Does viewership of a heavily edited video make it true? I have seen the famed Project Veritas video numerous times and know it’s been viewed millions of times. There is a constant swirl of noise around the video’s authenticity, the virus’s origin, gain of function (GOF) research and the speed of development of varied Covid vaccines. We will need to address the media credibility challenge more and more as technologies enable rapid evaluation of pathogen threats and the ability for innovators to respond speedily. Especially as packs of vigilante journalists are running wild and unchecked.

Wild, Unverified News is Nothing New

Wild, unverified news is nothing new. However, the speed at which it travels, thanks to technology, is the fodder for conspiracy theorists to create societal chaos. Remember, browsing magazines and papers at the supermarket check-out. The National Enquirer, the entertaining American tabloid newspaper with the wildest headlines, was a welcomed way to pass the time as the long line closed in on the cashier’s conveyor belt.

As leading daily business newspapers increasingly compete for readers and advertising dollars, they have forged ahead with digital access alternatives — often accessible only behind a paywall. Truth — verified information — suddenly comes at a (monthly subscription) cost. In most communities, gone is the young teen on their bicycle riding by and throwing your daily news onto a stoop. Yet, newspapers — the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and all major newspapers always required you to pay a subscription. You tipped the paper delivery — but you paid for the truth.

Even Major Media Can Wander into the Swamp

All media can succumb to the temptation to follow some well-known “titled” pundit with an axe to grind. Remember the swamp created some years ago by a noted Midwestern physician who questioned a Food and Drug Administration-approved for-market cholesterol drug with a baseless theory causing countless people to go off their medications? His words and honed soundbites were covered by most top-tier newspapers and magazines and were amplified by headlines such as “Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?” Thankfully his pet-peeve theories were soon proven without merit. But how about the countless patients who listened, read and suffered? At what cost — some, their lives. This deadly chaos is still happening thanks to supposed investigational groups that seek to rally the mob.

We expect societal salvation at warp speed. We want life-saving solutions from pharma, policies that prop up the economy from the White House, and public health direction from CDC. When do we want it? We want it now! However, these wild, unchecked and verified videos and news sources — sometimes the voices of individuals with either no first-hand knowledge or with a desire for 15 minutes of fame — add to the pandemic of public health confusion. It is time that we awoke to the reality that conspiracy theorists are allies to the deadly virus that has taken more than six million lives worldwide.

Speed and Sensationalism

Sadly, the rapid popularity of this video is endemic to a society that thirsts for sensationalism and, at the same time, will require immediate medical solutions to future public health threats. It opens the door to these sorts of news grabbers. Media also relies on speed and speculation to attract audiences. However, as it did this time, it must now rally to reject the urge to “cover speculative and dirty news.” This specific video — its yet unproven comments — is woven into the public health risk we now face. The perfect storm of the desire for immediacy and not stopping to ask a critical question of what we see and hear: “Is it true?”

If you don’t pay, perhaps you don’t care. Or you don’t worry if the grabbing headlines that make extraordinary claims are verified or “Veritas.” For science, public health professionals, health communicators and innovators, that is a significant, life-threatening problem. At this point, “I heard it on the news” or “I saw it posted on Twitter” is akin to historical fact. Even if one person says something — a stretch of the imagination without validation — we’re inclined to believe it as “fact.”

Medicine has always been about risk/risk and risk/benefit. The risk of possible side effects alongside the risk of a deadly disease. The benefit of not dying alongside the risk of the unknown. We seem to forget what the world looked like during the COVID lockdown — mental anguish, a collapsing world economy, and ERs straining under the weight of dying patients. We celebrated clinical solutions that reduced the steady death count globally. Now, we look to poke holes in the heroes who saved lives. Enough.

Enough with (Non) Entertaining Lies

The societal desire for “I want it now” invites these sensational moments. But the ability of conspiracy theorists to rally millions of followers or readers to do more than question — to attack science and scientists — has been weaponized to make unverified video footage into the material that political leaders use for self-agenda soapbox speeches and grandstanding TV celebrities to attract viewers as if they don’t have a self-serving agenda. Project Veritas is just the newest digital version of the supermarket tabloid. Based on its track record of lies and more lies, it’s amusing. Not as the Latin translation suggests – truth.

Urgency is a double-edged sword for drug developers, pharma manufacturers, regulators and reporters. Tribal thirst for sensationalism — at all costs and speed — must never be allowed to crush the spirits of scientists who toil at lab benches trying to save lives. That would be too terrible a toil for all.

Yes, cost and speed are framing what some jump to believe as the truth. If so, without letting dedicated journalists and scientists do their jobs, people’s lives will be placed at risk again and again.

The post Covid, Conspiracies and Chaos — Media and Medicine Take Note appeared first on Medika Life.

CNN recently shared:

“[The CDC’s independent media briefing on Friday, January 7] comes as the agency is facing a barrage of criticism over confusion stemming from its new guidelines on isolation for people who test positive for Covid-19. Beyond Walensky’s messaging struggles, the agency has faced criticism for months over its at-times confusing guidance surrounding the pandemic, with one former senior Biden administration official saying the agency appears to be ‘overthinking’ its communications.”

During crises, we expect economic, scientific and policy minds will have the information and wisdom to guide us forward, but a novel virus is bringing us face-to-face with a frightening reality — many experts don’t have easy or immediate answers. They don’t know with certainty when we’ll go back to work, what treatments are best, or the degree to which vaccines prevent or just reduce COVID severity.

So, in the absence of clear answers, consumers readily dismiss experts weighing the evidence in favor of those who speak with conviction to their political or economic points of view.

