Vol. 139 January 1, 2016 HEROIN: Cape Cod, USA

January 1, 2016

Hub thumbnail 2015

A HBO documentary shown on December 28, 2015

 As a pediatrician and a parent I found this moving documentary of eight white, middle class heroin addict kids from stable families on Cape Cod to be very disconcerting. It was brutally honest with several scenes of addicts preparing and injecting heroin. The repetitive, “almost-expected”, relapses after detox, and the seemingly casual acceptance of inevitable drug deaths of other addicts set a tone of hopelessness. The onset of addiction in half of these addicts followed standard treatment with opioids for post-accident or post-surgical pain. 30-day detox programs, despite their noble intent, were depicted as mostly fruitless in the long run, like spitting in the ocean. (None of the eight addicts appeared to be enrolled in a heroin-replacement program – Suboxone or methadone) The recognition by the addicts that their craving drove them into behavior they themselves detested confirmed that insight is not enough.

 One addict said that “one dose of heroin was all that was needed to get you addicted”, but NIH statistics suggest that 23% of first heroin users become addicts. Even so, those one-in-four odds are worse than the odds of Russian roulette with a six-shot revolver! One could consider appropriate opioid treatment for post-surgery pain as a “screening test” to find those one-in-four addicts!

For the past decade physicians have been told that the patient should direct pain control. “How bad is your pain on a scale of 1 to 10?” Hospitals and doctors were, and are still, graded on their ability to reduce patient-reported pain quickly. Many of us physicians remember the pain control conferences that basically told us “you are not giving enough”. Perhaps that mind set contributed to the current easy access to opioids.

The Massachusetts Medical Society just promulgated lengthy opioid therapy guidelines consisting of 11 statements for acute care and 16 statements for chronic treatment (over 60 days). The guidelines are sprinkled with words like “function and pain”, “quality of life”, “short-term trial”, “minimum dosage”, “partial-fill prescriptions”, “low-dose sequential prescription”, and “useful consultation with a specialist or a second opinion”. Treatment of cancer. hospice, palliative care, and hospital inpatients is exempt from the guidelines.

The simple patient pain scale of 1 to 10 has been trumped by 11-16 sentences. If you think that is an overstatement then consider these words in the new guidelines,  “The guidelines will provide valuable guidance to physicians [mostly primary care] in their practices and as evidence of best practices and to the Board [of Registration in Medicine] in its responses to patient complaints, accusations of substandard care, or accusation of inappropriate prescribing.” [emphasis added].

The multiple pathways to addiction, its frequent appearance in several members of a family, and on functional MRIs similar active areas of the brain common to all types of addicts suggest a genetic basis of addiction. If that is true, than the cure for heroin addiction in the long run will depend on identification of the responsible genes and the development of drugs that will block or modify those specific genes.

In the short run, maybe we can do more in the U.S. to reduce the harms of addiction; overdose deaths, infectious diseases, and criminal behavior. One mother in the parents’ group eloquently summed up the need to “destigmatize” heroin addiction. ( “No one sent me casseroles when my son died of an overdose.”) To “destigmatize” addiction we will need to “decriminalize” it and treat it as a medical condition. Other countries (Switzerland 1994, Portugal 2000, Vancouver B.C. 2003, Netherlands 2009, Germany 2009, and U.K. 2009) have done that with both “heroin-replacement” and “heroin-assisted” treatment programs. Those programs have resulted in a reduction of overdose deaths and AIDS/Hep C infections WITHOUT increasing drug use.

According to the Boston Globe the “supervised injection site” in Vancouver (called “Insite”) has been shown by 30 peer-reviewed studies to have “saved thousands of lives, saved millions of dollars in both health care and public safety costs, reduced transmission of AIDS and hepatitis C, and promoted entrance into treatment without increasing drug use or drug-related crime”. (1) The Cato Institute studied the results of the successful Portugal program in 2009 and confirmed the same positive results. Critics remarked that such a model would not work in the U.S. because of our size, heterogeneity, and politics.

Isn’t that a shame?

References:
1. Boston Globe, December 27, 2015, K5, “Massachusetts needs safe injection sites”

Advertisements

Vol. 134 October 15, 2015 Supplements Are Not Harmless.

