As Elmo would say, "Everybodeee panic!"

Apparently Covid is not quite gone yet, so this month's blog will again discuss it from a psychological perspective. 

Dr. Low, what do you mean, "not quite gone?" It's an epidemic.  Well, about that. I follow several statistical websites whose authors are much better at analyzing data than I. I do NOT follow government proclamations, however. I stay as  close as I can to the facts. And the facts say that this thing is a seasonal virus related to the common cold rather than the flu. It favors as its victims the elderly and the infirm and, unlike the flu, largely avoids children. The facts say that it is not spread casually, that it is rarely passed by children, unlike most viruses, and that it is not often spread by asymptomatic carriers. Contrary to the early scare stories, it is also not spread on fomites (inanimate objects like your groceries and shopping cart) or by flushing a toilet , it does not spread "exponentially," and masks do little if anything to stop it. The facts clearly show that, regardless of massive increases in positive tests documented everywhere PCR testing is done (PCR tests are not meant to be used in diagnosis; they are a screening tool which ought to be followed by a test more inclined to false negatives, and they have been being misused by running at a greater number of cycles than recommended (27-30 is normal--people are using up to 40 and each cycle doubles the chance of a scrap of NON-INFECTIOUS viral RNA to be found--AND the test is meant to be used on people who are feeling ill, not an entire populace)), the virus is killing a very small number of people, nearly all of whom are elderly and/or have pre-existing conditions. A "surge" of positive tests is not  spike in illness nor in deaths.  This virus is still doing what a seasonal virus does; it has passed through many of the weakest victims, killed an unfortunate number, and is resuming its course through the less vulnerable, killing very few, making most immune, and becoming "endemic" --part of the environment like the common cold. If it mutates, it mutates to be less deadly and more contagious so that it can spread more. So currently in the US and most of the northern hemisphere, there is no epidemic; there is a surge in positive tests as the less vulnerable gain immunity.

Citations for each of those statements can be found below. 

I am not a conspiracy theorist, and I continue to prefer this blog to be apolitical. I will refrain from  offering theories about what is going on worldwide with this virus and extreme government responses to it. Instead, let's focus on the psychological effects of all of that. 

 

Remember when we were supposed to stay home to "flatten the curve" to prevent hospital overwhelm? Remember all the crises over ventilators and ICU beds?  Well, it turned out that most patients ought not to be put on ventilators and most of those extra beds in hotels and naval vessels went unused. So we flattened the curve and flattened the health care business as well by forbidding "elective" medicine (which  means, stuff you won't imminently die of, even if eventually you might). Do you also remember being told that the area UNDER the curve was pretty much a constant? Not many do. But that is the case, because, as stated above, a seasonal virus just works its way through, and if you hide from it, it gets you later.

So the curve got flattened, the ICU shortage emergency that never was went away, and we were all told to keep staying locked up and keep not working because we would kill granny if we went out. Some people complied while others tried to go back about their lives. Thus was born the mask mandate. If you won't stay home, we will make you wear a face cover. The stated reason was to prevent the spread of COVID, but as we know, it is a seasonal virus and it is going to move through the population of the planet. Also, much research shows that a mask does not stop a virus. Really. Surgical masks stop a bacterium and they stop globs of fluid. They do not stop the breath. But we wanted to get back outside and back to work and back to living, so masks were mandated, mostly as a feel-good measure in the name of "protecting others." (Which is insane on its face--cloth masks are not one-way.)

How does all of this affect YOU in your daily life? Are your activities limited? Is your financial situation constrained? How are your kids doing, if you have some? Are you positively or negatively affected by masks or lack of them? Are you experiencing shortages of needed goods? 

All of these questions represent issues that people all over the world are facing. And these problems are mostly not due to the virus itself, but to government and public responses to the virus.

For some, having their kids at home is a blessing. For others, it means they cannot get back to work. For some professions, it is business as usual once again; for others, waiting continues while bankruptcy threatens. Some people appreciate masks as a way to protect society at large. Others, knowing that basic cloth and surgical masks are not meant to stop viral transmission, feel rather put out.  Still others worry about the societal consequences of not seeing human smiles and of children missing the all-important facial expressions that help them navigate social reality. Some people feel phobic behind a mask, others cannot understand speech without visual cues, still others have trouble recognizing familiar faces when most of the cues are missing. For many, goods and services to which they are accustomed have become difficult or impossible to obtain, and prices have skyrocketed.