CDC Issues management and crisis communicators should keep in mind that audiences’ patience with government experts and noted scientists has worn thin. When the gurus of virology, biology, infectious disease and other medical disciplines don’t provide consistent answers, the media taps perfectly polished and ready-to-go TV pundits waiting in the wings. Some of them offer suppositions as though they were facts; these appeal to consumers’ urgent need for information, junk or otherwise. Others are “pundits with a cause” spouting ideologies aimed at satisfying their “heels-dug-in” followers in red or blue tribes.

In these times of politicizing science, media salivate at creating swirl. It’s great for ratings and sweeps. But in this media landscape where outlets give opinion and supposition the same weight as fact, even a public health communicator as gifted as the incredible Dr. Fauci has lost his public-standing mojo.

ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL

Can we live with ambiguity? The short answer may be “no.” We have become a nation of consumers that expect, if not demand, resolution now. Deferring gratification is becoming an unknown concept, and our desire for immediate resolution works against CDC ability to help the public understand open-ended situations — and COVID is a very big unresolved situation. When “now” is all that matters, people look to fill the information gap like a hungry teenager gobbling bags of junk food.

In this void, everyone with a Twitter account and a hefty-sized following — whether consumer, nurse, physician, policy wonk or news commentator — has become an influencer engaged in the national conversation. And, when the CDC Director speaks, these influencers are ready to go into action, either amplifying CDC messages or critiquing them and the manner in which they were delivered. CDC must work to tap into that influencer energy to create legions of allies, not armies of critics.

CNN reports that CDC Director Walensky and her senior staff are crafting new communications guidance with a close-knit group of advisors. This is certainly efficient but bound to result in another communications problem. Potential allies shut out tend to be naysayers.

Effective public health communication is not simply about “what you say,” it’s about how the audience thinks, feels and responds. Many voices working in unison at the same time across national and local media create message critical mass. Good communication presents truthful information, employs an understanding of human nature and seeks to find common ground.

Technology is part of the future game plan too. Just as political parties send text messages to their minions, CDC must reach directly to the nation’s citizens in their homes.

TIME TO PARTNER WITH INFLUENCERS

The omicron variant has thrown a monkey wrench into the public’s expectation that things are getting better. It’s disappointing, but we need to embrace the uncertainty we face. It is not a societal norm to turn to people who “don’t know.” That lack of comfort creates a situation in which almost 50 percent of our society disregards science and turns a blind eye to news reports about ERs overflowing with very ill, largely unvaccinated people. In this climate of distrust and an increasingly inward-facing worldview, getting the public on board with vaccination and masking efforts is pushing a rock up a hill that keeps getting higher.

To make people more comfortable with uncertainty, CDC must create a task force of willing partners — third-party health organizations, policymakers and public figures, including celebrities — who recognize that this fluid situation requires many people to tailor messages to specific audiences. It’s fruitless to direct communication strategy toward a 90% vaccination state and then believe the same approach can be applied to a region just tipping 60%. Consumers need to hear from trusted sources. That may not be the CDC Director or President Biden’s advisor Dr. Fauci. It might be a minister empowered and trained to convey to parishioners — “choose life.”

CREATE ALLIES WITH PARALLEL MESSAGES

When times get tough, it’s natural to circle the wagons. The CDC cannot keep people out of its planning room. That will not work.

Learning how to tap into thought leaders willing to help is part of successful campaigning. It is time to pull together the major players in healthcare delivery — hospital presidents, medical associations, infectious disease experts, and the popular physicians and health commentators who have become media darlings. These powerful voices can then speak as national and local media go-to experts. They don’t have to use the same words — but they must share a common purpose to reach consumers’ hearts and minds.

It is a complex situation. CDC has to find ways to tailor the message to many different audiences and regions. Just as many groups send their followers short call-to-action texts, CDC has to do a better job using omnichannel outreach.

There is power in each communicator saying: “I just spoke with the CDC Director this morning on this subject” and then offering their unique words based on a common theme. Rallying to the same goal prevents message fragmentation. Meharry Medical College’s Dr. James E.K. Hildreth, former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, innovation theorist John Nosta, Walmart’s Dr. Cheryl Pegus and WebMD’s Dr. John Whyte are among many likely counselors who are dedicated to patient care and can influence the public with a unique voice.

There is also an abundance of athletes who reject the jaw-dropping comments of misguided anti-vaxxer counterparts. These influencers should be empowered to share their vaccination status as well as the facts about vaccination. We need a full-scale campaign — not one-off celebrity appearances and statements. While many will not be swayed, we must do everything we can to reach those who could be won over as the situation — and opinion — continues to morph.

IT’S TIME TO MOVE FORWARD

CDC’s current communications approach serves no one’s interests and continues to lead to fear, confusion and mistrust.

Leaning on inside-the-beltway political communications consultants is not the answer. CDC Director Walensky should open the door to a team of seasoned health communication professionals and private-sector medical leaders instead of appearing on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert or spending time with Democratic party media consultants. A wider variety of communicators must be engaged if CDC is to reach an increasingly detached and skeptical public.

Let’s forget “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” or bringing in another quarterback. Now is a time for everyone to think about collaboration and collective success. We are better than we think.

The post The CDC Has a Communications Problem appeared first on Medika Life.

Our biggest challenges aren’t lack of ability to source ideas and innovate. We demonstrate daily the power of collaboration over competition to accelerate new medical possibilities. There is a different problem we must resolve in order to move beyond the status quo — lack of confidence in authority.

But, for decades we have been sowing fields of scientific doubt and global health disparities. The 24/7 news cycle gives equal voice to naysayers of “possibilities” and hypotheses to keep many wondering. Social media feeds on placing clinical experts on an even par with skeptics and anti-vaxxers. We are stuck — a paralysis that contributed to some 800,000 COVID-related deaths in the United States alone.