October 16, 2015

Hub thumbnail 2015

“The belief is that they [dietary supplements] are entirely safe,
but now science says that they’re not.”
– Pieter Cohen, MD, Harvard Medical School

A recent study of 63 hospitals from 2004 to 2013 estimated that over 20,000 ER visits and 2000 hospital admissions annually in the U.S. were due to adverse effects of dietary supplements. Adverse events included allergic reactions, excess doses, unsupervised ingestion by children, or other events (e.g., choking). Cases involving death, intentional self-harm, drug abuse, or withdrawal were excluded.  Adverse effects commonly involved cardiovascular adverse effects from weight-loss or energy herbal products among young adults, unsupervised ingestion of micronutrients (iron) by children, and swallowing problems associated with micronutrients (multi-vitamins) among older adults. (1)

The supplements listed included orally administered herbal products (Echinacea, Coenzyme Q10, Gripe Water, etc.), complementary nutritional products (fish oil, body building protein , chondroitin/glucosamine, etc), vitamins and minerals (including calcium and iron), and topically administered herbal or homeopathic products. Energy drinks and herbal tea beverages were excluded from the study.

In the U.S. there were more than 55,000 dietary supplements on the market in 2012, and about half of all adults reported having used at least one dietary supplement in the past month. 150 million people in the U.S. take supplements, including children’s vitamins. In 2007, out-of-pocket expenditures for herbal or complementary nutritional products reached $14.8 billion, which equaled one-third of the total out-of-pocket expenditures for prescription drugs.

  • Weight loss supplements or herbal energy products led the list of supplements with adverse effects in this study.
  • More than half of emergency department visits for supplement-related adverse events involved female patients.
  • Sexual-enhancement products or bodybuilding products were implicated in 14% of emergency department visits for supplement-related adverse events among male patients; there were too few cases among female patients to calculate a reliable estimate.
  • 20% of ER visits involved children who took supplements without supervision.
  • Most ER visits for unsupervised ingestion of supplements by children involved multivitamins (34%), iron (12%), supplements for weight loss (11%), and supplements for sleep, sedation, or anxiety (9%). Child-resistant packaging is not required for dietary supplements other than those containing iron (the amount of iron in the usual bottle can be lethal to small children) , but despite such packaging, iron supplements were the second most commonly implicated type of supplement in unsupervised ingestion by children.

Although the numbers of ER visits and hospitalizations were less than the 5% of the ER visits that have been reported for pharmaceutical products, dietary supplements are unregulated and marketed under the presumption of safety. The FDA is actually BARRED from regulating dietary supplements by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. (Wouldn’t you like to know the history of that particular bill, or at least, the lobbyists involved?)

When you or someone you know has a good effect from a supplement (like taking glucosamine for knee pain) it natural to think that anyone with knee pain should take it, and that every physician should know about this “miracle supplement”. In medicine that kind of anecdote is called a “case report”.  Case reports can lead to studies of a large number of people, called “statistical studies”. Results of those studies can be persuasive, but the truly scientifically skeptical physician will wait for the results of an organized, randomized, double-blind study with controls (people who don’t get the supplement). Such organized, controlled studies have not found a whole lot of benefit, if any, from taking dietary supplements, especially vitamins, but that is the subject for another whole blog… or two.

References;

1. Emergency Department Visits for Adverse Events Related to Dietary Supplements
Andrew I. Geller, M.D., et al, N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 1531-1540; October 15, 2015


Vol. 129 July 15, 2015 Update on FDA & Sunscreens and Bath Salts

July 15, 2015

hub

 

“Herbal incense” may sound organic,
but it sure ain’t good for you.

 

Sunscreens (1)
Previous blogs have noted that the FDA has limited authority over and regulations for sunscreens, but it does have some. Despite “the common wisdom” that the FDA is slow to approve new prescription drugs, its approval process is generally faster than Europe’s and in 2014 the FDA approved the highest number of new drugs in 18 years – 41 products. (1)

Over-the-counter (OTC) products like sunscreens are regulated by a different process using the standard:  “ generally recognized as safe and effective”. But, in 2014 the FDA declined to permit use of 8 new ingredients in sunscreens even though they have been in use in Europe for 5 years. It cited lack of safety studies, gaps in data, and reports of adverse events. This action prompted an understandable, if   a bit of an over-the-top reaction, from the Wall Street Journal calling to “strip the sunscreen police of all powers over the stuff.”