Then there is entertainment. What entertainment? you ask. And that is the point. Modern society is stressful and the variety of entertainment and relief from reality provided by sporting events, theater, film, amusement parks, beaches, bars and restaurants is necessary. We wonder why cities have become powder kegs of anger and resentment. Is it racism or is it confinement and deprivation of all the trappings of normal life? 

Right now, all over the world, depression is up, unemployment is raging, and people are angry and afraid.  Their lives are being controlled by authority figures whose plans change weekly with no evidence that the new plan is safer than the old one or even than no plan. 

As an individual, how do you feel when you are told that a pandemic is threatening millions of lives and you need to use every precaution to avoid getting or sharing it? Do you feel better when you take precautions or angry that your life is being so disrupted? How can you know if what you are told is true? Or even, which part of what you are told? 

And here comes the very rushed set of vaccines which we are told shall save the day. One wonders, however, how safe a vaccine is when the manufacturers have been freed from liability and testing has been rushed.  One wonders how logical a vaccine is when the virus is said to mutate rapidly. One wonders if long-term side effects are being missed in the rush to production. One also wonders who is profiting from all of this!

Each of us has many decisions to make. How close to normal will we behave? Will we mask up or not? Will we shop in person or online? Will we comply with masking? Will we celebrate holidays with family or not?  What do our older relatives need from us; sanitation or hugs? These are not simple choices--each has ramifications. So each of us must use our intellect as well as our emotions and our conscience to do the best we can. And no one is immune from the psychological strain of the constant state of fear the media and the politicos are pushing upon us. 

Stress is bad for your health and mine. Is it worse to die of a virus or of stress? Is it worse to die alone, or of a virus but with loved ones? Can society recover from this year of forced isolation and deprivation? I know that we as a society will never be the same. I hope we learn valuable lessons for our future as a free people.

Exaggerated risk of transmission of COVID-19 by fomites  

Study claiming new coronavirus can be transmitted by people without symptoms was flawed | Science | AAAS

 Lawyers prepare to sue over damages inflicted by COVID-19 lockdowns | News | LifeSite  

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10221657996853726&set=pcb.230321794810337&type=3&theater&ifg=1

 Oxford epidemiologists: suppression strategy is not viable - YouTube

 The Science is Conclusive: Masks and Respirators do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses -- Science & Technology -- Sott.net

Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy | River Cities' Reader  

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332293/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng.pdf?fbclid=IwAR250bYGEgRJBm0srvmDRvT1x_Egq2CxIpVqve5iSA2SU1l78mg3Iv8TA64

LOCKDOWN LUNACY 3.0: It's over — j.b. handley blog

(PDF) All-cause mortality during COVID-19: No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response  

Second wave? Not even close. – OffGuardian  

Lies, Damned Lies and Covid19 – OffGuardian

There Is No Evidence Lockdowns Saved Lives. It Is Indisputable They Caused Great Harm – William M. Briggs  

 

Of Illnesses and Panics

The situation into which we have been thrust both by this new coronavirus AND the responses of our government and our fellow citizens is unique. 

Each of us must choose whom to believe, how much to read, and how to respond. We must weigh logic and emotion, time and trust. Everything is in motion.

I saw a joke calling it "Schrodinger's virus"--you have to act both as if you have it (isolate and wear a mask) and as if you don't (go shopping for yourself and others, stay home because you are not immune) . If you might have it, you also might not be able to get treatment nor a test, but you are supposed to go home rather than to the doctor or emergency room. What's not to love? You can easily feel confused, anxious, and threatened. 

Everybody has Something: The Problems of Diagnosis Creep

When I was first studying psychology, I read and pretty much had to memorize a tome called the "DSM IV". This stands for "Diagnostic and statistical manual". The title is important--it is NOT a compendium of measurable diseases and symptoms and treatments such as the _Merck Manual_ I grew up with. It is, indeed, a book of statistics and symptom clusters--by which we really mean sets of moods and behaviors. I recall feeling as if, at any given moment, I could qualify for any number of these diagnoses, absent only a phrase such as  "clinically significant stress or impairment." So these diagnoses require a determination of clinical significance prior to being diagnosed, unlike a cold, which is still a cold regardless of whether it keeps you in bed.   