I’m republishing the original article from March 2020 — with little change. These words still have power. In the past 21 months, ideas and innovation — science — demonstrated we can navigate this incredible public health labyrinth. Now, communication skill must rise to exceptional levels in support of policymakers, public health scientists and health professionals if we are to see any meaningful progress in rallying consumers to move with confidence toward thefinish line.

Consider this hypothesis: Lack of a widely embraced information clearinghouse on COVID prevention and mitigation, using consumer-friendly language and championed by a widely respected voice and global bodies sustains confusion instead of collective and collaborative, swift action.

On February 7, 2020, PR Week ran a story about the coronavirus that examined the disease’s progress from a communications standpoint. The piece noted that governments and businesses were struggling to give their stakeholders accurate, current information on the spread of the virus — because they lacked a strong, centralized source of information to consult in determining the next steps. Two year ago, I said:

“… governments and multinational businesses, especially tourism companies and organizations with supply chains in China, are lacking a primary information source about the virus, notes Gil Bashe, managing partner of global health at Finn Partners.

“It’s evident that comms is not yet aligned [among major organizations],” he says. “What we don’t have is a central clearinghouse of expertise and accuracy that all partners can draw from.”In the absence of an authoritative source, a void is created, and people fill the void with what they think.”

What has changed in two years? Unfortunately, when it comes to communicating about the outbreak and what people in the United States might do, very little.

When people hunger for direction, they seek authoritative voices. Right now, writing eyeball-popping headlines and generating viewership seems to be the news media’s focus. Reporters even pressed noted soccer coach Jurgen Klopp for his opinion on how coronavirus would impact championship games. Klopp, with more sense than many, snapped back that his opinion was unimportant — ask a real expert.

As the Wall Street Journal points out, fighting this virus varies from place to place, state to state and, no surprise, country to country. When facing pandemics, Americans have traditionally relied on good, solid public health information from Federal and state governments upon which local authorities can base their response and which the public can use to protect themselves and their families. This time, information is lacking and inconsistent. In Newton, Massachusetts, a school group returning from a trip to Italy is quarantined, and yet, in New York City, a group that visited the same towns in Italy is not. Both municipalities are working from communications that are weeks old and which leave discretion to local authorities and individuals to “self-monitor,” without clear direction.

It turns out that, at least as far as COVID-19 is concerned, communicating about the disease is more difficult than overcoming its contagion.

In fact, poor communications are clearly making it more difficult to fight the disease. Public-education campaigns have been critical to fighting pandemics and scourges like polio ever since public health authorities began their work in the 20th Century. Communicating is key to the success or failure of public health efforts around infectious diseases — and our inability, so far, to do it well with COVID-19 is as dangerous as the virus itself.

When authorities fail to communicate facts and “what you can do” next steps, people fill the void with what they (and others) think — not what they know. When those people are the heads of businesses or local public officials, messages about the disease are not just mixed — they’re completely jumbled and often in conflict. [2022: Company leaders may need to apply the same thought and rigor to communicating to their employees about vaccination and mitigation strategies as was expected by government. Employees may have more confidence in corporate leaders and local elected officials than Federal policymakers. Still coordination and collaboration is essential.]

Not even the news media are immune to the effects of poor disease communication. The competition among news sources to be “your address for updates” is fierce — and in some cases, doing a disservice to public information.

One local New York news broadcast led last week with a frenzied report on panic in the city’s stores as customers made runs on hand sanitizer, protective masks, canned goods and bottled water. Buried several stories later was the information that people actually needed: a balanced report with the head of infectious diseases at a city hospital explaining that viewers shouldn’t panic, should take basic precautions and that COVID-19 would impact most people less than a mild case of flu. At one point, a New York Times headline grabbed readers with the information that coronavirus’s death rate hovered at around 3.4 percent. Buried in the body copy were the reassuring facts: “…this figure does not include mild cases that do not require medical attention and is skewed by Wuhan, where death rate is higher than elsewhere in China. It is also quite possible that there are many undetected cases that would push the mortality rate lower.” The headline was updated that same day to reflect balance.

What can we as communications professionals do to make the situation better?

1. In successful issues management, it’s vital to start with “what we know.” Here, it’s hard. We don’t know everything. Some facts change daily. Public health experts learn more every hour. But, it is more vital than ever that we in the US and worldwide get a handle on communicating clearly what we know and what we don’t. Those of us communicating on this issue, even peripherally, need to base our language on facts from authoritative public officials dealing with the disease.
2. Separate fact from opinion. As communicators, we must always recognize that self-appointed experts may not have the clinical expertise or insight to comment authoritatively. We must then clearly offer their comments as an opinion to ensure that reporters — hungry for a new angle on this attention-getting subject — are able to recognize speculation from fact. [2022: consumers are finding that the CNN, MSNBC, FOX news formats designed to retain viewership require constant hypotheses. This swirl keeps eyeballs tuned to screens — but it also creates public health mobilization push back.]
3. Build authoritative voice. While epidemiologists, virologists, infectious disease experts and others plumb the data for insights, no leader has stepped forward and secured the public’s ear, eye and heart on this issue. For that reason, those tasked with communicating — whether to the public or to their companies and communities — should look to these sources of reliable information to build an authoritative voice:

• World Health Organization recommendations and guidelines
• Centers for Disease Control advisories and guidelines
• National Health Service coronavirus information
• WebMD Coronavirus Updates

Also, on Twitter, there are several knowledgeable influencers worth tracking. These include former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD), WebMD Chief Medical Officer John Whyte, MD (@drjohnwhyte) and UK-based Junaid Bajwa, MD (@jrjbajwa), NHS England advisor and global digital/health biopharma leader. These two public health physicians double- and triple-check their data sources and have access to both public health officials and scientists on the frontline. My last go-to source is one of the world’s leading virologists and champions in confronting infectious and viral disease, Dr. Peter Piot. [2022: Dr. Piot has since stepped into the shadows. WHO has been pushed aside. I have now added George Washington University Professor Leana Wen, MD, @DrLeanaWen, and James E.K. Hildreth, MD, @JamesEKHildreth president and CEO, Meharry Medical College to my trusted info source list.]