It is obvious that the FDA has mixed, and unfunded, responsibilities for review of OTC products. A new law, the Sunscreen Innovation Act of 2014 (only in America could we come up with a name like that), tried to clarify the situation, but no new resources were allocated to implement it. In the meantime both the FDA and the CDC continue their efforts to discourage use of tanning beds and promote prevention measures against melanoma which claim 10,000 deaths a year in the U.S.

Synthetic Cannabinoids (SC) (2)

Synthetic cannabinoids (SC) arrived in the U.S. from Europe in 2008 as herbal incense, spice, and bath salts “not for human consumption”. Since 2011 the DEA has placed over 40 SCs into Schedule I of controlled substances which means they are obtainable only by prescription. The problem is that manufacturers of these SCs merely change one or more chemical bonding group or a single chemical chain and the new compound falls outside such a regulation. The compounds are easily obtained on the internet for use in e-cigarettes or are added to energy drinks. They are still labeled “not for human consumption”, and may even carry the assurance that the product “contains no regulated compounds”.

Widespread distribution and marketing have led to recent clusters of serious illness and even deaths, particularly among the young and inexperienced users. Many users reported that they used SCs in order to get high without risking a positive drug test. SCs are NOT detected by the usual urine or blood lab tests, have no available antidote, and can produce serious symptoms which are not readily identifiable as symptoms specific to SC toxicity. Some users have died before reaching an emergency department.

The number of adverse events is increasing. During a two month period in early 2015 Mississippi reported 1200 SC-related visits to the ER and 17 deaths. One reason for this uptick may be the distribution of novel SC compounds that are easily and rapidly synthesized and marketed in response to regulatory actions. They can have new, unknown effects resulting in idiosyncratic toxicity such as delirium, seizures, psychosis, kidney failure, hallucinations, coma, and death.

Ninety-one per cent of users interviewed in one study inhaled vaporized SCs from refillable e-cigarette cartridges. E-cigarettes seem to be garnering more very bad “unintended consequences” than originally predicted by its advocates.

References:
1. NEJM July 9, 2015, pg. 101; A Spotlight on Sunscreen Regulation; J.A. Sharfstein, MD, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health
2. NEJM July 9, 2015, pg. 103, Synthetic Cannabinoids – Related Illnesses and Deaths, DEA, CDC, and University of California


Vol. 125 May 15, 2015 E-cigarettes and Adolescents

May 15, 2015

hub

 

                   2
E = M J

 

Seventeen per cent of high school seniors used E-cigarettes in 2014.  E-cigarette use in non–smoking adolescents increased from 79,000 in 2011 to 263,000 in 2013. The current models of E-cigarettes were developed in China in 2003 and introduced to the U.S. in 2007, though Philip Morris had been researching them since the 1990’s. (1)

The original E-cigarettes looked like a cigarette and contained a battery-powered heating element that vaporized liquid containing liquid nicotine which could be inhaled. The amount of nicotine in a single E-cigarette could vary from 36 mg. (about the amount in one Lucky Strike cigarette) to zero. Zero? Yes, zero. People vape those E-cigarettes for their various flavors which are multiple and diverse. “Vape” is the new verb to describe the process. Multiple YouTube videos compare the pros and cons of Smoking vs. “Vaping”. The major pro of vaping according to its advocates is that you can get the nicotine without the tars and other carcinogens.

The newer generation of E-cigarettes don’t look like cigarettes. They can be pen sized (called “pens”) or bigger (called “tanks”), up to 10 -12 inches long. Pens and tanks are rechargeable by the user. Multiple websites offer all kinds of flavors and nicotine strengths of E-liquids.

As E-cigarette use has increased, the use of combustible cigarettes (the traditional ones you light with a match) have decreased among children in grades 8 through 12. Some think this is good news. Others point out that even if E-cigarettes have 10x-100x LESS carcinogens than combustible cigarettes, there are still carcinogens present. Established researchers remark that “not all the ingredients in E-cigarette fluids are known or listed”. Manufactures of E-liquids rebut that by insisting that there are only four ingredients – propylene glycol, glycerin, flavoring, and nicotine – all used in other FDA-approved sprays and vaporized medicines.