These days, we see more and more diagnoses, both of psychological ills and medical ones. Too many school children are taking one or more psychiatric drugs. Too many adults are, as well. But too many adults and children are also taking drugs for medical conditions. This would not be a such problem except for diagnosis creep. How many medical patients realize that what constitutes hypertension these days is not the same as what used to be hypertension? The criteria have gotten lower. The same goes for diabetes and high cholesterol. Results can also vary by doctor, as I discovered to my horror when a now-fired optometrist diagnosed me with macular degeneration and had me frantic that I was going blind. The specialist to whom  I went running said I had no such, but a small particle of what my grandmother would have called "schmutz" on my retina, that was unlikely to affect my vision soon if ever.  Diagnosis creep. Whether the reason is a surplus of caution on the part of a doc, a mistake, or a new set of rules from the AMA, more people have more diagnoses these days and it is NOT a good thing.

Reading _Wheat Belly_ with a Critical Eye.

Sooooooo, here I am, having just read _Wheat Belly_ by William Davis.  Now, for perspective, I eat a VERY low-grain diet. After years as a vegetarian, my health made it obvious that such a diet, full of vegetables, fruits, legumes, and whole grains was not for me.  So reading _Wheat Belly_ when it fell into my line of sight, seemed obvious, except that I have avoided it, because the author has that tendency to get overly enthused about his subject, and blame EVERYTHING on wheat, a premise I find questionable at best, even as a person who does not eat wheat.

Now I have read it from cover to cover, and  I am unconvinced, despite Davis's pages of citations. The extrapolations slipped between the lines were my cue to be suspicious, as were the occasional total falsehoods or misleading statements, not to mention the implication that EVERY patient coming to his office turns out to have a different ailment caused by wheat.  This is not the first "theory of everything" I have come across, and it will not be the last, and it is no more credible than the others. 

I almost did not make it past chapter 2, in which Davis ridicules modern wheat for being human-dependent, by saying: "Imagine...in the world of domesticated animals: an animal able to exist only with human assistance." (P. 22). Any farmer will tell you that modern chickens and turkeys and pigs and cattle are dependent upon humans for their existence--they are no longer adapted to living in the wild. Dogs, as they exist now, never were wild--wolves, from which they are derived, are wild. Dogs are domestic, and very few can survive in the wild. This, to put it mildly, created doubt--claims that are unsubstantiated and are supposed to support the author's premise. 

Can wheat make you fat? Of course. Can other things? Of course.  Can wheat increase your risk of heart disease? Of course. Can other things increase your risk of heart disease? Of course. Can wheat put you at higher risk for acquiring Type 2 diabetes? Of course. Can other things increase your risk as well? Of course. I do not remember where I first heard the answer to life, the universe, and everything (related to  health), but here it is: "There is rarely only one cause for anything." 

Given that I had already stopped eating wheat because it had noticeable effects on how I felt, I was the target audience for this book. Except that I am a critical reader, AND THERE IS RARELY ONLY ONE CAUSE FOR ANYTHING. I have heard such sweeping claims about Lyme disease, about acid rain, about eating meat. Can wheat be inflammatory? Yep. Can it cause leaky gut? Maybe (I do not pretend to medical expertise--just literacy and a critical mind). Does it cause psychological issues and skin disorders? maybe. I do know that a diet too high in carbs and too low in fats and protein CAN cause depression in some individuals, but that does not then lead to "wheat causes depression". 

If I had infinite time, I would read all of the references, because one thing Davis did well was to provide many. The problem is, that then the references need to be reviewed for accuracy, for lying with statistics, for replicability.  And all of that would take way more time than this book is worth to me. I read a book once that indicated that we should all basically live on spinach (really--the recommendation was for 2 pounds daily-- maybe I would live 10 years longer, but I'd have spent all of it chewing and running to the bathroom)--he also had lots of citations to support his theory, but in that case, I just did not care. In the case of _Wheat Belly_ , I do care because some of what Davis describes are things I have seen in myself, in friends, and in clients. BUT not all. And not in every case.