Are we facing a World-War-Z-zombie-apocalypse situation? The answer is no. But, we are anxious and uncertain, vacillating between bravado and self-imposed isolation. Now is the perfect time for us to support — and rely on — our public-health leaders and infrastructure and use common sense when communicating. We live under a partially unknown threat, and our access to constant information — pushed via phone alerts and constant social and traditional media updates — transforms what we hear into what we fear. Perhaps, when considering how we communicate, we can heed the words of one of our greatest communicators, who steered the world forward during a period of much greater uncertainty that included a depression and looming world war — the 32nd US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, when he said:

“We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

The post The Pandemic of Poor Communications appeared first on Medika Life.

 How so?

The COVID pandemic has changed the way we evaluate health technologies in four important and distinct ways.

1. Practicality replaces glitz.  The “Wow factor” is what mattered in the past.  “Look how cool this laser is that can identify your heart rhythm from 300 feet away!” “This headset lets me see how food travels through my body in real time!”   Technology can still be cool, but now the question is how will I use it?  Wearables that measure important variables like blood pressure will get more attention than new imaging tools that simply provide a clearer picture.
2. Prevention takes precedence over therapeutics.  COVID has demonstrated to us the importance of our personal health.  For too long, we made our jobs and other commitments our top priority.  Going forward, one’s personal health will become a major focus, especially as it relates to prevention.  How will a particular technology let me take control of my own health?  Nowadays, I am now more interested in a toilet that can monitor my urine for signs of diabetes or my stool for colorectal cancer than a device that creates holograms.  Once one gets pass the “icky” factor of some tools,  we will evolve to truly personalized preventive medicine.
3. Rigorous outcomes rule the day.  Everything now will be measured by how did it change patient outcomes.  Sure, it a device might show a new way to measure blood glucose – but what impact does it have on quality of life, co-morbidities, and life expectancy?
4. Consumer centricity rather than physician centricity.  In the past, technology has been focused on the health system and doctors.  It’s been a B-B approach.  That won’t go away, but more and more tech innovations will put the health consumer in charge.  For instance, I won’t be wearing a device that sends all the information to my doctor, but rather there will be more interpretation of all the data from wearables with direct communication to the patient.  This may require changes in regulation by the US Food and Drug Administration with a more practical definition of what constitutes a “medical device.” 

The real future of  digital health is when tech tools  continuously collect health data points and help interpret the information and provide preliminary diagnoses to patients.   The doctor isn’t going to be left out of this equation, but the difference will be that the patient will no longer be left out.  It’s the patient who will be at the center of how these technologies function from start to finish.

I’m sure I still going to be wow-ed this year and be entertained by the advancements we have made, especially during the last two years. But I’m also going to ask tougher questions on innovation, especially as relates to the purpose and impact.

The post Four Ways COVID has Changed Health Tech appeared first on Medika Life.

I recall that at the start of the novel coronavirus pandemic, many discouraged us from using N-95 masks. We didn’t even have enough of these more protective masks in our hospital settings. Now, I suggest you ditch your cloth mask in favor of a surgical mask or preferably an N-95-type covering.

Today we look at the rise of the Omicron variant of Covid-19. We will then explore the current guidance of the US Centers for Disease Control regarding masks in this new phase of the pandemic.

Omicron emerges

Throughout the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has been using genomic surveillance to track variants of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Here’s a timeline of the Omicron variant:

• November 24, 2021: A new variant of SARS-CoV-2, B.1.1.529, is reported to the World Health Organization (WHO). Researchers discovered the new variant in specimens collected on November 11, 2021, in Botswana and on November 14, 2021, in South Africa.
• November 26, 2021: WHO named the B.1.1.529 Omicron and classified it as a Variant of Concern (VOC).
• November 30, 2021: The United States designated Omicron as a Variant of Concern.
• December 1, 2021: Researchers confirm the first case in the USA case of Omicron.

The Centers for Disease Control recommendations for Covid-19 mitigation include layered prevention strategies. These include masking, improving ventilation, distancing, handwashing, and testing to slow SARS-COV-2 transmission and stop the COVID-19 pandemic.

The CDC gets more specific regarding masks, offering that everyone ages two years or older, including those fully vaccinated, wear masks in public indoor places in areas of substantial or high transmission.

Time to change your mask

Should we follow the leads of selected European countries, including Austria and Germany, that recommend that in-public face covering be with at least a medical-grade surgical mask?

In early 2021, the French government mandated that citizens wear surgical FFP1 masks or fabric masks that blocked at least 90 percent of particles — in public spaces. No more homemade masks.

In January 2021, the German government followed suit, requiring all to wear FFP1 or FFP2 masks on public transport. Bavaria went a step further, requiring surgical grade N95 respirators ( filtering 95 percent of air particles) in public spaces and shops for January 25, 2021.

Let’s look at specific mask types.

Cloth masks. Advantages? These masks are washable and re-wearable. They are composed of a variety of woven and non-woven materials. They have a 26 to 80 percent effectiveness against COVID19.

Cloth masks protect others from your emissions and give the wearer some protection. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a 3-layer cloth mask.

Surgical masks. These masks also reduce risk to others and provide the use some protection. They are single-use and are composed of three layers, with a filtration layer in-between. Surgical masks provide more protection than cloth masks, but not as much as respirator masks. The World Health Organization recommends surgical masks for healthcare workers like me.