E-cigarettes are not regulated by the FDA. The practical consequences of this are that 1) “face-to-face” purchase is not required (as with combustible cigarettes) and 2) there are no restrictions on youth-targeted advertisements. One of the biggest E-cigarette brands, “Blu”, may be best known for its Sports Illustrated swim suit issue ad zooming in on a blue bikinied bottom. “Seduce Juice” is the registered trademark of a variety of E-liquids, all with “snake oil” as a secondary label. Despite the fact that 40 states prohibit the sale of E-cigarettes to minors, they are readily available on the internet.

Do E-cigarettes help cigarette smokers stop smoking? One study of 5,000 attempted quitters in the U.K. suggested that it did help. (2) Studies in U.S. suggest that the use of FDA-approved nicotine vaporizers (Nicorette Quick Mist) prescribed by a physician can help people quit smoking, and many E-cigarette critics recommend that as the preferred method.  Another study showed that E-cigarettes were used by “intermediate risk” students in high schools unlike the use of combustible cigarettes by “high risk” students. Because of that use of E-cigarettes has been called a “harm reduction” strategy. Others citing the same study results suggest that E-cigarettes could act as a gateway to real cigarettes. Neither the American Heart Association nor the American Cancer Society have endorsed E-cigarettes as an aid to stop smoking.

Of course, it didn’t take long for adolescents to learn that if you could buy a rechargeable hand vaporizer and a variety of flavored liquids to put into it, why not put some marijuana juice in it.? And they do. The hashish oil used to charge pens and tanks is highly concentrated liquid THC, the active chemical of marijuana. NPR called pot-vape pens the “crack cocaine of marijuana” a year ago.  Unlike alcohol where a “shot is a shot, 30 ml., 1 oz.” the world over, a single puff from hashish oil is much stronger than a puff from a joint, and the user may not be able to reliably predict its effect. But, there is plenty of advice on how to do so on the internet. The weedblog. com has a colorful infographic explaining “How to Vape MJ rather than Smoke It.”

The contemporary pediatrician has had to add to his or her litany of history questions poised to adolescents over recent years: “Do you smoke cigarettes?”; “Are you attracted to boys or girls?”; “Do you have a gun in the house?”; and now “Are you vaping anything?” (3)

E use could = marijuana squared!

References:
(1) JAMA Pediatrics 2015 ; 169(2): 177-82
(2) Addiction 2014; 109 (9): 1531-40
(3) Scott E. Hadland, MD MPH, Harvard Medical School, May 6, 2015  Course in Adolescent Medcine


Vol. 109 September 1, 2014 Today’s Buzzword is “HARM REDUCTION”

September 1, 2014

hub

Harm reduction is a policy of encouraging and supporting an individual
to take incremental actions to reduce the potential harm of high-risk behaviors
which a person can’t or won’t stop.

 

 

The American Heart Association (AHA) last week reiterated its concern about the negative health effects of e-cigarettes (electronic cigarettes that deliver vaporized nicotine only), but cautiously noted that it considered e-cigarettes as an acceptable “last resort” for those who can’t stop smoking after using nicotine patches and other medications . This is the most recent example of a “harm reduction” strategy.

Aruni Bhatnagar, Professor of Medicine at the University of Louisville in Kentucky and the lead author of the AHA’s statement, wrote: “If someone refuses to quit, we’re not opposed to them switching from conventional to e-cigarettes…Don’t use them indefinitely. Set a quit date for quitting conventional, e-cigarettes and everything else.”

There is scant evidence that using e-cigarettes help people to stop smoking, but e-cigarettes do not deliver tars and other carcinogenic chemicals to the lungs. Hence, smoking an e-cigarette can reduce harm. The American Cancer Society jury is still out.

The “harm reduction” strategy, identified in the 1980‘s, began to really be promoted as an alternative to abstinence around 2000. It was initially focussed on psychoactive drug abuse, but was later expanded to include alcohol and all substance abuse. Its strategies are also incorporated into adolescent sex education, HIV prevention, and homeless health programs. Tactics include school-based distribution of condoms, community needle exchange programs, methadone maintenance, housing without sobriety for the homeless, and, in some countries, heroin dispensing clinics and clean injection facilities.

The DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), or “just say no”, program was that was based on a zero tolerance principle, and it was not effective in reducing drug abuse.