So here is my take-away: A high carb diet is probably bad for most humans. Now I know personally, a few people who thrive on such a diet, which keeps me from saying "all humans" even without doing tons of research. There is evidence on many fronts that lowering carb intake and raising fats, perhaps even more than proteins, is good for individuals with diabetes, unsafe amounts of body fat, and other insulin-related issues. But, given that when I search for "high-carb diet and depression," the hits I get DO NOT attribute depression to such a diet, while as a clinician, I know I have helped people to get beyond a depression with a higher fat diet, these things are NOT uni-dimensional. There is rarely only one cause for anything, and all humans are not created equal.

Thus, if you are having weird symptoms, and you eat a lot of grains, it may be worth consulting an MD who favors low-carb diets to see if this might be a factor.  If you are in menopause, and you suddenly cannot sleep and feel tired all the time, it might be worth looking into a dietary change, as insulin resistance increases with age. It is clearly possible for SOME chronic tiredness and some depression and some diabetes and some arthritis, etc, to be impacted by wheat/grains/high carb diets.

Humans are complicated. Not only are we very adaptable omnivores, but we have very complicated lives, stretching us beyond what evolution has caught up to. Thus, THERE IS RARELY ONLY ONE CAUSE for anything. Can your diet affect your psychology? Absolutely:
This article (https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/diet-and-depression-2018022213309) claims a high-carb diet is better for avoiding depression, but references this article  (https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/nutritional-psychiatry-your-brain-on-food-201511168626) which mainly claims that unprocessed foods high in probiotics are best. This sort of thing can make your head explode. The latter article, however, states that when looking for a nutritional cause of a mental issue, it is most helpful to experiment for yourself--eliminate things that are suspect, and if you feel better, only replace them one at a time, slowly, to see what changes. Pay attention to when you feel better or worse and what you have eaten in the past 36 hours, seeking a pattern over a reasonable time period that spans weather changes, life changes, and other variables. 

Here is a simple  analogy--we all know that the common cold is caused by one of a variety of fast-mutating viruses. We also know that there are cold germs in our environment all of the time. One reason we do not ALL always show cold symptoms is that there are additional causes for our succumbing to that cold, including lack of sleep, poor diet, or excessive exposure such as when we are crowded into small spaces. There really is rarely only one simple cause for a given ailment. People can even both have the identical gene for diabetes, while one gets it and the other does not.

Thus, it is important to ask critically, is diet the only cause of depression and mental distress? Of course not. Can diet often help? Also yes, because, see rule 1, there is rarely only one cause for anything.   The causes may be interconnected (you were feeling poorly in the gut, your MD told you to eat more fiber, which then increased your carb load, and you ended up with new symptoms such as weight gain or depression) , they may  be sequential (you were somewhat depressed and started eating poorly), they may be totally separate (yes, something bad occurred and yes, you tend to live on junk food), but humans are not simple. Mostly, we are not as simple as modern medicine would prefer--because if we were, there would indeed be a pill or a surgery for every ill and there would indeed be a single cause for everything. Unfortunately, this reductionistic, if tempting view, is just plain false. 

The bottom line is that there are many potential causes, often intertwined, for weight gain, gut issues, depressed moods, and other human ills. It is possible that carbs or wheat specifically, are having an effect on your particular symptom. It is also possible that they are not. A competent physician or psychologist (this latter after a specific, testable medial illness either been ruled out or diagnosed properly) will help you explore your particular symptoms and conduct experiments on what things help you to feel better or worse. Remember: there is rarely only one cause for anything, and thus, many things can potentially help you to feel better. 

 reference:
Davis, W., 2011 _Wheat Belly_. Rodale.  

Reading Temple Grandin Offers a New Perspective on REBT!

I have long agreed with Albert Ellis that his Rational Emotive Therapy (modernized to Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy), is a simple, elegant method for helping clients to learn how to improve their mood and live more comfortably. It is also a derivative of the ancient philosophy of Stoicism. I have worked with individuals and groups for many years, and most people to whom I have introduced REBT easily learn and use this technique for calming their unruly emotions and feeling better. It is not instant. It is not magic. But it really works. As with anything, using REBT well requires practice. 

One of my long-standing puzzles as a therapist has been how CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) has gained more popularity than REBT as the go-to therapy. There are indeed many books by many authors on each technique. Does CBT work better? Does it have better press? Are there more practitioners? is it easier to teach to therapists in training? Is it easier to teach to clients? 