Respirator masks. These single-use masks reduce risk to both the user and those around them. With their electrostatic filters, respirator masks capture 95 percent of viral particles. Unlike cloth or surgical masks, respirator masks (such as N95 ones) protect the wearer by filtering the air’s inflow and outflow.

Respirator masks are also better at protecting you from smaller droplets (aerosols). If you can manage to fit the mask correctly, these FFP2 filter at least 94 percent of particles.

The tight weave of surgical masks gives us a high level of outflowing protection. Doctors like me use them around patients. On the other hand, cloth masks are less reliable. Omicron means stepping up our game — Go N95 if you are able.

When fit properly, N95 respirator masks approved by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health can filter up to 95 percent of particles in the air, according to the CDC. Surgical or disposable masks are around 10 percent less effective than N95 respirators.

While we don’t know why the Omicron variant of Covid19 is so extraordinarily contagious, I am switching to N95 masks for myself. I work with immunocompromised patients, and while getting infected with Omicron thus far appears less dangerous than getting hit with the Delta variant, I want to protect my at-risk friends, family, and patients.

A cloth mask is better than nothing. If you are able, get a medical-grade surgical mask, especially for environments such as train stations and grocery stores. And if you can get ahold of them, respiratory-type masks may offer the best protection.

Thank you for joining me.

The post Time to Upgrade Your Mask? appeared first on Medika Life.

While I believe that practices such as masking and social distancing (in addition to vaccination) provide immeasurable benefits, I know that many of my patients report associated anxiety.

“Anxiety’s like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but it doesn’t get you very far.”

— Jodi Picoult, “Sing You Home“

Mental health in the Covid-19 era

I wonder about the mental health status of my family, friends, and readers. And so I did what I am prone to do; I ran to the available clinical literature.

Fortunately, we have a good resource from the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). This governmental organization partnered with the Census Bureau to perform the Household Pulse Survey.

This survey describes trends in the percentage of adults with anxiety or depressive disorder symptoms during the past seven days. The researchers also track those who sought mental health services.

You are probably not surprised to learn that from August 2020 through February 2021, the percentage of adults with symptoms suggestive of an anxiety or depressive disorder (over the previous seven days) increased significantly. The odds of such symptoms rose from 36.4 percent to 41.5 percent.

The percentage that offered that they needed, but did not receive, mental health counseling or therapy during the prior four weeks rose from approximately 9 percent to nearly 12 percent. The increases appeared most substantial among adults 18 to 29 years of age and those with less than high school education. Let me state it once again:

Of those surveyed, over 41 percent of folks experienced symptoms pointing to an anxiety or depressive disorder.

In the context of these disturbing statistics, let’s turn to some news about a favorable “side effect” of receiving botox.

“Our anxiety does not come from thinking about the future, but from wanting to control it.”

— Kahlil Gibran

Botox and anxiety

Now comes a new study reporting that people receiving Botox injections at foud different sites — not only the commonplace for injections, the forehead — reported anxiety significantly less frequently than individuals having different treatments for the same conditions.

Botox (botulinum toxin) is a medicine made from a bacterial toxin. The substance is commonly injected with a skinny needle to improve wrinkles, excessive sweating, migraine headaches, muscle spasms, and incontinence.

Let’s look at some intriguing research findings reported earlier this week. Scientists at the University of California, San Diego (USA) worked with two physicians in Germany. The investigators did something clever: They probed the United States Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Effect Reporting System (FAERS) database.

The FAERS repository is chock full of health information for nearly 40,000 individuals reporting what happened to them at Botox treatment, no matter the reason for having the injections.

Here’s how the researchers did their work: They scoured the database, looking for the absence or reduced anxiety change as a health complaint (controlled to a control group) when taking Botox. Then, the researchers applied a mathematical algorithm to search for differences between Botox users and individuals who received different treatments for the same problems.

The results? The reported anxiety appeared up to 72 percent lower for patients treated with Botox for four of eight conditions and injection sites:

• Facial muscles for cosmetic reasons
• Facial and head muscles for migraine headaches
• Legs and arms for spasm and spasticity
• Neck muscles for a condition known as torticollis (Torticollis is a problem involving the neck muscles that causes the head to tilt down. Sometimes it’s called “wryneck.”)

The researchers did not have enough information for the other four (of eight) conditions and injection sites.

My take

I think this research is not definitive but is hypothesis-generating. The research has a bias — the FAERS database includes only the subset of Botox users who had adverse side effects. Interestingly, the researchers historically reported Botox injections reduced depression less often than patients with different treatments for the same conditions, published in Scientific Reports in July 2020.

We don’t know how Botox might reduce anxiety. The study authors wonder if Botulinum toxins travel to parts of the brain involved in mood. On the other hand, Botox may affect nerve-muscle junctions that might communicate with the brain. Perhaps the anxiety relief is secondary to the success of Botox administration in relieving the underlying problem, indirectly relieving anxiety.

Thank you for joining me in exploring this exciting connection between Botox administration and anxiety reduction. While the study is not definitive, I hope it prompts a closer look at the Botox/mood connection.

The post Does Botox Drop Anxiety? appeared first on Medika Life.

I live in Seattle, the most anxious metropolitan area in the United States. As the rise of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 makes us even more uncertain and anxious, I want to share three ways I cope with stress.

In his 1915 book “Bodily changes in pain, hunger, fear, and rage,” American physiologist Walter Bradford Cannon first described the fight or flight response. He observed that when threatened (by a predator, for example), animals release the hormones adrenaline/epinephrine.

This hormonal surge leads to body changes, including increased heart and breath rates. The consequences of these changes are increases in the oxygen and energy flow to the muscles.

Battling fight-or-flight

Have you heard about the fight or flight response? This response is an automatic physiologic reaction to something frightening or stressful. When you perceive a threat, you activate your sympathetic nervous system.

