians to view normal addiction behaviors — denial, manipulation, inconsistent adherence — as character flaws rather than symptoms of illness. Yes, that’s an old article, but I believe it still has great value.

This is what happened to the Reiners. Providers called Nick manipulative and dishonest, leading his parents to doubt his reports that the programs weren’t helping. The diplomas on the wall made these judgments seem more trustworthy than the family’s own instincts.

Research published in the Journal of Ethics highlights another disturbing reality in that addictions are viewed as associated with a lack of personal control over the behavior, creating concerns about patients’ capacity for autonomy. This philosophical stance can lead to paternalistic treatment approaches that dismiss patient preferences and experiences. Addiction is a biological change in the brain that can make diminished control a given.

A 2024 study in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs found that ethical issues in substance use treatment often reflect “a delicate balance between provision of person-centered treatment and adherence to program-level policies.” Too often, policies are followed instead of personalizing care, and credentials are valued more than listening.

At one hospital where patients were systematically rotated through units, each unit had a different theoretical orientation. Neither the chief of psychology nor the medical director seemed to find this a problem. How can any patient receive quality care if they are constantly being bounced from one theory to another? To say it’s ludicrous doesn’t do it justice.

The Power Imbalance

A big part of the credential problem in healthcare is the power imbalance. Clinicians have advanced degrees, special knowledge, and authority. Patients and families come in during a crisis, feeling vulnerable and desperate for help.

When clinicians tell worried parents that their child is manipulating them, that their instincts are wrong, or that the program will work if the patient just commits, parents may feel unable to disagree. After all, these professionals have diplomas on their walls. I think there should be a rule that only someone’s license should be on the wall.

This situation is especially risky in addiction treatment, where stigma already makes families think their loved ones are liars or morally weak. When providers repeat these ideas, families may stop advocating for their loved ones. I have always told patients to attend any meeting with an advocate.

Protecting Yourself in a Broken System

So what can patients and families do? How can we get through a system where credentials might be fake, confusing, or used to ignore real concerns?

First, check credentials yourself. Don’t trust what’s on the wall. Look up state licensing boards and confirm degrees with universities. For addiction counselors, check certifications with state boards or national groups. The Federal Trade Commission warns to watch for “out-of-sequence degrees” — someone with a master’s degree should also show evidence of a bachelor’s degree.

Second, trust your own experience. If treatment isn’t working, it’s not just your imagination. If your loved one says the approach is not helping, take that seriously. Credentials and authority don’t make clinicians perfect. As Rob Reiner learned, sometimes the person without the degree knows best what they need.

I heard of one family who took their son to a psychiatrist who promised he could cure the young man of his specific issue for $10,000. The family paid. The work didn’t result in a cure, and the psychiatrist admitted he had no experience in the field.

Third, get a second opinion. In other areas of healthcare, this is normal. Mental health and addiction treatment should be the same. If a provider discourages you from seeking another view or makes you feel bad about it, consider that a warning sign. I don’t believe there should be a fee for a meeting to explore whether this person would be suited for the care required. But I know that’s not always the case.

Fourth, look for care that centers on the patient. Here, the best results might be provided by someone with firsthand experience with that facility. Research shows that treatment works best when providers and patients work together, not when providers give orders. Providers should explain their choices, answer questions, and change their approach if needed.

The Path Forward

The healthcare system needs real changes. Credentialing should be stronger. Ethics training in mental health and addiction programs should focus on patient independence and working with families. Harsh, shame-based methods should be replaced with care grounded in evidence and compassion.

But until these changes are made, patients and families should be careful and ask questions. Diplomas on the wall are just a starting point for trust. They show someone has finished school and passed exams, but they don’t guarantee skill, ethics, or real help.

One psychology intern at a hospital was in the field because he had been told in medical school that he should leave because he didn’t have patient empathy. What did he choose? The worst field of all if you have no empathy — psychology.

Rob Reiner’s regret teaches us something important: “We should have been listening to our son.” In a healthcare system where credentials can mislead and authority can silence questions, listening to patients and trusting our instincts may be the most important thing we can do.

The post When Diplomas on the Wall Become Dangerous appeared first on Medika Life.

The businesses promote their services as stress relief solutions that help customers release their pent-up anger from their weekly struggles.
The concept is effective because it aligns with our common understanding of stress-relief methods. People have always received advice to release their pent-up emotions through physical activity. The psychological concept that internalizing anger leads to adverse effects has long been recognized in the field. The waiver process for rage room customers fails to ask whether destructive activities truly help people manage their anger.

The answer to this question is negative. And the answer lies in examining multiple studies that most rage room customers remain unaware of. Why should they care? They’re selling a service, and that’s it.

The Appeal of Destruction

Rage rooms have gained significant popularity worldwide. The business model has expanded throughout the United States and into multiple countries worldwide. Customers reserve time at these facilities for their birthdays and team-building activities and to cope with relationship endings. Essentially, the experience creates an elevated feeling as you participate. Loud glass-breaking sounds and the sight of inexpensive lamps exploding into pieces create a deep sense of contentment. What are you really doing? Breaking the rules of society by destroying things.

The experience produces authentic positive emotions. But feeling good doesn’t necessarily translate into reduced anger. The scientific evidence on anger management techniques reveals unexpected results that challenge conventional beliefs about this approach.

What Science Actually Says

The 2024 Ohio State University study evaluated 154 anger management techniques through 10,000 participant studies. The research team discovered that physical arousal-increasing activities, such as hitting objects, intense physical exercise, and running, do not decrease anger levels. Actually, these activities often lead to increased anger levels.