My take on the above questions is  quite the opposite. I find REBT to be easier to learn, easier to teach, and more effective than CBT. I am trained in both, and, while I learned CBT in school and learned it first, when I studied REBT (Albert Ellis was one of my instructors), I was immediately stuck by how easy it was to learn, to teach, and to put into effect in my own life not to mention those of my clients. So is it the press? Perhaps.

Is It REALLY an Emergency? The Power of Resiliency to Keep You Sane.

The news media are difficult to avoid. I know; I tried for years. I had no TV, received no morning paper, but the news would find me--mostly on my car radio on my all-music-except-during-rush-hour station. Now I live with someone who fancies his morning news and, worse, likes to tell me what he has found out. Guess what? It is NEVER good news.

You already knew that, right? If you have been paying attention, you did. The various news media these days have more competition for your attention, and they have long known that to get your attention, they have to produce an emotion in you. They get more attention by producing a negative emotion. So the news is no longer JUST THE NEWS. It is a concoction of events developed into a story in language carefully crafted to get your attention. Even the weather is no longer just "here's what to expect." Today's weather reporters are also competing for your attention. So rather than, "We are expecting 5" of snow before 6PM ," now it is, "This is shaping up to the the worst snow in 52.5 years, so be very scared."

We know that most of what has changed is competition for your attention. But something more subtle has changed along with that. The news is no longer "just the facts, m'am." Today's reporters want to grab you with negative emotions: fear, anger, outrage. But we tend to assume that the news and weather types are still reporting facts, so we respond as they have guided us. This affects our lives in very real ways.

What is the difference between "Today the temperature will be -13" and "today there is a wind-chill advisory in effect and you are advised to dress warmly"? One aspect is the assumption that we are all too stupid to wear warm clothes; that we do not know what -13 means, that we need it to be painted in scarier terms so we pay attention. I don't know about you, but I am insulted by weather reporters on a daily basis. Yep, -13 is cold. Yep, I need a coat. Yep, I will cover my face and hands. This barrage of insults is bad enough for me to have stopped paying attention to them altogether. I want the facts, and I will decide how to behave, thanks.  

But the more sinister aspect is that when people are continually subjected to such emergency tactics, they tend to feel fear. It comes on gradually as we are inundated daily with this and that emergency. From weather to climate to politics to foreign affairs, there is a reported emergency around every corner. Thus, my attempt to avoid all forms of media reporting.

Is a Psychiatric Diagnosis Just Another Name for What You're Feeling? A Rose by Any Other Name.....

The concept of mental illness is at its core about control. When someone is labeled mentally ill, a system including physicians, social workers, and government authorities begins to gain access to her life. People have problems. People have mental or psychological problems. The practice of calling these problems by names reflecting illness and thus putting them into the purview of physicians has been doing harm for decades. It is also demeaning, taking ultimate control from the individual and placing it within their genes or their parents.

I have said it many times and shall say it for as long as I can: there is not a pill for that. Make no mistake, your brain is a biological entity--YOU are a biological entity--thus distress of the mind and emotions are also biological entities, but this does not imply that the only or even the best or even a viable way to solve problems of the mind and emotions is with a pill. The overused "chemical imbalance" theory is dead. On the contrary, psychoactive pills cause chemical imbalances--they change your brain in ways science does not understand, sometimes they alleviate symptoms, but they do not CURE distress.

Thus one danger of calling mental distress a "disease" is that it is then treated as such--you become a patient and you look to a doctor to fix something. This works with appendicitis and broken legs and cancer. It is a fact, however, that not all things clearly within the realm of medical disorders are treatable by medical doctors. In general, there is no treatment for the flu or even the common cold, and physicians are stymied by irritable bowel and migraine. Medical science certainly does not work with depression, anxiety, phobia, PTSD, and the many variations of psychological distress delineated in the various manuals of disease such as the DSM and the ICD, because these are not diseases in the once-commonly understood meaning of the term. These problems do not show demonstrable tissue damage such as a cancer or a stroke, nor do they have symptoms that represent the body fighting a foreign invader, such as cough, fever, runny nose. Rather they have emotions and behaviors as their hallmarks.