This sympathetic nervous system activation leads to an acute stress response that prepares you to fight or flee. Such a response is an evolutionary adaptation that increases our probability of surviving a threat. When stress is chronic, it can lead to numerous medical problems.

Are you stressed? Do you have muscle achiness not attributable to exercise? Or a headache that persists? When I get alarms of anxiety or stress, my go-to approach is to turn to a quick-acting relaxation technique.

Box breathing

There are many great approaches to breathing for stress reduction. I prefer box breathing. Here’s a primer on what to do:The One Habit That Profoundly Changed My LifeBox breathing makes me calmer and improves my mood.

Another approach is to lie on your back. Place one hand on your chest and a light book (or the other hand) on your abdomen. Next, breathe in so that the book moves a maximal amount as you keep the hand on your chest still. Try doing it for seven minutes or more, and remember to keep focusing on your breathing.

Neither of these practices is easy for me — my mind wanders, and I have to nudge it back to the task at hand. Do it, though, and you are likely to feel calmer afterward.

Walking

Walking is my number one go-to for stress reduction. A walk, particularly outside in nature, can be magical.

Anxiety: The Surprising Way You Can Use Fractal Geometry to Find PeaceMENTAL HEALTH prescription offered by Stanford researchers. That’s the headline I recently discovered. Gretchen Dailey

Zoom out

Despite the barrage of information about the COVID-19 pandemic, I try to keep things in perspective. Pivot from the worst-case scenario and turn to the most-likely one. You can better center yourself by visualizing how your current concerns may seem a month or a year from now.

Another way to gain distance from the current stressors is to speak about yourself using the third person. Sounds odd, but it can allow you to zoom out and gain some much-needed perspective. Here’s what you need to do:

Use pronouns such as he, she, or it. Give names to your different parts when talking to someone else (or yourself) about an unpleasant or harmful part of you: “My activator is busy today. She wants me to bite off more than I can chew.”

That’s it for today. Would you please share what you do to deal with the quotidian stresses of life? Thank you for joining me today.

The post Three Ways I Drop Stress in the Omicron Era – A Doctor’s Approach appeared first on Medika Life.

Research may be indicating that the vaccinated may still transmit the virus, but it is too early to reach that conclusion.

Over the horizon, like a knight in shining armor, comes the seeming answer to our pleas, and it comes in the form of a pill, taken over days. The pill is not equivalent to a vaccine that may stop the virus dead in its tracks.

The pill regimen begins only after symptoms appear (and within three days of symptoms). Therein lies a significant problem. I am not a virologist nor an MD, but the evidence being laid out causes me and those in healthcare great concern. Why?

Pills may not convince the resistant anti-vaxxers to take any medication into their bodies to strike the virus in its tracks. We’ll see if that’s true shortly. Their mental mindset appears to be firmly set against any intervention. Donald Trump, of course, did have monoclonal antibody treatment for his Covid-19 infection. He was given eight drugs to treat his illness.

The advent of a pill treatment may not be met with agreement. But we have to question whether they agree to monoclonal antibody treatment once they are infected, and I don’t know the stats on that.

Did they get vaccinated for polio, smallpox, and various childhood illnesses? But times have changed, and clear thinking has been replaced by virulent lies that have met a highly receptive audience—one that is willing to risk killing those of us who are vaccinated. We are not the enemy; the virus is the enemy.

But politics and a sense of being left out in a prospering world appear to be involved. If I were to make another comparison, I’d have to say it’s akin to the 30s in Germany. Covid-19 is a means to political change.

Consider the Pill Concern

The pills for Covid-19 are treatments begun once three days of symptoms appear. In all these cases, infection will have been verified by testing, and the person will have to get a prescription from a physician for the pills.

How many medical offices are willing to have Covid-19 infected patients march in without a mask? Will the pills (similar to the abortion pill) be prescribed via telehealth? Who will verify their testing? Once symptoms appear, will these individuals toss it off as a cold, flu or believe they will “beat it?”

I doubt many beat this deadly virus. Even experts are conflicted regarding the latest variant, omicron, where they can’t decide if it’s genuinely more toxic (in addition to its high transmissibility) or initiates milder symptoms. Therein lies another problem.

If omicron has milder symptoms, doesn’t it play into the idea that people can beat it? However, it does kill, and the numbers will eventually come out on that.

“The new COVID pills are a big deal, but vaccinations will always be the cornerstone of our response to COVID,” said Ratzan, a former scientific adviser to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “It’s always better to prevent a disease from happening at all. … Only a vaccine can control the rate at which a virus spreads and mutates.”

So, the pill is NOT the answer to the pandemic, and it will not prevent continued infections, just as vaccinations and masks will not halt infections. Anyone waiting the three days before taking the latest treatment will have had three days to infect how many people in their circle? The dreaded long-haul symptoms may also affect them for the rest of their lives, and the jury is still out on that one.

Then the three-day leapfrogging begins as the virus spreads with dispatch to ever-more vulnerable people. It’s like a small campfire sparking a wilderness inferno.

The bottom line is that pills serve a purpose, but they are not the ironclad answer to eliminating this virus. Pills are one treatment, but not the recommended one. The recommendation has to be vaccination and now boosters because the immune system loses its strength to resist the virus over time.

We know the immune system’s efficacy time range is a function of initial health (an existing autoimmune disorder) and age. The older, the more susceptible to the virus’ ravages and boosters (possibly more than one) are the only hope of maintaining health and life.

Pills serve a purpose, but I don’t think they are the ultimate hope.

The post One Pill and Done for Covid is a Serious Concern appeared first on Medika Life.