The discovery of anger management has been part of scientific knowledge for many years. R.H. Hornberger conducted his research in 1959 to study human behavior. The researcher asked participants to complete a writing assignment, followed by an insult about their work. Participants who pounded nails on a board for 10 minutes showed increased hostility and aggression afterward compared to those who remained seated. Subjects who engaged in nail pounding were expected to experience better emotional states because it would relieve their frustration. It didn’t work out that way.

The results showed the opposite effect from what was expected. Participants who hammered nails displayed higher aggression levels than those who remained silent. The act of hitting objects to release anger increased their willingness to express anger toward people. Is that what we want — people motivated to violence?

The discovery created such concern that scientists conducted additional research to verify their findings. Multiple studies confirmed that the same pattern emerged in their results. The world-renowned psychologist Albert Bandura demanded an immediate halt to using anger release as an anger treatment approach in 1973. A 1977 review established that anger venting doesn’t decrease aggression, but actually increases aggression in people.

Today, unfortunately, there are still individuals who act as therapists and tell their clients to punch pillows or use other objects of destruction. They are going against years of research that contradicts what they are saying. Did they learn nothing from the Bobo Doll experiment?

The myth persisted despite scientific evidence against it. People continued to believe in this myth while the research community continued to study this phenomenon. So, is it advertising or ignorance?

A study at the University of Michigan in 2002 tested the hypothesis surrounding emotion and physical targets. Researchers required participants to punch a bag while thinking about their anger targets. The researchers studied three groups who punched the bag while thinking about their anger, two groups who punched the bag for fitness, and a control group who did not punch anything. Participants who focused on their anger during punching were the most aggressive of all three groups. The practice of doing nothing proved more effective than the practice of anger release.

Why Rage Rooms Feel Good Even Though They Don’t Work

The current situation presents an unusual paradox. People continue to visit rage rooms despite these facilities failing to decrease their anger levels. They experience a positive sensation during rage room activities even though these activities don’t help with anger management.

The solution depends on two essential factors. Physical exercise triggers the body to produce endorphins, which are natural chemicals that create feelings of happiness. The act of destruction requires intense physical effort. Your body will experience a strong sensation regardless of your current emotional state. And the process of destruction provides two primary benefits to people. What are they? They experience a sense of rebellion when they break rules inside controlled spaces, which creates an exciting feeling (pumped up emotions). That’s a momentary effect, but there is no salutary effect that carries over into the other aspects of their lives. Breaking things violently does not translate into a calmer person when they become angry.

Research has shown that people frequently mistake improved moods for reduced aggressive emotions. The temporary improvement in your mood makes you believe your anger has disappeared. Actually, what your body learned is to express aggression through physical actions when you feel angry. What do you actually learn? Your body learned to link anger with physical aggression through this experience. Wouldn’t all of this point to more aggression in a situation of intense anger? Seems to me it would.

The comparison between this situation and smoking cessation becomes apparent. A person who wants to stop smoking would never use a special room for practicing cigarette smoking. The practice of smoking in a designated area would strengthen your smoking habit instead of helping you quit. Rage rooms operate through the exact mechanism as this example.

What Actually Works

The 2024 study demonstrated that arousal-increasing activities are ineffective, while showing effective anger-reduction methods. Your body’s physiological arousal levels decrease when you perform specific activities that prove effective for anger reduction. The following activities help people reduce their anger levels:

• Deep breathing exercises
• Meditation and mindfulness
• Progressive muscle relaxation
• Yoga
• Taking time to cool down before responding

The most successful methods combined physical relaxation techniques with cognitive processes. Simply sitting in silence produces beneficial effects. Your breathing rate becomes more relaxed when you practice deliberate breathing control. What’s more, these techniques help people from all backgrounds, age groups, and cultural backgrounds, and in different situations. They proved effective for both college students and criminal offenders in controlled laboratory environments and real-world situations.

Research conducted since 1959 has consistently demonstrated results on this topic. To effectively handle anger, you need to reduce its intensity rather than increase it. Your body needs to relax, not get more energized. That is the caveat.

The Middle Ground

The elimination of rage rooms from public access doesn’t seem necessary, and people should understand that these facilities provide no therapeutic benefits. Smashing objects with friends remains a harmless form of entertainment when people understand it serves as entertainment rather than therapy.

Don’t try to deceive yourself that it’s anything other than entertainment. Destroying objects with friends can create a unique experience and offer an opportunity to try something new together. But that’s all, it is an opportunity for bonding and fun, not a therapeutic activity.

People face issues when they believe rage rooms provide therapeutic benefits. Those who visit rage rooms for anger management purposes choose an ineffective method according to scientific evidence. The practice of aggressive responses to frustration during rage room activities might actually intensify your anger problems. It would be interesting if someone did an experiment where they logged persons who had utilized rage rooms and how frequently they engaged in physical aggression toward someone when they were away from those rooms. Who’s up for that one?

People can attend rage rooms for entertainment without any issues when they visit for special events or out of curiosity. But anyone who experiences anger problems that impact their relationships, work performance, or health status should avoid rage rooms as a solution.

The scientific evidence from sixty-five years of research confirms that rage rooms do not work for anger management. When you become angry, take ten deep breaths while counting your exhalations. Take a peaceful stroll through the area. Find a peaceful spot to sit for 15 minutes of silence. Help yourself calm down, not ramp up your anger.

The process of managing anger through these methods will prove more effective than destroying a television, even though it lacks the thrilling experience. The actual goal of anger management requires you to focus on controlling your anger rather than simply learning about it.

The post Rage Rooms: Do They Actually Help With Anger? appeared first on Medika Life.