Critics of the harm reduction strategy claim that such an approach can “normalize” the risky behavior that society wants to change. They think harm reduction policy can raise an expectation that such risky behavior is acceptable and even “expected”, particularly for adolescents.

Proponents of harm reduction quote extensive literature that shows that it is “inexpensive, evidence-based, and effective” . The designated driver awareness policy is an excellent example of a successful harm reduction tactic. It is one factor in the reduction of teen age car accidents and deaths. A few years ago the homeless health center with which I am associated stopped requiring alcohol abstinence, sobriety, on the part of a client prior to being placed in transitional housing. Its rates for successful stable housing, subsequent employment, and duration of sobriety increased among those clients.

 MYTH
Harm reduction is opposed to abstinence and therefore conflicts with traditional substance abuse treatment.
Harm reduction encourages drug use.
Harm reduction permits harmful behavior and maintains an “anything goes” attitude.

FACT
Harm reduction is not at odds with abstinence; instead, it includes it as one possible goal across a continuum of possibilities.
Harm reduction is neither for nor against drug use. It does not seek to stop drug use, unless individuals make that their goal.
Harm reduction focuses on supporting people’s efforts to reduce the harms created by drug use or other risky behaviors.
Harm reduction neither condones nor condemns any behavior. Instead, it evaluates the consequences of behaviors and tries to reduce the harms that those behaviors        pose for individuals, families and communities.

Despite all the scientific evidence, it is sometimes hard to fully embrace the concept of “harm reduction” emotionally. I sometimes feel that small moral tug of “whatever happened to right and wrong”. After all, the Ten Commandments say “Thou shall not commit adultery”; not “Try very hard not to commit adultery and, at least, don’t cause an unwanted pregnancy”. But, many studies  show that harm reduction strategies can benefit the individual, the family, and the community. We will be hearing a lot more about it, so we should get used to it.


Vol. 107 July 15, 2014 Update on Sunscreens

July 15, 2014

hub

“Consumers continue to [erroneously] perceive high-SPF sunscreens as more effective than lower ones.”
– Consumer Reports, July 2014

 

My last blog on sunscreens a year ago was largely based on a testing of products by Consumer Reports. So is this one.

1. The FDA does NOT test sunscreen products before they are put on sale.
The FDA does require manufacturers to meet certain standards in order to label their product with these three terms:
“SPF  number “- level of protection from UVB rays that cause sunburn
“broad spectrum” – also protects against UVA rays that can increase skin aging
“water-resistant” – claims protection for 80 minutes after immersion
In 2011 the FDA requested more data from manufacturers about sunscreen sprays and is currently evaluating it.

2. Any SPF over 30 provides little more protection, and will cost you more.
SPF 15 = 93% protection
SPF 30 = 97% protection
SPF 50 = 98% protection
SPF 100 = 99% protection

3. Sunscreen for kids is a marketing gimmick.
Though half of parents who use sunscreen on their children think that sunscreen for kids is “safer” and “gentler”, that is simply NOT true. The FDA makes no distinction in standards for children’s sunscreens and the ingredients of most “children’s” sunscreens are identical to and are present in the same concentration as regular sunscreen. Some may  be reformulated to be “tear-free” or “sting-free”, but that is the only difference.

4. Use more of it, and earlier than you think.
Apply the sunscreen at least 15 minutes before exposure because the chemicals take that long to interact before providing protection. Apply at least an ounce (2 tablespoons or one shot glass full) to cover your face and body adequately.  Reapply every 2 hours.

5. “Natural” sunscreens are no safer nor more effective than “chemical” ones.
There are no effective “natural” sunscreens, however defined, on the market. Zinc oxide and titanium oxide are natural minerals, but if used in their natural (unprocessed) state your zinc oxide covered nose would be black and covered with lead! Sunscreen lotions with zinc oxide and titanium oxide NANOPARTICLES are clear, neither black nor white, but nanoparticles still have their safety critics. “Natural” sunscreens, often labeled as “mineral” rather than “chemical”, can also clump and lose uniformity of SPF.