In the United States, we have a seven-day moving average of nearly 85,000 new cases of COVID19 infection. The New York Times reports these disturbing statistics: Ahead of Thanksgiving, the country averaged approximately 95,000 new cases a day, an increase of about 25 percent over the last two weeks. Worsening conditions in the Upper Midwest and Northeast have been the primary driver of this uptrend.

Again, The New York Times: We had over 1,000 deaths from the disease yesterday. Overall that adds to the 48 million cases we’ve seen here and 777,000 deaths. If you live in the United States and want to see the statistics for your state and the nation, here you will find an easy to understand chart:

Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count

Japan COVID-19 plunge

Enter Japan. I have a particular affinity for the nation, in part because half of my family lives there. I am also privileged to know Empress Masako-sama, which dates back to our college years together.

Let’s get back to our remarkable story. On Nov. 7, Japan recorded no daily deaths from COVID-19 for the first time in more than a year. New daily infections peaked at more than 25,000 during an August wave driven by the infectious Delta variant.

Let’s compare Japan and the United States. Last Monday, Japan reported 50 daily cases of COVID-19 and one death from the disease. The caseload has not been that low since June of last year. And on Monday, Japan reported one death, even as the United States reported over 1,200 deaths.

What about the two largest cities in each nation? Tokyo, with its population of 14 million, reported 27 new cases of COVID. New York City, with a population of 9 million, has been averaging 1,400 new cases daily.

If you want to track the Japanese statistics, here is your link:

Japan: the latest coronavirus counts, charts, and mapsThere have been 1,727,186 infections and 18,367 coronavirus-related deaths reported in the country since the pandemic…

Is it masking? Or the high vaccination rate?

Is Japan doing so well because of its 79 percent vaccination rate? Or maybe it is the nearly universal wearing of face masks. When I ask my Japanese relatives if they find wearing the mask cumbersome, the answer inevitably seems to be no. There has been a long tradition of mask-wearing, especially in winter, in large part to protect others.

But I don’t think the ubiquitous masking is the only reason for Japan’s success against COVID. Go to Singapore or Seoul, and you will find good citizens faithfully wearing their masks.

What about the impressive nearly 80 percent vaccination rate in the country of the rising sun? I mentioned South Korea, where 81.4 percent of the population is vaccinated. And yet COVID-19 infections in South Korea are peaking — the highest daily average reported — now at 3,276 new infections reported daily.

South Korea: the latest coronavirus counts, charts, and maps44 infections per 100K people reported last seven days COVID-19 infections in South Korea are at their peak – the highest…

Provocative new theory

Professor Ituro Inoue (National Institute of Genetics in Mishima, Japan) believes that the new delta variant of COVID-19 has transformed into a flawed virus that cannot copy itself. Thus, the novel coronavirus is self-destructing in Japan.

Here he speaks with Japan Times (Nov. 22, 2021) earlier this week:

“The Delta variant in Japan was highly transmissible and keeping other variants out. But as the mutations piled up, we believe it eventually became a faulty virus, and it was unable to make copies of itself. Considering that the cases haven’t been increasing, we think that at some point during such mutations, it headed straight toward its natural extinction.”

Is this possible? The website People’s Pharmacy reminds us that a natural extinction has occurred once before. Asia had a coronavirus outbreak in 2003, but the SARS outbreak eventually disappeared, sans vaccine.

We shall see if the success continues in Japan, but one wonders if we will be devastated by a new mutated form of COVID before declaring victory. The stock market plummeted today with the news of a new variant of COVID-19 in South Africa.

South African scientists detected a small number of the variant known as B.1.1.529 early this week in samples taken from Nov. 14 to Nov. 16, 2021. The country has identified about 100 cases, mostly from its most populated province, Gauteng, where we find Johannesburg and Pretoria.

I hope we do not all pay the price for focusing on getting me three COVID-19 jabs and not doing nearly as well for our friends in less well-off countries.

The post Covid Is Disappearing in Japan. Why? appeared first on Medika Life.

Like an annoying foot fungus that just refuses to die, these quacks, armchair experts, so-called health gurus, and, yes, even doctors (interject a sad sigh at this point) have continued to issue dire warnings about the end of humanity.

We aren’t going to all perish from Covid of course (they will all tell you it actually doesn’t exist) but from the vaccines and evil Orwellian plots hatched by mad scientists and power-hungry politicians hell-bent on re-ordering the world. It is mass genocide or at best genetic re-engineering of the species, according to their siren song.

Clearly pissed that their Netflix subscriptions have lapsed, these individuals have taken it on themselves to weave their own tales of fantasy and fiction. Each new ‘series’ has its own plotline, villains, and heroes, and of course, is set in their version of a dystopian world. The same place most of us currently consider home.

The pitfall of calling tomorrow

If you’re trying to establish yourself as a seer of the future, you’re best suited to picking your predictions for a time that postdates your demise. The turn of the century, remember the impending global meltdown, and 2012 with those pesky Mayans and their calenders, just two classics that spring to mind.

Unless you’re onto a sure thing, outliving your predictions generally tends to be awkward and it’s been no different for our intrepid group of Covid naysayers and end-of-world scriptwriters. One by one, their predictions have come to naught. Nada. Nothing. Their predictions have exposed them for the true fraudsters and charlatans they really are.

Hindsight really is a bitch and in this instance, a highly effective antifungal. Rember the foot fungus analogy?

So just how have these con artists been proven wanting by the passage of time? We investigated a few of our older friends that we fact-checked months ago. It’s interesting to note how in many instances the original claims (ain’t digital history a bitch) made by many of these individuals have been subtly refined over time to accommodate for that annoying little thing called being horribly wrong.

Geert Van Den Bossche

You can read our original article on Van den Bossche here. In a simplified nutshell, Van Den Bossche’s pitch was based on selling us his version of a vaccine (the grift) after convincing us that mainstream vaccines (the competition) were going to cause a mutated virus that would end humanity. So, nearly a year later, or eighteen months on, in the case of trial candidates, where are we?

Aside from racking up an impressive amount of internet traffic from gullible and trusting souls seeking an explanation for their pandemic-induced misery, Van Den Bossche’s theory has so far proven completely unfounded. Despite having half the human population (that’s how many are now vaccinated) as incubators, Van Den Bosch’s killer virus appears to have gone golfing.

Perhaps he’d be better placed if he joined it.

Reiner Fuellmich

The punchline to possibly the worst legal joke ever constructed, Fuellmich propelled himself into popular conspiracy culture in early 2021. His rise was meteoric and his fanbase legion. We called bullshit early and have paid the price ever since, receiving literally thousands of comments and emails wishing us well (not really).

Fuellmich wanted, and we assume still does until the next best thing comes along, to sue the world for the SARS-CoV2 virus, claiming it didn’t really exist, Covid, according to Fuellmich wasn’t dangerous and lockdowns and mask had somehow managed to elevate themselves from effective countermeasures against a viral pandemic to crimes against humanity.

Not even the unfortunate Geneva Convention could escape Fuellmichs manic ambitions as he invoked ludicrously inappropriate responses to what he claimed were atrocities against humanity. You can see, of course, how people would lap this stuff up and why he’s developed such a devout following. People want a scapegoat to pin their misery on and who better than the large faceless behemoth we call modern society and all its appendages.

Eight months later and our intrepid attorney has made zero forward progress, mired as he is in the conspiracy circuit, his followers proving that the worshippers really do define the cult. Associate yourself with the chaff and the swine will feed.

Time has already eroded this deluded German’s fairytale and the lasting legacy of Fuellmich will undoubtedly be as the world’s most audacious and ambitious legal fraudster of all time. He really has raised the bar (pun intended).

America’s Frontline Doctors

I’ve included these grifters as a simple example of training wheels. They are by no means in the class of Fuellmich or Van Den Bossche, as their motives and narrative are simplistic and as transparent as daylight, but it doesn’t make them any less dangerous and as doctors, sworn to uphold the best interest of their patients, their actions are reprehensible.

Essentially, the group is a collection of morally bankrupt doctors who have clubbed together to fleece the public during the pandemic by selling them unproven treatments.

They aren’t alone and there are other similar groups that operate, but this group is perhaps most prominent on social media, thanks to its more than dubious membership, which includes the January 6 revolutionary, Dr. Simone Gold, currently under FBI investigation.

Their claims are simplistic – Buy Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin from us online. It works to cure Covid and the government and the media don’t want you to know about it. They have partnered with an equally unethical pharmaceutical supplier called Ravkoo Pharmacy and the two parties grift their merry way through the pandemic, fleecing gullible and vulnerable patients online.

Sadly, many bought into their lies, but time has exposed just how dodgy their business model is, false claims aside. You can read the reviews here from dissatisfied customers who lose their money and never receive anything.

In terms of their actual claims about these drugs treating Covid we now know beyond a reasonable doubt, they don’t help. Here’s the latest on Ivermectin and how we’ve been fooled into thinking the drug has benefits against Covid.

How have vaccine fairy tales faired?

Elon Musk is advertising for vaccinated astronauts with cellphones to man his Mars mission. Apparently, the vaccines boost reception.

Complete nonsense of course, but believed by many. People have, over the course of the pandemic proven themselves more than capable of believing in pretty much anything, no matter how ‘out there’ it sounds, and much of what floats about in the conspiracy ecosphere really is ‘out there’. Way out. The fact that much of this nonsense has been amplified by seemingly sane medical professionals doesn’t help.

In no particular order, here are some of the insane theories that have proven to be completely unfounded over time. Keep in mind we’ve just vaccinated half the world’s population.

• the vaccines will magnetize your body (this actually sounds useful)
• the vaccines contain trackers that allow the government to monitor your movement
• The vaccines interact with 5G cell towers
• We are all going to turn into genetically modified lizards
• The vaccine will render all women sterile (arguably not a bad thing if you consider the stupidity above)

My most recent favorite comes from a doctor, Ben Marble, whose license to practice was revoked in one state in 2012 and he has now resumed his less than illustrious career in Florida (where else).

Where to start. Aside from the fact Twitter clearly isn’t policing anti-vax posts aggressively enough, a simple observation. “All Americans” would, I assume include almost every race-based classification of humanity that exists on the planet. Ergo, everyone will die. It’s this kind of stupidity that almost beggars belief. Who would set about wiping out the entire human species? Doesnt really leave you with anyone to exploit, does it?

Does Marble think the virus does a nationality check first, weighs its intended victim, and then checks for skin color? Do you hear that knocking at the door doctor? It’s the men with the white coats and they’ve got a cozy, padded 3 x 3 waiting just for you.

Not one, in other words, NONE of the ridiculous claims made over the vaccines have come to fruition, despite them being administered in billions, and yet, people still choose to believe they pose a risk to us. People still choose to believe the virus does not pose a threat.

I’ll leave you with a very succinct line I saw recently on a Twitter profile.

𝚈𝚘𝚞 𝚌𝚊𝚗’𝚝 𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚜𝚘𝚗 𝚜𝚘𝚖𝚎𝚘𝚗𝚎 𝚘𝚞𝚝 𝚘𝚏 𝚊 𝚙𝚘𝚜𝚒𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚍𝚒𝚍𝚗’𝚝 𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚜𝚘𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚖𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚟𝚎𝚜 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚘…

Apparently, hindsight is equally useless.

The post Calling Tomorrow. Has Time Proven Covid Quacks and Conspiracy Theorists Right or Wrong? appeared first on Medika Life.