6. The jury (NIH and the FDA) is still out on the safety of nanoparticles in sunscreens, but the risk appears to be very small.
Nanoparticles do not penetrate skin cells and actually provide very good protection against the effects of the sun, but the potentials effects of inhalation (powders) or ingestion (lip balm) have generated some caution. Nanoparticles have long been used in a whole variety of cosmetics, combine with cells in very tiny amounts, and are approved in sunscreens in Europe. According to the Environmental Working Group, a watch-dog  organization that has been monitoring the use of  nanoparticles in cosmetics for years, “Nanoparticles are a lower hazard than most sunscreen ingredients approved for the U.S. market.”

7. Sunscreen sprays are not recommended.
Correct spray patterns are key for good protection, even spraying the same area twice is recommended, and it is not a good thing to breathe in the spray. The best way to use a spray is to spray it in your hand and then apply it, so why bother with a spray? The FDA is investigating the potential risks of spray sunscreens; like standing too close to a grill after you have sprayed and getting burned when the propellant ignites.

A selected list of products (not all recommended) Consumer Reports tested: (7 of 24 tested products were “recommended”)
(scores are result of UVB and UVA protection measured by wave length and effects of a soak in the tub for 80 minutes: 100 is the maximum)

Up and Up  Sport Spray (Target)           SPF 50     $0.80 per ounce    score: 90 Rec.
Coppertone Water Babies                        SPF 50     $1.38 per ounce     score: 81 Rec.
Equate Ultra Protection (Walmart)      SPF 50      $0.56 per ounce    score: 80 Rec.
No-Ad Sport                                                SPF 50      $0.63 per ounce    score: 69
Up and Up Kids (Target)                         SPF 50      $0.64 per ounce    score: 39
Banana Boat Kids                                     SPF 50      $1.25 per ounce     score: 16

References:
1. Consumer Reports, July 2014, “The Truth About Sunscreens”.


Vol. 109 March 15, 2014 “Misfearing” – Misperceptions of Health (and Other) Risks

March 15, 2014

hub

“Heart Attack Three Times as Likely With Drug A.”

We are all familiar with headlines like this, sometimes not as dramatic, but still attention-getting. It’s enough “to strike fear into your heart”.  As we read on we see the actual numbers, often buried more than half way through,  “ 1000 patients were given drug A and 3 of them had a heart attack. 1000 similar patients were not given the drug and only 1 of them had a heart attack.” 3 is 300% more than 1, but look how low the risk is: an increase from 0.1% to 0.3% risk invokes a lot less fear. By reporting the relative risk percentages rather than the absolute risk percentages the article nurtures “misfear” ; instinctive fear rather than factual fear.

When women are asked what they think the number one killer of women is, most respond, “breast cancer”.  The correct answer is “heart disease”. Clearly women fear breast cancer more than they fear heart attacks.

Which is a greater danger to a child, a gun in the house or a swimming pool?
Each year in the U.S. one child is killed by a gun for every 1,000,000 gun owners. One child drowns for every 11,000 residential swimming pools. Residential swimming pools are much more dangerous to children, but they won’t get the headlines until perhaps a whole birthday party drowns in one. It is less expensive to take steps at home to safeguard guns than it is to build a fence and install alarms around a swimming pool.This raises the issue of cost-benefit analysis in risk assessment. Does the cost of prevention efforts result in a significant benefit? Do we spend a lot of money to try to reduce small risks and little or nothing to reduce big risks? (2)

Sex Offenders
Our current policy of publicly identifying names and addresses of past sex offenders is based on two specific cases (3): an 11-year-old boy kidnapped by a masked gunman in 1989 and never found and Megan, a seven-year old raped and killed by a neighbor in 1994.  “Megan’s Law”  requiring states to publish personal information about sex offenders was passed by Congress in hopes of helping people to protect their children and prevent such crimes. Unfortunately that has not been the result. Two 2008 studies found no decrease in such crime rates and concluded that public notifications “tell the public nothing about the actual risks of a sex crime.” The resulting “misfear” may lead to all sorts of school bus stop, day care drop-off, shopping mall, etc. regulations which may do nothing to reduce risks. In addition such notification may be harmful by making it harder for the “ex-con” to reintegrate into society, find a job, and avoid harassment of fearful neighbors.  In my town such a discharged sex offender killed an adult neighbor with a baseball bat during an afternoon argument on the neighborhood street. As the story unfolded, the dead victim, who had no young children, was described as the only neighbor that had not accepted the presence of the discharged and publicly identified offender, and who was reported to have repeatedly disparage and verbally harass him.

“One in 7 Young People Solicited For Sex Online” is enough to start a moral panic about the internet. The actual report that on which this headline was stated that nearly all of the solicitations were from teens’ peers and other young adults, and that most teens did not find such encounters as upsetting. (4) “Misfear” has led to numerous attempts to regulate the internet “to control sexual predators” rather than fund programs to help vulnerable youth. Statistically such sexual victimization is more likely to occur through school or church participation than through the internet.  One expert decries the blooming of this “misfear” into a general distrust of adult strangers which can blunt “the teenager’s exploration and learning of the world.”

Examples of past “misfears” include – (5)
Elevator Sickness (1892): Scientific American reported that the new 600 feet per minute elevators (that made skyscrapers possible)  could cause “dizziness, irregular sleep, a constant desire to void, and motion sickness” through the herky-jerky motion of internal organs. The elevator was also feared as a spreader of contagious disease through shared conveyances, the originator of the concept of claustrophobia, and  a source of psychological stress about new kinds of “stranger etiquette”. (6)

Bicycle Face (1890): “Nearly all bicyclists have an expression either anxious, irritable, or at best stony… due to the nervous strain of balancing on two wheels.” Now “joggers face” is something I can believe in. I have never seen a jogger with a smile on their face.

Television Neck and Legs (1950): ‘ Viewing your favorite shows too intently could permanently limit the range of motion of your head.”  The AMA warned teens not to sit too long watching TV lest they develop “lack of flexibility” below the waist. That “misfear” of “lack of flexibility” has been translated by modern statistical research into the real fear of childhood obesity.

Examples of present “misfears” include:
Drinking bottled water: More than half of the parents studied chose bottled water for their children believing it was safer, cleaner, and more convenient than tap water. Several other studies have shown that except for increased convenience, those reasons are not true. Besides noting that the average cost of $23 a month for the bottled water, public health experts decry its use because of its lack of fluoride to improve pediatric oral health. (7)

Lice: The launching of the “Lice Protocol” by schools and day care centers currently rivals the launching of the “Concussion Protocol” and the“Bullying Protocol” in terms of drama and “misfear”-mongering. Lice do not cause any disease, hardly ever cause any symptoms except some mild itching, are spread only by direct contact, but are the subject of wide-spread fears and treatments. Such “misfear”, perhaps bolstered by the yuck factor, has spurred development of $200 per visit home delousing services (NitWits, Lice Aunties, Desperate Lousewives) (8)  The Academy of Pediatrics recommendations state,  “Head lice are the cause of much embarrassment and misunderstanding, many unnecessary days lost from school and work, and millions of dollars spent on remedies. Because of the lack of evidence of efficacy, classroom or school-wide screening should be strongly discouraged. No healthy child should be excluded from or allowed to miss school time because of head lice. “No nit” policies for return to school should be discouraged.” 

Wind Turbine Syndrome: Much too long and complicated a subject for this brief blog. Maybe in the near future, if it turns out to be the result of “infrasound” rather than going the way of elevator sickness.

References:
1. “Misfearing”,NEnglJMed 370;7 Feb. 13, 2014, p.595, Lisa Rosenbaum, MD
2.  “Avoiding the Cost of Needless Fear,” BosGlobe Ma.r 6 2014, pg. K6, Cass Sunstein, Prof. Harvard law School)
3.  “Follow Evidence, Not Gut Feeling, on Sex Offenders”, BosGlobe August 28, 2011, Gareth Cook, p. K9
4. “Parents, Forget the Online Bogeyman”,Bos Globe Mar 9. 2014, pg.K10, David Finkelhor at the Crimes Against Children Research Center.
“Its Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens.”, Danah Boyd, Microsoft Research, in press
5. Bos Globe Feb. 19, 2012, p.K12
6. Bos Globe March 2, 201, p.K1, Leon Neyfakh, Daniel Levinson Wilk, Assoc Prof of History at Fashion Institute of Technology, NY.
7. ArchPediatrAdolesc Med 2011 Jun 6
8. “Cleaning Up With Lice Treatments”,Bos Globe May 27, 2011, p. B5, Jenifer McKim


%d bloggers like this: