skip to Main Content

Online celexa prescription

At online celexa prescription that time, this drug benefit was "carved into" the Medicaid managed care benefit package. Before that date, people enrolled in a Medicaid managed care plan obtained all of their health care through the plan, but used their regular Medicaid card to access any drug available on the state formulary on a "fee for service" basis without needing to utilize a restricted pharmacy network or comply with managed care plan rules. COMING IN April 2021 - In the NYS Budget enacted in April 2020, the pharmacy benefit was "carved out" of "mainstream" Medicaid managed care plans.

That means that members of managed care plans will online celexa prescription access their drugs outside their plan, unlike the rest of their medical care, which is accessed from in-network providers. How Prescription Drugs are Obtained through Managed Care plans No - Until April 2020 HOW DO MANAGED CARE PLANS DEFINE THE PHARMACY BENEFIT FOR CONSUMERS?. The Medicaid pharmacy benefit includes all FDA approved prescription drugs, as well as some over-the-counter drugs and medical supplies.

Under Medicaid managed online celexa prescription care. Plan formularies will be comparable to but not the same as the Medicaid formulary. Managed care plans are required to have drug formularies that are “comparable” to the Medicaid fee for service formulary.

Plan formularies do not have to include all drugs online celexa prescription covered listed on the fee for service formulary, but they must include generic or therapeutic equivalents of all Medicaid covered drugs. The Pharmacy Benefit will vary by plan. Each plan will have its own formulary and drug coverage policies like prior authorization and step therapy.

Pharmacy networks online celexa prescription can also differ from plan to plan. Prescriber Prevails applies in certain drug classes. Prescriber prevails applys to medically necessary precription drugs in the following classes.

atypical antipsychotics, anti-depressants, online celexa prescription anti-retrovirals, anti-rejection, seizure, epilepsy, endocrine, hemotologic and immunologic therapeutics. Prescribers will need to demonstrate reasonable profession judgment and supply plans witht requested information and/or clinical documentation. Pharmacy Benefit Information Website -- http://mmcdruginformation.nysdoh.suny.edu/-- This website provides very helpful information on a plan by plan basis regarding pharmacy networks and drug formularies.

The Department of Health plans to online celexa prescription build capacity for interactive searches allowing for comparison of coverage across plans in the near future. Standardized Prior Autorization (PA) Form -- The Department of Health worked with managed care plans, provider organizations and other state agencies to develop a standard prior authorization form for the pharmacy benefit in Medicaid managed care. The form will be posted on the Pharmacy Information Website in July of 2013.

Mail Order online celexa prescription Drugs -- Medicaid managed care members can obtain mail order/specialty drugs at any retail network pharmacy, as long as that retail network pharmacy agrees to a price that is comparable to the mail order/specialty pharmacy price. CAN CONSUMERS SWITCH PLANS IN ORDER TO GAIN ACCESS TO DRUGS?. Changing plans is often an effective strategy for consumers eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare (dual eligibles) who receive their pharmacy service through Medicare Part D, because dual eligibles are allowed to switch plans at any time.

Medicaid consumers will have this option only online celexa prescription in the limited circumstances during the first year of enrollment in managed care. Medicaid managed care enrollees can only leave and join another plan within the first 90 days of joining a health plan. After the 90 days has expired, enrollees are “locked in” to the plan for the rest of the year.

Consumers can switch online celexa prescription plans during the “lock in” period only for good cause. The pharmacy benefit changes are not considered good cause. After the first 12 months of enrollment, Medicaid managed care enrollees can switch plans at any time.

STEPS CONSUMERS CAN TAKE WHEN A MANAGED CARE PLAM DENIES ACCESS TO A NECESSARY DRUG As online celexa prescription a first step, consumers should try to work with their providers to satisfy plan requirements for prior authorization or step therapy or any other utilization control requirements. If the plan still denies access, consumers can pursue review processes specific to managed care while at the same time pursuing a fair hearing. All plans are required to maintain an internal and external review process for complaints and appeals of service denials.

Some plans may develop special procedures for online celexa prescription drug denials. Information on these procedures should be provided in member handbooks. Beginning April 1, 2018, Medicaid managed care enrollees whose plan denies prior approval of a prescription drug, or discontinues a drug that had been approved, will receive an Initial Adverse Determination notice from the plan - See Model Denial IAD Notice and IAD Notice to Reduce, Suspend or Stop Services The enrollee must first request an internal Plan Appeal and wait for the Plan's decision.

An adverse decision is called a 'FInal Adverse online celexa prescription Determination" or FAD. See model Denial FAD Notice and FAD Notice to Reduce, Suspend or Stop Services. The enroll has the right to request a fair hearing to appeal an FAD.

The enrollee may only request a fair hearing BEFORE receiving the FAD if online celexa prescription the plan fails to send the FAD in the required time limit, which is 30 calendar days in standard appeals, and 72 hours in expedited appeals. The plan may extend the time to decide both standard and expedited appeals by up to 14 days if more information is needed and it is in the enrollee's interest. AID CONTINUING -- If an enrollee requests a Plan Appeal and then a fair hearing because access to a drug has been reduced or terminated, the enrollee has the right to aid continuing (continued access to the drug in question) while waiting for the Plan Appeal and then the fair hearing.

The enrollee online celexa prescription must request the Plan Appeal and then the Fair Hearing before the effective date of the IAD and FAD notices, which is a very short time - only 10 days including mailing time. See more about the changes in Managed Care appeals here. Even though that article is focused on Managed Long Term Care, the new appeals requirements also apply to Mainstream Medicaid managed care.

Enrollees who are in the first 90 days of enrollment, or past the first 12 months of enrollment also have the option of switching plans to improve access to their medications online celexa prescription. Consumers who experience problems with access to prescription drugs should always file a complaint with the State Department of Health’s Managed Care Hotline, number listed below. ACCESSING MEDICAID'S PHARMACY BENEFIT IN FEE FOR SERVICE MEDICAID For those Medicaid recipients who are not yet in a Medicaid Managed Care program, and who do not have Medicare Part D, the Medicaid Pharmacy program covers most of their prescription drugs and select non-prescription drugs and medical supplies for Family Health Plus enrollees.

Certain drugs/drug categories require the prescribers online celexa prescription to obtain prior authorization. These include brand name drugs that have a generic alternative under New York's mandatory generic drug program or prescribed drugs that are not on New York's preferred drug list. The full Medicaid formulary can be searched on the eMedNY website.

Even in fee for service Medicaid, prescribers must obtain online celexa prescription prior authorization before prescribing non-preferred drugs unless otherwise indicated. Prior authorization is required for original prescriptions, not refills. A prior authorization is effective for the original dispensing and up to five refills of that prescription within the next six months.

Click here online celexa prescription for more information on NY's prior authorization process. The New York State Board of Pharmacy publishes an annual list of the 150 most frequently prescribed drugs, in the most common quantities. The State Department of Health collects retail price information on these drugs from pharmacies that participate in the Medicaid program.

Click here to search for online celexa prescription a specific drug from the most frequently prescribed drug list and this site can also provide you with the locations of pharmacies that provide this drug as well as their costs. Click here to view New York State Medicaid’s Pharmacy Provider Manual. WHO YOU CAN CALL FOR HELP Community Health Advocates Hotline.

1-888-614-5400 NY State online celexa prescription Department of Health's Managed Care Hotline. 1-800-206-8125 (Mon. - Fri.

8:30 am - online celexa prescription 4:30 pm) NY State Department of Insurance. 1-800-400-8882 NY State Attorney General's Health Care Bureau. 1-800-771-7755Haitian individuals and immigrants from some other countries who have applied for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) may be eligible for public health insurance in New York State.

2019 updates - The Trump online celexa prescription administration has taken steps to end TPS status. Two courts have temporarily enjoined the termination of TPS, one in New York State in April 2019 and one in California in October 2018. The California case was argued in an appeals court on August 14, 2019, which the LA Times reported looked likely to uphold the federal action ending TPS.

See US Immigration Website on TPS - General online celexa prescription TPS website with links to status in all countries, including HAITI. See also Pew Research March 2019 article. Courts Block Changes in Public charge rule- See updates on the Public Charge rule here, blocked by federal court injunctions in October 2019.

Read more about this change in public online celexa prescription charge rules here. What is Temporary Protected Status?. TPS is a temporary immigration status granted to eligible individuals of a certain country designated by the Department of Homeland Security because serious temporary conditions in that country, such as armed conflict or environmental disaster, prevents people from that country to return safely.

On January 21, 2010 the United States determined that online celexa prescription individuals from Haiti warranted TPS because of the devastating earthquake that occurred there on January 12. TPS gives undocumented Haitian residents, who were living in the U.S. On January 12, 2010, protection from forcible deportation and allows them to work legally.

It is important to note that online celexa prescription the U.S. Grants TPS to individuals from other countries, as well, including individuals from El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Somalia and Sudan. TPS and Public Health Insurance TPS applicants residing in New York are eligible for Medicaid and Family Health Plus as long as they also meet the income requirements for these programs.

In New York, applicants for TPS are considered PRUCOL immigrants (Permanently Residing Under Color of Law) for purposes of medical assistance eligibility and thus meet the immigration status requirements for Medicaid, Family Health Plus, and the Family Planning Benefit Program online celexa prescription. Nearly all children in New York remain eligible for Child Health Plus including TPS applicants and children who lack immigration status. For more information on immigrant eligibility for public health insurance in New York see 08 GIS MA/009 and the attached chart.

Where to Apply What to BringIndividuals who have applied for TPS will need to bring several documents to prove their eligibility online celexa prescription for public health insurance. Individuals will need to bring. 1) Proof of identity.

2) Proof of residence in New online celexa prescription York. 3) Proof of income. 4) Proof of application for TPS.

5) Proof that U.S online celexa prescription. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has received the application for TPS. Free Communication Assistance All applicants for public health insurance, including Haitian Creole speakers, have a right to get help in a language they can understand.

All Medicaid online celexa prescription offices and enrollers are required to offer free translation and interpretation services to anyone who cannot communicate effectively in English. A bilingual worker or an interpreter, whether in-person or over the telephone, must be provided in all interactions with the office. Important documents, such as Medicaid applications, should be translated either orally or in writing.

Interpreter services must be offered free of charge, and applicants requiring interpreter services must not be made to wait unreasonably longer than English speaking applicants. An applicant must never be asked to bring their own interpreter. Related Resources on TPS and Public Health Insurance o The New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC) has compiled a list of agencies, law firms, and law schools responding to the tragedy in Haiti and the designation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status.

A copy of the list is posted at the NYIC’s website at http://www.thenyic.org. o USCIS TPS website with links to status in all countries, including HAITI. O For information on eligibility for public health insurance programs call The Legal Aid Society’s Benefits Hotline 1-888-663-6880 Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

9:30 am - 12:30 pm FOR IMMIGRATION HELP. CONTACT THE New York State New Americans Hotline for a referral to an organization to advise you. 212-419-3737 Monday-Friday, from 9:00 a.m.

To 8:00 p.m.Saturday-Sunday, from 9:00 a.m. To 5:00 p.m. Or call toll-free in New York State at 1-800-566-7636 Please see these fact sheets and web sites of national organizations for more information about the new PUBLIC CHARGE rules.

Ashwagandha and celexa

Celexa
Paxil cr
Seroquel
Risperdal
Prescription is needed
20mg 30 tablet $49.95
12.5mg 60 tablet $135.60
300mg 90 tablet $329.99
2mg 120 tablet $74.99
Online price
RX pharmacy
At walgreens
Pharmacy
Canadian Pharmacy
Buy with visa
Online
No
Online
Online
Buy with Bitcoin
20mg 30 tablet $49.95
25mg 180 tablet $420.00
300mg 90 tablet $329.99
4mg 120 tablet $95.99
Can you overdose
Nearby pharmacy
Drugstore on the corner
On the market
On the market
Brand
No
No
No
Yes

Protecting the safety and health of ashwagandha and celexa essential workers who support America’s food security—including the meat, poultry, and pork processing industries—is a top priority for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued additional guidance to reduce the risk of exposure to the coronavirus and keep workers safe and healthy in the meatpacking and meat processing industries —including those involved in beef, pork, and poultry operations. This new guidance provides ashwagandha and celexa specific recommendations for employers to meet their obligations to protect workers in these facilities, where people normally work closely together and share workspaces and equipment.

Here are eight ways to help minimize meat processing workers’ exposure to the coronavirus. Screen workers before they enter the workplace. If a worker becomes sick, send them home and disinfect their workstation and any tools they ashwagandha and celexa used.

Move workstations farther apart. Install partitions between workstations using strip curtains, plexiglass, or similar materials. To limit spread between groups, assign the same workers to the same shifts with ashwagandha and celexa the same coworkers.

Prevent workers from using other workers’ equipment. Allow workers to wear face coverings when entering, inside, and exiting the facility. Encourage workers to report any safety and health concerns to their supervisors ashwagandha and celexa.

OSHA is committed to ensuring that workers and employers in essential industries have clear guidance to keep workers safe and healthy from the coronavirus—including guidance for essential workers in construction, manufacturing, package delivery, and retail. Workers and employers who have questions or concerns about workplace safety can contact OSHA online or by phone at 1-800-321-6742 (OSHA). You can ashwagandha and celexa find additional resources and learn more about OSHA’s response to the coronavirus at www.osha.gov/coronavirus.

Loren Sweatt is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupation Safety and Health Administration Editor’s Note. It is ashwagandha and celexa important to note that information and guidance about COVID-19 continually evolve as conditions change.

Workers and employers are encouraged to regularly refer to the resources below for updates:The sixth annual National Apprenticeship Week (NAW) is Nov. 8-14. It’s a great time to learn more about the benefits of apprenticeship, ashwagandha and celexa or to get the word out about your program!.

Join the U.S. Department of Labor and representatives from business, labor, education and more virtually and in-person with socially distanced events. If you’re planning to host an event during NAW, here are ashwagandha and celexa some resources you should know about.

Start with our event planning toolkit. Need more inspiration?. See last year's NAW report for ideas ashwagandha and celexa.

Find tips in our promotion toolkit on how to spread the word. Download customizable print materials, including flyers and fact sheets. Register your event so we can include it on our ashwagandha and celexa map.

If you’re interested in learning more about apprenticeship, explore our interactive map to find a NAW event near you. You can also visit Apprenticeship.gov for answers to common questions. No matter what industry you’re in, or what career you have in mind, apprenticeship can work for you.

Share your NAW activities on social media this November using the hashtag #NAW2020. To learn more about National Apprenticeship Week 2020 and explore all NAW events, visit Apprenticeship.gov/NAW..

Protecting the safety and health of essential workers who online celexa prescription support America’s food security—including the meat, poultry, and pork processing industries—is a top priority for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued additional guidance to reduce the risk of exposure to the coronavirus and keep workers safe and healthy in the meatpacking and meat processing industries —including those involved in beef, pork, and poultry operations. This new guidance provides specific recommendations for employers to meet their obligations to protect workers in these facilities, where people normally work closely together online celexa prescription and share workspaces and equipment. Here are eight ways to help minimize meat processing workers’ exposure to the coronavirus. Screen workers before they enter the workplace.

If a worker becomes sick, send them home and disinfect online celexa prescription their workstation and any tools they used. Move workstations farther apart. Install partitions between workstations using strip curtains, plexiglass, or similar materials. To limit online celexa prescription spread between groups, assign the same workers to the same shifts with the same coworkers. Prevent workers from using other workers’ equipment.

Allow workers to wear face coverings when entering, inside, and exiting the facility. Encourage workers to report online celexa prescription any safety and health concerns to their supervisors. OSHA is committed to ensuring that workers and employers in essential industries have clear guidance to keep workers safe and healthy from the coronavirus—including guidance for essential workers in construction, manufacturing, package delivery, and retail. Workers and employers who have questions or concerns about workplace safety can contact OSHA online or by phone at 1-800-321-6742 (OSHA). You can online celexa prescription find additional resources and learn more about OSHA’s response to the coronavirus at www.osha.gov/coronavirus.

Loren Sweatt is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupation Safety and Health Administration Editor’s Note. It is important online celexa prescription to note that information and guidance about COVID-19 continually evolve as conditions change. Workers and employers are encouraged to regularly refer to the resources below for updates:The sixth annual National Apprenticeship Week (NAW) is Nov. 8-14.

It’s a great time to learn more about the benefits of apprenticeship, or to get the online celexa prescription word out about your program!. Join the U.S. Department of Labor and representatives from business, labor, education and more virtually and in-person with socially distanced events. If you’re planning to host online celexa prescription an event during NAW, here are some resources you should know about. Start with our event planning toolkit.

Need more inspiration?. See last year's NAW report for online celexa prescription ideas. Find tips in our promotion toolkit on how to spread the word. Download customizable print materials, including flyers and fact sheets. Register your event so we can include it on online celexa prescription our map.

If you’re interested in learning more about apprenticeship, explore our interactive map to find a NAW event near you. You can also visit Apprenticeship.gov for answers to common questions. No matter what online celexa prescription industry you’re in, or what career you have in mind, apprenticeship can work for you. Share your NAW activities on social media this November using the hashtag #NAW2020. To learn more about National Apprenticeship Week 2020 and explore all NAW events, visit Apprenticeship.gov/NAW..

What should I tell my health care provider before I take Celexa?

They need to know if you have any of these conditions:

  • bipolar disorder or a family history of bipolar disorder
  • diabetes
  • heart disease
  • kidney or liver disease
  • receiving electroconvulsive therapy
  • seizures (convulsions)
  • suicidal thoughts or a previous suicide attempt
  • an unusual or allergic reaction to citalopram, escitalopram, other medicines, foods, dyes, or preservatives
  • pregnant or trying to become pregnant
  • breast-feeding

Celexa uses other than depression

All of the attachments with the various levels are posted here celexa uses other than depression. NEED TO KNOW PAST MEDICAID INCOME AND RESOURCE LEVELS?. Which household size applies?.

The celexa uses other than depression rules are complicated. See rules here. On the HRA Medicaid Levels chart - Boxes 1 and 2 are NON-MAGI Income and Resource levels -- Age 65+, Blind or Disabled and other adults who need to use "spend-down" because they are over the MAGI income levels.

Box 10 on page 3 are the MAGI income levels -- The Affordable Care Act changed the rules for Medicaid income eligibility celexa uses other than depression for many BUT NOT ALL New Yorkers. People in the "MAGI" category - those NOT on Medicare -- have expanded eligibility up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Line, so may now qualify for Medicaid even if they were not eligible before, or may now be eligible for Medicaid without a "spend-down." They have NO resource limit. Box 3 on page 1 is Spousal Impoverishment levels for Managed Long Term Care &.

Nursing Homes and Box 8 has the Transfer Penalty rates for nursing home eligibility Box 4 has Medicaid Buy-In for Working People with Disabilities Under Age 65 (still 2017 levels til April 2018) Box 6 are Medicare Savings Program levels (will be updated in April 2018) MAGI INCOME LEVEL of 138% FPL applies to most adults who are celexa uses other than depression not disabled and who do not have Medicare, AND can also apply to adults with Medicare if they have a dependent child/relative under age 18 or under 19 if in school. 42 C.F.R. § 435.4.

Certain populations have an even higher income limit - 224% FPL for celexa uses other than depression pregnant women and babies <. Age 1, 154% FPL for children age 1 - 19. CAUTION.

What is counted as income may not be what celexa uses other than depression you think. For the NON-MAGI Disabled/Aged 65+/Blind, income will still be determined by the same rules as before, explained in this outline and these charts on income disregards. However, for the MAGI population - which is virtually everyone under age 65 who is not on Medicare - their income will now be determined under new rules, based on federal income tax concepts - called "Modifed Adjusted Gross Income" (MAGI).

There are good changes and bad celexa uses other than depression changes. GOOD. Veteran's benefits, Workers compensation, and gifts from family or others no longer count as income.

BAD celexa uses other than depression. There is no more "spousal" or parental refusal for this population (but there still is for the Disabled/Aged/Blind.) and some other rules. For all of the rules see.

ALSO SEE 2018 Manual on Lump Sums and Impact on Public Benefits - with resource rules The income limits increase with the "household size." In other words, the income limit for a family of 5 may be higher than the celexa uses other than depression income limit for a single person. HOWEVER, Medicaid rules about how to calculate the household size are not intuitive or even logical. There are different rules depending on the "category" of the person seeking Medicaid.

Here are the 2 basic categories and the rules for calculating their household size celexa uses other than depression. People who are Disabled, Aged 65+ or Blind - "DAB" or "SSI-Related" Category -- NON-MAGI - See this chart for their household size. These same rules apply to the Medicare Savings Program, with some exceptions explained in this article.

Everyone else -- MAGI - All children and adults under age 65, including people with disabilities who are not yet on celexa uses other than depression Medicare -- this is the new "MAGI" population. Their household size will be determined using federal income tax rules, which are very complicated. New rule is explained in State's directive 13 ADM-03 - Medicaid Eligibility Changes under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 (PDF) pp.

8-10 of the PDF, This PowerPoint by NYLAG on MAGI Budgeting attempts to explain the new MAGI budgeting, including how to determine the Household Size celexa uses other than depression. See slides 28-49. Also seeLegal Aid Society and Empire Justice Center materials OLD RULE used until end of 2013 -- Count the person(s) applying for Medicaid who live together, plus any of their legally responsible relatives who do not receive SNA, ADC, or SSI and reside with an applicant/recipient.

Spouses or legally responsible for one another, and parents are legally responsible for their children under age 21 (though if the child is celexa uses other than depression disabled, use the rule in the 1st "DAB" category. Under this rule, a child may be excluded from the household if that child's income causes other family members to lose Medicaid eligibility. See 18 NYCRR 360-4.2, MRG p.

573, NYS GIS 2000 MA-007 celexa uses other than depression CAUTION. Different people in the same household may be in different "categories" and hence have different household sizes AND Medicaid income and resource limits. If a man is age 67 and has Medicare and his wife is age 62 and not disabled or blind, the husband's household size for Medicaid is determined under Category 1/ Non-MAGI above and his wife's is under Category 2/MAGI.

The following programs were available prior celexa uses other than depression to 2014, but are now discontinued because they are folded into MAGI Medicaid. Prenatal Care Assistance Program (PCAP) was Medicaid for pregnant women and children under age 19, with higher income limits for pregnant woman and infants under one year (200% FPL for pregnant women receiving perinatal coverage only not full Medicaid) than for children ages 1-18 (133% FPL). Medicaid for adults between ages 21-65 who are not disabled and without children under 21 in the household.

It was sometimes known as "S/CC" category for Singles and Childless celexa uses other than depression Couples. This category had lower income limits than DAB/ADC-related, but had no asset limits. It did not allow "spend down" of excess income.

This category has now been subsumed under the new MAGI adult group whose limit celexa uses other than depression is now raised to 138% FPL. Family Health Plus - this was an expansion of Medicaid to families with income up to 150% FPL and for childless adults up to 100% FPL. This has now been folded into the new MAGI adult group whose limit is 138% FPL.

For applicants between celexa uses other than depression 138%-150% FPL, they will be eligible for a new program where Medicaid will subsidize their purchase of Qualified Health Plans on the Exchange. PAST INCOME &. RESOURCE LEVELS -- Past Medicaid income and resource levels in NYS are shown on these oldNYC HRA charts for 2001 through 2019, in chronological order.

These include Medicaid levels for MAGI and non-MAGI populations, Child Health celexa uses other than depression Plus, MBI-WPD, Medicare Savings Programs and other public health programs in NYS. This article was authored by the Evelyn Frank Legal Resources Program of New York Legal Assistance Group.A huge barrier to people returning to the community from nursing homes is the high cost of housing. One way New York State is trying to address that barrier is with the Special Housing Disregard that allows certain members of Managed Long Term Care or FIDA plans to keep more of their income to pay for rent or other shelter costs, rather than having to "spend down" their "excess income" or spend-down on the cost of Medicaid home care.

The special income standard for housing expenses helps pay for housing expenses to celexa uses other than depression help certain nursing home or adult home residents to safely transition back to the community with MLTC. Originally it was just for former nursing home residents but in 2014 it was expanded to include people who lived in adult homes. GIS 14/MA-017 Since you are allowed to keep more of your income, you may no longer need to use a pooled trust.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS - FACT SHEET on THREE ways to Reduce Spend-down, including this celexa uses other than depression Special Income Standard. September 2018 NEWS -- Those already enrolled in MLTC plans before they are admitted to a nursing home or adult home may obtain this budgeting upon discharge, if they meet the other criteria below. "How nursing home administrators, adult home operators and MLTC plans should identify individuals who are eligible for the special income standard" and explains their duties to identify eligible individuals, and the MLTC plan must notify the local DSS that the individual may qualify.

"Nursing home administrators, nursing home discharge planning staff, adult home operators and celexa uses other than depression MLTC health plans are encouraged to identify individuals who may qualify for the special income standard, if they can be safely discharged back to the community from a nursing home and enroll in, or remain enrolled in, an MLTC plan. Once an individual has been accepted into an MLTC plan, the MLTC plan must notify the individual's local district of social services that the transition has occurred and that the individual may qualify for the special income standard. The special income standard will be effective upon enrollment into the MLTC plan, or, for nursing home residents already enrolled in an MLTC plan, the month of discharge to the community.

Questions regarding the celexa uses other than depression special income standard may be directed to DOH at 518-474-8887. Who is eligible for this special income standard?. must be age 18+, must have been in a nursing home or an adult home for 30 days or more, must have had Medicaid pay toward the nursing home care, and must enroll in or REMAIN ENROLLED IN a Managed Long Term Care (MLTC) plan or FIDA plan upon leaving the nursing home or adult home must have a housing expense if married, spouse may not receive a "spousal impoverishment" allowance once the individual is enrolled in MLTC.

How much celexa uses other than depression is the allowance?. The rates vary by region and change yearly. Region Counties Deduction (2020) Central Broome, Cayuga, Chenango, Cortland, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, St.

Lawrence, Tioga, Tompkins $436 Long Island Nassau, Suffolk $1,361 NYC Bronx, Kings, Manhattan, Queens, Richmond $1,451 (up from 1,300 in 2019) Northeastern Albany, Clinton, Columbia, Delaware, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, Montgomery, Otsego, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Warren, Washington $483 North Metropolitan Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, Ulster, Westchester $930 Rochester Chemung, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Yates $444 Western Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, Genesee, Niagara, Orleans, Wyoming $386 Past rates published as follows, available on DOH website 2020 rates published in Attachment I to GIS 19 MA/12 – 2020 Medicaid Levels and Other Updates 2019 rates published in Attachment 1 to GIS 18/MA015 - 2019 Medicaid Levels and Other Updates 2018 rates published in GIS 17 MA/020 - 2018 Medicaid Levels and Other Updates celexa uses other than depression. The guidance on how the standardized amount of the disregard is calculated is found in NYS DOH 12- ADM-05. 2017 rate -- GIS 16 MA/018 - 2016 Medicaid Only Income and Resource Levels and Spousal Impoverishment Standards Attachment 12016 rate -- GIS 15-MA/0212015 rate -- Were not posted by DOH but were updated in WMS.

2015 Central $382 Long Island $1,147 NYC $1,001 celexa uses other than depression Northeastern $440 N. Metropolitan $791 Rochester $388 Western $336 2014 rate -- GIS-14-MA/017 HOW DOES IT WORK?. Here is a sample budget for a single person in NYC with Social Security income of $2,386/month paying a Medigap premium of $261/mo.

Gross monthly income $2,575.50 DEDUCT celexa uses other than depression Health insurance premiums (Medicare Part B) - 135.50 (Medigap) - 261.00 DEDUCT Unearned income disregard - 20 DEDUCT Shelter deduction (NYC—2019) - 1,300 DEDUCT Income limit for single (2019) - 859 Excess income or Spend-down $0 WITH NO SPEND-DOWN, May NOT NEED POOLED TRUST!. HOW TO OBTAIN THE HOUSING DISREGARD. When you are ready to leave the nursing home or adult home, or soon after you leave, you or your MLTC plan must request that your local Medicaid program change your Medicaid budget to give you the Housing Disregard.

See September 2018 NYS DOH Medicaid Update that requires MLTC plan to help you ask for it. The procedures in NYC are explained in this Troubleshooting guide. NYC Medicaid program prefers that your MLTC plan file the request, using Form MAP-3057E - Special income housing Expenses NH-MLTC.pdf and Form MAP-3047B - MLTC/NHED Cover Sheet Form MAP-259f (revised 7-31-18)(page 7 of PDF)(DIscharge Notice) - NH must file with HRA upon discharge, certifying resident was informed of availability of this disregard.

GOVERNMENT DIRECTIVES (beginning with oldest). NYS DOH 12- ADM-05 - Special Income Standard for Housing Expenses for Individuals Discharged from a Nursing Facility who Enroll into the Managed Long Term Care (MLTC) Program Attachment II - OHIP-0057 - Notice of Intent to Change Medicaid Coverage, (Recipient Discharged from a Skilled Nursing Facility and Enrolled in a Managed Long Term Care Plan) Attachment III - Attachment III – OHIP-0058 - Notice of Intent to Change Medicaid Coverage, (Recipient Disenrolled from a Managed Long Term Care Plan, No Special Income Standard) MLTC Policy 13.02. MLTC Housing Disregard NYC HRA Medicaid Alert Special Income Standard for housing expenses NH-MLTC 2-9-2013.pdf 2018-07-28 HRA MICSA ALERT Special Income Standard for Housing Expenses for Individuals Discharged from a Nursing Facility and who Enroll into the MLTC Program - update on previous policy.

References Form MAP-259f (revised 7-31-18)(page 7 of PDF)(Discharge Notice) - NH must file with HRA upon discharge, certifying resident was informed of availability of this disregard. GIS 18 MA/012 - Special Income Standard for Housing Expenses for Certain Managed Long-Term Care Enrollees Who are Discharged from a Nursing Home issued Sept. 28, 2018 - this finally implements the most recent Special Terms &.

Conditions of the CMS 1115 Waiver that governs the MLTC program, dated Jan. 19, 2017. The section on this income standard is at pages 26-27.

In these revised ST&C, this special income standard applies to people who were in a NH or adult home paid by Medicaid and "who enroll into or remain enrolled in the MLTC program in order to receive community based long term services and supports" and to those in a NH who were required to enroll into MLTC because of "...the mandatory Nursing Facility transition, and subsequently able to be discharged to the community from the nursing facility, with the services of MLTC program in place." September 2018 DOH Medicaid Update - explains this benefit to medical providers (nursing homes, MLTC plans, home care agencies, adult home operators, and requires them to identify potential individuals who could benefit and help them apply - described here..

NYS announced the 2020 Income and Resource levels in GIS 19 MA/12 – 2020 Medicaid online celexa prescription Levels and Other Updates ) and levels based on the Federal Poverty Level are in GIS 20 MA/02 – 2020 Federal Poverty Levels Here is the 2020 HRA Income and Resources Level Chart Non-MAGI - 2020 Disabled, 65+ or Blind ("DAB" or SSI-Related) and have Medicare MAGI (2020) (<. 65, Does not have Medicare)(OR has Medicare and has dependent child <. 18 or <. 19 in school) 138% FPL*** Children < online celexa prescription.

5 and pregnant women have HIGHER LIMITS than shown ESSENTIAL PLAN For MAGI-eligible people over MAGI income limit up to 200% FPL No long term care. See info here 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 Income $875 (up from $859 in 201) $1284 (up from $1,267 in 2019) $1,468 $1,983 $2,498 $2,127 $2,873 Resources $15,750 (up from $15,450 in 2019) $23,100 (up from $22,800 in 2019) NO LIMIT** NO LIMIT SOURCE for 2019 figures is GIS 18 MA/015 - 2019 Medicaid Levels and Other Updates (PDF). All of the attachments online celexa prescription with the various levels are posted here. NEED TO KNOW PAST MEDICAID INCOME AND RESOURCE LEVELS?.

Which household size applies?. The rules online celexa prescription are complicated. See rules here. On the HRA Medicaid Levels chart - Boxes 1 and 2 are NON-MAGI Income and Resource levels -- Age 65+, Blind or Disabled and other adults who need to use "spend-down" because they are over the MAGI income levels.

Box 10 on page 3 online celexa prescription are the MAGI income levels -- The Affordable Care Act changed the rules for Medicaid income eligibility for many BUT NOT ALL New Yorkers. People in the "MAGI" category - those NOT on Medicare -- have expanded eligibility up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Line, so may now qualify for Medicaid even if they were not eligible before, or may now be eligible for Medicaid without a "spend-down." They have NO resource limit. Box 3 on page 1 is Spousal Impoverishment levels for Managed Long Term Care &. Nursing Homes and Box 8 has the Transfer Penalty rates for nursing home eligibility Box 4 has Medicaid Buy-In for Working People with Disabilities Under Age 65 (still 2017 levels online celexa prescription til April 2018) Box 6 are Medicare Savings Program levels (will be updated in April 2018) MAGI INCOME LEVEL of 138% FPL applies to most adults who are not disabled and who do not have Medicare, AND can also apply to adults with Medicare if they have a dependent child/relative under age 18 or under 19 if in school.

42 C.F.R. § 435.4. Certain populations have an even higher income limit - online celexa prescription 224% FPL for pregnant women and babies <. Age 1, 154% FPL for children age 1 - 19.

CAUTION. What is counted as income may not be what online celexa prescription you think. For the NON-MAGI Disabled/Aged 65+/Blind, income will still be determined by the same rules as before, explained in this outline and these charts on income disregards. However, for the MAGI population - which is virtually everyone under age 65 who is not on Medicare - their income will now be determined under new rules, based on federal income tax concepts - called "Modifed Adjusted Gross Income" (MAGI).

There are good changes and bad online celexa prescription changes. GOOD. Veteran's benefits, Workers compensation, and gifts from family or others no longer count as income. BAD online celexa prescription.

There is no more "spousal" or parental refusal for this population (but there still is for the Disabled/Aged/Blind.) and some other rules. For all of the rules see. ALSO SEE 2018 Manual on Lump Sums and Impact on Public Benefits - with resource rules The income limits increase with the "household size." In other words, the income limit for a family of 5 may be online celexa prescription higher than the income limit for a single person. HOWEVER, Medicaid rules about how to calculate the household size are not intuitive or even logical.

There are different rules depending on the "category" of the person seeking Medicaid. Here are the 2 basic categories and the rules for online celexa prescription calculating their household size. People who are Disabled, Aged 65+ or Blind - "DAB" or "SSI-Related" Category -- NON-MAGI - See this chart for their household size. These same rules apply to the Medicare Savings Program, with some exceptions explained in this article.

Everyone else -- MAGI online celexa prescription - All children and adults under age 65, including people with disabilities who are not yet on Medicare -- this is the new "MAGI" population. Their household size will be determined using federal income tax rules, which are very complicated. New rule is explained in State's directive 13 ADM-03 - Medicaid Eligibility Changes under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 (PDF) pp. 8-10 of online celexa prescription the PDF, This PowerPoint by NYLAG on MAGI Budgeting attempts to explain the new MAGI budgeting, including how to determine the Household Size.

See slides 28-49. Also seeLegal Aid Society and Empire Justice Center materials OLD RULE used until end of 2013 -- Count the person(s) applying for Medicaid who live together, plus any of their legally responsible relatives who do not receive SNA, ADC, or SSI and reside with an applicant/recipient. Spouses or legally online celexa prescription responsible for one another, and parents are legally responsible for their children under age 21 (though if the child is disabled, use the rule in the 1st "DAB" category. Under this rule, a child may be excluded from the household if that child's income causes other family members to lose Medicaid eligibility.

See 18 NYCRR 360-4.2, MRG p. 573, NYS GIS 2000 MA-007 online celexa prescription CAUTION. Different people in the same household may be in different "categories" and hence have different household sizes AND Medicaid income and resource limits. If a man is age 67 and has Medicare and his wife is age 62 and not disabled or blind, the husband's household size for Medicaid is determined under Category 1/ Non-MAGI above and his wife's is under Category 2/MAGI.

The following programs were available prior to 2014, but are now discontinued because they are folded into online celexa prescription MAGI Medicaid. Prenatal Care Assistance Program (PCAP) was Medicaid for pregnant women and children under age 19, with higher income limits for pregnant woman and infants under one year (200% FPL for pregnant women receiving perinatal coverage only not full Medicaid) than for children ages 1-18 (133% FPL). Medicaid for adults between ages 21-65 who are not disabled and without children under 21 in the household. It was sometimes known as "S/CC" online celexa prescription category for Singles and Childless Couples.

This category had lower income limits than DAB/ADC-related, but had no asset limits. It did not allow "spend down" of excess income. This category has now been subsumed under the new MAGI adult group whose limit is now raised to 138% online celexa prescription FPL. Family Health Plus - this was an expansion of Medicaid to families with income up to 150% FPL and for childless adults up to 100% FPL.

This has now been folded into the new MAGI adult group whose limit is 138% FPL. For applicants between 138%-150% FPL, they will be eligible for a new program where Medicaid will subsidize their purchase online celexa prescription of Qualified Health Plans on the Exchange. PAST INCOME &. RESOURCE LEVELS -- Past Medicaid income and resource levels in NYS are shown on these oldNYC HRA charts for 2001 through 2019, in chronological order.

These include Medicaid levels for MAGI and non-MAGI populations, Child online celexa prescription Health Plus, MBI-WPD, Medicare Savings Programs and other public health programs in NYS. This article was authored by the Evelyn Frank Legal Resources Program of New York Legal Assistance Group.A huge barrier to people returning to the community from nursing homes is the high cost of housing. One way New York State is trying to address that barrier is with the Special Housing Disregard that allows certain members of Managed Long Term Care or FIDA plans to keep more of their income to pay for rent or other shelter costs, rather than having to "spend down" their "excess income" or spend-down on the cost of Medicaid home care. The special income standard for housing expenses helps pay for housing expenses to help certain nursing home or adult home residents to safely transition back to online celexa prescription the community with MLTC.

Originally it was just for former nursing home residents but in 2014 it was expanded to include people who lived in adult homes. GIS 14/MA-017 Since you are allowed to keep more of your income, you may no longer need to use a pooled trust. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS - FACT SHEET on THREE ways to Reduce Spend-down, including this Special Income online celexa prescription Standard. September 2018 NEWS -- Those already enrolled in MLTC plans before they are admitted to a nursing home or adult home may obtain this budgeting upon discharge, if they meet the other criteria below.

"How nursing home administrators, adult home operators and MLTC plans should identify individuals who are eligible for the special income standard" and explains their duties to identify eligible individuals, and the MLTC plan must notify the local DSS that the individual may qualify. "Nursing home administrators, nursing home discharge planning staff, adult home operators and MLTC health plans are encouraged to identify individuals online celexa prescription who may qualify for the special income standard, if they can be safely discharged back to the community from a nursing home and enroll in, or remain enrolled in, an MLTC plan. Once an individual has been accepted into an MLTC plan, the MLTC plan must notify the individual's local district of social services that the transition has occurred and that the individual may qualify for the special income standard. The special income standard will be effective upon enrollment into the MLTC plan, or, for nursing home residents already enrolled in an MLTC plan, the month of discharge to the community.

Questions regarding the special income standard online celexa prescription may be directed to DOH at 518-474-8887. Who is eligible for this special income standard?. must be age 18+, must have been in a nursing home or an adult home for 30 days or more, must have had Medicaid pay toward the nursing home care, and must enroll in or REMAIN ENROLLED IN a Managed Long Term Care (MLTC) plan or FIDA plan upon leaving the nursing home or adult home must have a housing expense if married, spouse may not receive a "spousal impoverishment" allowance once the individual is enrolled in MLTC. How much is the online celexa prescription allowance?.

The rates vary by region and change yearly. Region Counties Deduction (2020) Central Broome, Cayuga, Chenango, Cortland, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, St. Lawrence, Tioga, Tompkins $436 Long Island Nassau, Suffolk $1,361 NYC Bronx, Kings, Manhattan, Queens, Richmond $1,451 (up from 1,300 in 2019) Northeastern Albany, Clinton, Columbia, Delaware, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, Montgomery, Otsego, Rensselaer, Saratoga, online celexa prescription Schenectady, Schoharie, Warren, Washington $483 North Metropolitan Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, Ulster, Westchester $930 Rochester Chemung, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Yates $444 Western Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, Genesee, Niagara, Orleans, Wyoming $386 Past rates published as follows, available on DOH website 2020 rates published in Attachment I to GIS 19 MA/12 – 2020 Medicaid Levels and Other Updates 2019 rates published in Attachment 1 to GIS 18/MA015 - 2019 Medicaid Levels and Other Updates 2018 rates published in GIS 17 MA/020 - 2018 Medicaid Levels and Other Updates. The guidance on how the standardized amount of the disregard is calculated is found in NYS DOH 12- ADM-05.

2017 rate -- GIS 16 MA/018 - 2016 Medicaid Only Income and Resource Levels and Spousal Impoverishment Standards Attachment 12016 rate -- GIS 15-MA/0212015 rate -- Were not posted by DOH but were updated in WMS. 2015 Central $382 Long Island $1,147 NYC $1,001 Northeastern $440 N. Metropolitan $791 Rochester $388 Western $336 2014 rate -- GIS-14-MA/017 HOW DOES IT WORK?. Here is a sample budget for a single person in NYC with Social Security income of $2,386/month paying a Medigap premium of $261/mo.

Gross monthly income $2,575.50 DEDUCT Health insurance premiums (Medicare Part B) - 135.50 (Medigap) - 261.00 DEDUCT Unearned income disregard - 20 DEDUCT Shelter deduction (NYC—2019) - 1,300 DEDUCT Income limit for single (2019) - 859 Excess income or Spend-down $0 WITH NO SPEND-DOWN, May NOT NEED POOLED TRUST!. HOW TO OBTAIN THE HOUSING DISREGARD. When you are ready to leave the nursing home or adult home, or soon after you leave, you or your MLTC plan must request that your local Medicaid program change your Medicaid budget to give you the Housing Disregard. See September 2018 NYS DOH Medicaid Update that requires MLTC plan to help you ask for it.

The procedures in NYC are explained in this Troubleshooting guide. NYC Medicaid program prefers that your MLTC plan file the request, using Form MAP-3057E - Special income housing Expenses NH-MLTC.pdf and Form MAP-3047B - MLTC/NHED Cover Sheet Form MAP-259f (revised 7-31-18)(page 7 of PDF)(DIscharge Notice) - NH must file with HRA upon discharge, certifying resident was informed of availability of this disregard. GOVERNMENT DIRECTIVES (beginning with oldest). NYS DOH 12- ADM-05 - Special Income Standard for Housing Expenses for Individuals Discharged from a Nursing Facility who Enroll into the Managed Long Term Care (MLTC) Program Attachment II - OHIP-0057 - Notice of Intent to Change Medicaid Coverage, (Recipient Discharged from a Skilled Nursing Facility and Enrolled in a Managed Long Term Care Plan) Attachment III - Attachment III – OHIP-0058 - Notice of Intent to Change Medicaid Coverage, (Recipient Disenrolled from a Managed Long Term Care Plan, No Special Income Standard) MLTC Policy 13.02.

MLTC Housing Disregard NYC HRA Medicaid Alert Special Income Standard for housing expenses NH-MLTC 2-9-2013.pdf 2018-07-28 HRA MICSA ALERT Special Income Standard for Housing Expenses for Individuals Discharged from a Nursing Facility and who Enroll into the MLTC Program - update on previous policy. References Form MAP-259f (revised 7-31-18)(page 7 of PDF)(Discharge Notice) - NH must file with HRA upon discharge, certifying resident was informed of availability of this disregard.

Celexa online purchase

At the celexa online purchase start of field work season, ecologist Jory Brinkerhoff usually advises his crew to watch out for summertime fevers. If you develop a fever at that time of year, he tells them, it’s probably not the flu, but a tick-borne illness.But this year, Brinkerhoff, who studies human risk for flea- and tick-transmitted diseases at the University of Richmond, didn’t know exactly what to tell his field crew. A fever in the middle of summer 2020 could mean a tick-borne celexa online purchase illness. Or, it could mean COVID-19.With the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus still spreading across the country, some experts worry about the overlap between COVID-19 and Lyme disease, which is caused by a bacterium carried by black-legged ticks. While it’s celexa online purchase too soon to know exactly how the pandemic will affect Lyme disease rates this year, experts like Brinkerhoff wonder if more people spending time outside beating the quarantine blues could lead to more people being exposed to disease-carrying ticks.

Some overlapping symptoms might also lead to delayed diagnosis and treatment of Lyme, he notes. At the same time, weather patterns in some parts of the country may actually lead to fewer Lyme disease cases this year. No matter celexa online purchase the broader trends, there are things anyone getting outside can do to protect themselves from ticks. Lyme Disease on the MoveOver the last few decades, Lyme disease has been on the rise in the United States. There are many overlapping reasons celexa online purchase for this, says Brinkerhoff.

Awareness has gone up since the 1970s, when Lyme was first described in the U.S. Landscape changes like cutting forests and building suburbs near wooded areas has put humans in closer contact with ticks and tick-carrying animals. Deer populations have exploded in the last 100 celexa online purchase years, he notes. And climate change is likely allowing ticks to spread to and thrive in new parts of the continent. This celexa online purchase year, people have flocked to the great outdoors to escape their home quarantines and engage in socially-distant fun.

It’s possible that more people trying to get outside could mean more people exposed to ticks and, therefore, Lyme disease, says Brinkerhoff, who wrote an article in The Conversation on the issue earlier this year. Animals have been behaving differently during the pandemic as well, especially during the early days of lockdown, and it’s unclear if that could also have an effect on Lyme disease rates, he says.In some parts of the country, however, Lyme may be less of a concern this summer than it normally is. Maine is usually a Lyme hotspot in early summer, but celexa online purchase unusually hot and dry weather this year may be keeping ticks close to the ground and away from human contact, says Robert P. Smith Jr., an infectious disease physician and director of the division of infectious diseases at Maine Medical Center. While it’s too early to tell, Lyme disease rates celexa online purchase in Maine could actually go down this summer as a result, he says.Overlapping SymptomsWith everyone rightfully concerned about COVID-19, Lyme disease likely isn’t at the forefront of someone’s mind if they develop a fever.

Plus, about two-thirds of people with Lyme disease don’t remember being bitten by a tick, says Smith. Many who develop Lyme disease are bitten by poppy seed-sized immature ticks that can stay on the body unnoticed for two or three days before dropping off, he says.There is some overlap between COVID-19 and Lyme disease symptoms that could cause confusion. In both cases, people usually develop a fever and celexa online purchase muscle aches, says Smith. He has heard secondhand about a few cases in Maine in which patients with these symptoms were first tested for COVID-19 and were later found to have Lyme disease.However, there are some crucial differences between the two illnesses, Smith says. The majority of people with symptomatic COVID-19 will celexa online purchase have a cough or shortness of breath, whereas Lyme disease generally has no respiratory component, says Smith.

COVID-19 patients also have a higher risk for gastrointestinal issues, and Lyme patients do not. While not all people with Lyme disease develop a rash, 70 to 80 percent do, Smith notes. Rashes are not common celexa online purchase symptoms for COVID-19 infections. Receiving an accurate diagnosis and relatively quick treatment can greatly reduce the severity of a Lyme disease infection. “It doesn’t have to be celexa online purchase immediate.

If you think you might have Lyme disease, you need to get diagnosed with a week or so,” says Smith. “That’s usually very early in the disease and you can expect an excellent response to antibiotic treatment.” Delaying treatment by a couple of weeks can lead to more serious complications, including nerve-related symptoms, Lyme meningitis, facial muscle weakness (Bell’s palsy), Lyme arthritis and other conditions, he says. While antibiotics are still celexa online purchase effective at this stage, it tends to take longer to fully recover.Fortunately, for anyone concerned about safe outdoor excursions here and now, there are several practical steps you can take to avoid ticks. Use insect repellant and wear protective layers. Stick to the path instead of straying into dense underbrush, says celexa online purchase Smith.

When you return from an adventure, put your clothes in the washer and check yourself for ticks. And if you do start to feel feverish a few days later, call your doctor and be sure to mention you’ve been spending time outside..

At the start of field work season, ecologist Jory Brinkerhoff usually advises his crew to watch out for online celexa prescription summertime fevers. If you develop a fever at that time of year, he tells them, it’s probably not the flu, but a tick-borne illness.But this year, Brinkerhoff, who studies human risk for flea- and tick-transmitted diseases at the University of Richmond, didn’t know exactly what to tell his field crew. A fever in the middle of summer 2020 could mean a tick-borne illness online celexa prescription. Or, it could mean COVID-19.With the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus still spreading across the country, some experts worry about the overlap between COVID-19 and Lyme disease, which is caused by a bacterium carried by black-legged ticks.

While it’s too soon to know exactly how the pandemic online celexa prescription will affect Lyme disease rates this year, experts like Brinkerhoff wonder if more people spending time outside beating the quarantine blues could lead to more people being exposed to disease-carrying ticks. Some overlapping symptoms might also lead to delayed diagnosis and treatment of Lyme, he notes. At the same time, weather patterns in some parts of the country may actually lead to fewer Lyme disease cases this year. No matter the broader trends, there are things anyone getting outside can do to protect themselves from online celexa prescription ticks.

Lyme Disease on the MoveOver the last few decades, Lyme disease has been on the rise in the United States. There are many overlapping online celexa prescription reasons for this, says Brinkerhoff. Awareness has gone up since the 1970s, when Lyme was first described in the U.S. Landscape changes like cutting forests and building suburbs near wooded areas has put humans in closer contact with ticks and tick-carrying animals.

Deer populations online celexa prescription have exploded in the last 100 years, he notes. And climate change is likely allowing ticks to spread to and thrive in new parts of the continent. This year, people have flocked to the great outdoors to escape their home quarantines and engage online celexa prescription in socially-distant fun. It’s possible that more people trying to get outside could mean more people exposed to ticks and, therefore, Lyme disease, says Brinkerhoff, who wrote an article in The Conversation on the issue earlier this year.

Animals have been behaving differently during the pandemic as well, especially during the early days of lockdown, and it’s unclear if that could also have an effect on Lyme disease rates, he says.In some parts of the country, however, Lyme may be less of a concern this summer than it normally is. Maine is usually a online celexa prescription Lyme hotspot in early summer, but unusually hot and dry weather this year may be keeping ticks close to the ground and away from human contact, says Robert P. Smith Jr., an infectious disease physician and director of the division of infectious diseases at Maine Medical Center. While it’s too early to tell, Lyme disease rates in Maine could actually go down this summer as a online celexa prescription result, he says.Overlapping SymptomsWith everyone rightfully concerned about COVID-19, Lyme disease likely isn’t at the forefront of someone’s mind if they develop a fever.

Plus, about two-thirds of people with Lyme disease don’t remember being bitten by a tick, says Smith. Many who develop Lyme disease are bitten by poppy seed-sized immature ticks that can stay on the body unnoticed for two or three days before dropping off, he says.There is some overlap between COVID-19 and Lyme disease symptoms that could cause confusion. In both cases, online celexa prescription people usually develop a fever and muscle aches, says Smith. He has heard secondhand about a few cases in Maine in which patients with these symptoms were first tested for COVID-19 and were later found to have Lyme disease.However, there are some crucial differences between the two illnesses, Smith says.

The majority of people with symptomatic COVID-19 will have a cough or online celexa prescription shortness of breath, whereas Lyme disease generally has no respiratory component, says Smith. COVID-19 patients also have a higher risk for gastrointestinal issues, and Lyme patients do not. While not all people with Lyme disease develop a rash, 70 to 80 percent do, Smith notes. Rashes are online celexa prescription not common symptoms for COVID-19 infections.

Receiving an accurate diagnosis and relatively quick treatment can greatly reduce the severity of a Lyme disease infection. “It doesn’t online celexa prescription have to be immediate. If you think you might have Lyme disease, you need to get diagnosed with a week or so,” says Smith. “That’s usually very early in the disease and you can expect an excellent response to antibiotic treatment.” Delaying treatment by a couple of weeks can lead to more serious complications, including nerve-related symptoms, Lyme meningitis, facial muscle weakness (Bell’s palsy), Lyme arthritis and other conditions, he says.

While antibiotics are still effective at this stage, it tends to take longer to fully recover.Fortunately, for anyone online celexa prescription concerned about safe outdoor excursions here and now, there are several practical steps you can take to avoid ticks. Use insect repellant and wear protective layers. Stick to the path instead of straying into dense underbrush, online celexa prescription says Smith. When you return from an adventure, put your clothes in the washer and check yourself for ticks.

And if you do start to feel feverish a few days later, call your doctor and be sure to mention you’ve been spending time outside..

Is celexa like lexapro

The president has inflamed the atmosphere surrounding large protests by calling to the scene military and unidentified federal security is celexa like lexapro agents, even as local officials object. He continues to make bombastic statements. €œI am your wall between the American dream and chaos,” he told an audience in Minnesota. When asked by debate moderator Chris Wallace whether he was willing to condemn is celexa like lexapro white supremacists and paramilitary groups, he would not do so. Instead, he barked out what sounded like strategic instructions to the right-wing Proud Boys, widely regarded as an extremist hate group, “Proud Boys—stand back, and stand by.” But fear-driven appeals will likely persuade fewer voters this time, because we overcome fear in two ways.

By reason and experience. Inhibitory neural pathways from the prefrontal cortex to the limbic system will enable reason to quash fear if the dangers are is celexa like lexapro not grounded in fact. The type of street violence Trump rails against now was not the norm during the Obama and Biden years. Nor was fear that Biden would turn the U.S. Into a socialist state an is celexa like lexapro issue even a year ago.

On the contrary, Biden defeated the self-described “democratic socialist” candidate Bernie Sanders in the presidential primaries. A psychology- and neuroscience-based perspective also illuminates Trump’s constant interruptions and insults during the first presidential debate, steamrolling over the moderator’s futile efforts to have a reasoned airing of facts and positions. The structure of a debate is designed to engage the deliberative reasoning in the brain’s cerebral cortex, so Trump annihilated the format to is celexa like lexapro inflame emotion in the limbic system. Trump’s dismissal of experts, be they military generals, career public servants, scientists or even his own political appointees, is necessary for him to sustain the subcortical decision-making in voters’ minds that won him election and sustains his support. The fact-based decision-making that scientists rely upon is the polar opposite of emotion-based decision-making.

In his is celexa like lexapro rhetoric, Trump does not address factual evidence. He dismisses or suppresses it even for events that are apparent to many, including global warming, foreign intervention in U.S. Elections, the trivial head count at his inauguration, and even the projected path of a destructive hurricane. Instead, “alternative facts,” or fabrications, are is celexa like lexapro substituted. This perspective from inside the brain’s neural networks also explains the Trump administration’s unprecedented erosion of government institutions with missions intended to protect the public (ranging from the Centers for Disease Control to the FBI).

These diversions distract attention from real, uncontrollable threats, such as the coronavirus pandemic, that may undermine Trump’s political and economic objectives. Reason cannot is celexa like lexapro always overcome fear, as PTSD demonstrates. But the brain’s second mechanism of neutralizing its fear circuitry—experience—can do so. Repeated exposure to the fearful situation where the outcome is safe will rewire the brain’s subcortical circuitry. This is the basis for “extinction is celexa like lexapro therapy” used to treat PTSD and phobias.

For many, credibility has been eroded by Trump’s outlandish assertions, like suggesting injections of bleach might cure COVID-19, or enthusing over a plant toxin touted by a pillow salesman, while scientific experts in attendance grimace and bite their lips. In the last election Trump was a little-known newcomer as a political figure, but that is not the case this time with either candidate. The “gut -reaction” decision-making process excels in complex situations where there is not enough factual information or time to make is celexa like lexapro a reasoned decision. We follow gut instinct, for example, when selecting a dish from a menu at a new restaurant, where we have never seen or tasted the offering before. We’ve had our fill of the politics this time, no matter what position one may favor.

Whether voters is celexa like lexapro choose to vote for Trump on the basis of emotion or reason, they will be better able to articulate the reasons, or rationalizations, for their choice. This should give pollsters better data to make a more accurate prediction.One of the most impressive, disturbing works of science journalism I’ve encountered is Anatomy of an Epidemic. Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America, published in 2010. In the book, which I review here, award-winning journalist Robert Whitaker presents evidence that medications for mental illness, over is celexa like lexapro time and in the aggregate, cause net harm. In 2012, I brought Whitaker to my school to give a talk, in part to check him out.

He struck me as a smart, sensible, meticulous reporter whose in-depth research had led him to startling conclusions. Since then, far from encountering persuasive rebuttals of is celexa like lexapro Whitaker’s thesis, I keep finding corroborations of it. If Whitaker is right, modern psychiatry, together with the pharmaceutical industry, has inflicted iatrogenic harm on millions of people. Reports of surging mental distress during the pandemic have me thinking once again about Whitaker’s views and wondering how they have evolved. Below he answers some questions is celexa like lexapro.

€”John Horgan
 Horgan. When and why did you start reporting on mental health?. Whitaker is celexa like lexapro. It came about in a very roundabout way. In 1994, I had co-founded a publishing company called CenterWatch that covered the business aspects of the “clinical trials industry,” and I soon became interested in writing about how financial interests were corrupting drug trials.

Risperdal and Zyprexa had just is celexa like lexapro come to market, and after I used a Freedom of Information request to obtain the FDA’s review of those two drugs, I could see that psychiatric drug trials were a prime example of that corruption. In addition, I had learned of NIMH-funded research that seemed abusive of schizophrenia patients, and in 1998, I co-wrote a series for the Boston Globe on abuses of patients in psychiatric research. My interest was in that broader question of corruption and abuse in research settings, and not specific to psychiatry. At that time, I still had a conventional understanding of is celexa like lexapro psychiatric drugs. My understanding was that researchers were making great advances in understanding mental disorders, and that they had found that schizophrenia and depression were due to chemical imbalances in the brain, which psychiatric medications then put back in balance.

However, while reporting that series, I stumbled upon studies that didn’t make sense to me, for they belied what I knew to be “true,” and that was what sent me down this path of reporting on mental health. First, there were two studies by the World Health is celexa like lexapro Organization that found that longer-term outcomes for schizophrenia patients in three “developing” countries were much better than in the U.S. And five other “developed” countries. This didn’t really make sense to me, and then I read this. In the developing is celexa like lexapro countries, they used antipsychotic drugs acutely, but not chronically.

Only 16 percent of patients in the developing countries were regularly maintained on antipsychotics, whereas in the developed countries this was the standard of care. That didn’t fit with my understanding that these drugs were an essential treatment for schizophrenia patients. Second, a study by Harvard researchers found that schizophrenia outcomes had is celexa like lexapro declined in the previous 20 years, and were now no better than they had been in the first third of the 20th century. That didn’t fit with my understanding that psychiatry had made great progress in treating people so diagnosed. Those studies led to my questioning the story that our society told about those we call “mad,” and I got a book contract to dig into that question.

That project turned into Mad in America, which told of the history of our society’s treatment of the seriously mentally ill, from colonial times until today—a history marked by bad science and societal mistreatment is celexa like lexapro of those so diagnosed. Horgan. Do you still see yourself as a journalist, or are you primarily an activist?. Whitaker is celexa like lexapro. I don’t see myself as an “activist” at all.

In my own writings, and in the webzine I direct, Mad in America, I think you’ll see journalistic practices at work, albeit in the service of an “activist” mission. Here is is celexa like lexapro our mission statement. €œMad in America’s mission is to serve as a catalyst for rethinking psychiatric care in the United States (and abroad). We believe that the current drug-based paradigm of care has failed our society, and that scientific research, as well as the lived experience of those who have been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, calls for profound change.” Thus, our starting point is that “change” is needed, and while that does have an activist element, I think journalism—serving as an informational source—is fundamental to that effort. As an organization, we are not asserting that we is celexa like lexapro have the answers for what that change should be, which would be the case if we were striving to be activists.

Instead, we strive to be a forum for promoting an informed societal discussion about this subject. Here’s what we do. We publish daily summaries of scientific research with is celexa like lexapro findings that are rarely covered in the mainstream media. You’ll find, in the archives of our research reports, a steady parade of findings that counter the conventional narrative. For instance, there are reports of how the effort to find genes for mental disorders has proven rather fruitless, or of how social inequalities trigger mental distress, or of poor long-term outcomes with our current paradigm of care.

And so forth—we simply want these scientific findings to become known.
We regularly feature interviews with researchers is celexa like lexapro and activists, and podcasts that explore these issues. We launched MIA Reports as a showcase for our print journalism. We have published in-depth articles on promising new initiatives in Europe. Investigative pieces on such topics as compulsory is celexa like lexapro outpatient treatment. Coverage of “news” related to mental health policy in the United States.

And occasional reports on how the mainstream media is covering mental health issues. €¨We also publish blogs by professionals, academics, people with is celexa like lexapro lived experience, and others with a particular interest in this subject. These blogs and personal stories are meant to help inform society’s “rethinking” of psychiatric care. All of these efforts, I think, fit within the framework of “journalism.” However, I do understand that I am going beyond the boundaries of usual “science journalism” when I publish critiques of the “evidence base” related to psychiatric drugs. I did this in my books Mad in America and Anatomy of an Epidemic, as is celexa like lexapro well as a book I co-wrote, Psychiatry Under the Influence.

I have continued to do this with MIA Reports. The usual practice in “science journalism” is to look to the “experts” in the field and report on what they tell about their findings and practices. However, while reporting and writing Mad in America, I came to understand that when “experts” in psychiatry spoke to journalists they regularly hewed to a story that they were expected to tell, which was a story of how their field was making great progress in understanding the is celexa like lexapro biology of disorders and of drug treatments that—as I was told over and over when I co-wrote the series for the Boston Globe—fixed chemical imbalances in the brain. But their own science, I discovered, regularly belied the story they were telling to the media. That’s why I turned to focusing on the story that could be dug out from a critical look at their own scientific literature.

So what I do in these critiques—such as suicide in the Prozac era and the impact is celexa like lexapro of antipsychotics on mortality—is review the relevant research and put those findings together into a coherent report. I also look at research cited in support of mainstream beliefs and see if the data, in those articles, actually supports the conclusions presented in the abstract. None of this is really that difficult, and yet I know it is unusual for a journalist to challenge conventional “medical wisdom” in this way. Horgan. Anatomy of an Epidemic argues that medications for mental illness, although they give many people short-term reliefs, cause net harm.

Is that a fair summary?. Whitaker. Yes, although my thinking has evolved somewhat since I wrote that book. I am more convinced than ever that psychiatric medications, over the long term, cause net harm. I wish that weren’t the case, but the evidence just keeps mounting that these drugs, on the whole, worsen long-term outcomes.

However, my thinking has evolved in this way. I am not so sure any more that the medications provide a short-term benefit for patient populations as a whole. When you look at the short-term studies of antidepressants and antipsychotics, the evidence of efficacy in reducing symptoms compared to placebo is really pretty marginal, and fails to rise to the level of a “clinically meaningful” benefit. Furthermore, the problem with all of this research is that there is no real placebo group in the studies. The placebo group is composed of patients who have been withdrawn from their psychiatric medications and then randomized to placebo.

Thus, the placebo group is a drug-withdrawal group, and we know that withdrawal from psychiatric drugs can stir myriad negative effects. A medication-naïve placebo group would likely have much better outcomes, and if that were so, how would that placebo response compare to the drug response?. In short, research on the short-term effects of psychiatric drugs is a scientific mess. In fact, a 2017 paper that was designed to defend the long-term use of antipsychotics nevertheless acknowledged, in an off-hand way, that “no placebo-controlled trials have been reported in first-episode psychosis patients.” Antipsychotics were introduced 65 years ago, and we still don’t have good evidence that they work over the short term in first episode patients. Which is rather startling, when you think of it.

Horgan. Have any of your critics—E. Fuller Torrey, for example—made you rethink your thesis?. Whitaker. When the first edition of Anatomy of an Epidemic was published (2010), I knew there would be critics, and I thought, this will be great.

This is just what is needed, a societal discussion about the long-term effects of psychiatric medications. I have to confess that I have been disappointed in the criticism. They mostly have been ad hominem attacks—I cherry-picked the data, or I misunderstood findings, or I am just biased, but the critics don’t then say what data I missed, or point to findings that tell of medications that improve long-term outcomes. I honestly think I could do a much better job of critiquing my own work. You mention E.

Fuller Torrey’s criticism, in which he states that I both misrepresented and misunderstood some of the research I cited. I took this seriously, and answered it at great length. Now if your own “thesis” is indeed flawed, then a critic should be able to point out its flaws while accurately detailing what you wrote. If that is the case, then you have good reason to rethink your beliefs. But if a critique doesn’t meet that standard, but rather relies on misrepresenting what you wrote, then you have reason to conclude that the critic lacks the evidence to make an honest case.

And that is how I see Torrey’s critique. For example, Torrey said that I misunderstood Martin Harrow’s research on long-term outcomes for schizophrenia patients. Harrow reported that the recovery rate was eight times higher for those who got off antipsychotic medication compared to those who stayed on the drugs. However, in his 2007 paper, Harrow stated that the better outcomes for those who got off medication was because they had a better prognosis and not because of negative drug effects. If you read Anatomy of an Epidemic, you’ll see that I present his explanation.

Yet, in my interview with Harrow, I noted that his own data showed that those who were diagnosed with milder psychotic disorders who stayed on antipsychotics fared worse over the long term than schizophrenia patients who stopped taking the medication. This was a comparison that showed the less ill maintained on antipsychotics doing worse than the more severely ill who got off these medications. And I presented that comparison in Anatomy of an Epidemic. By doing that, I was going out on a limb. I was saying that maybe Harrow’s data led to a different conclusion than he had drawn, which was that the antipsychotic medication, over the long-term, had a negative effect.

After Anatomy was published, Harrow and his colleague Thomas Jobe went back to their data and investigated this very possibility. They have subsequently written several papers exploring this theme, citing me in one or two instances for raising the issue, and they found reason to conclude that it might be so. They wrote. €œHow unique among medical treatments is it that the apparent efficacy of antipsychotics could diminish over time or become harmful?. There are many examples for other medications of similar long-term effects, with this often occurring as the body readjusts, biologically, to the medications.” Thus, in this instance, I did the following.

I accurately reported the results of Harrow’s study and his interpretation of his results, and I accurately presented data from his research that told of a possible different interpretation. The authors then revisited their own data to take up this inquiry. And yet Torrey’s critique is that I misrepresented Harrow’s research. This same criticism, by the way, is still being flung at me. Here is a recent article in Vice which, once again, quotes people saying I misrepresent and misunderstand research, with Harrow cited as an example.

I do want to emphasize that critiques of “my thesis” regarding the long-term effects of psychiatric drugs are important and to be welcomed. See two papers in particular that take this on (here and here), and my response in general to such criticisms, and to the second one. Horgan. When I criticize psychiatric drugs, people sometimes tell me that meds saved their lives. You must get this reaction a lot.

How do you respond?. Whitaker. I do hear that, and when I do, I reply, “Great!. I am so glad to know that the medications have worked for you!. € But of course I also hear from many people who say that the drugs ruined their lives.

I do think that the individual’s experience of psychiatric medication, whether good or bad, should be honored as worthy and “valid.” They are witnesses to their own lives, and we should incorporate those voices into our societal thinking about the merits of psychiatric drugs. However, for the longest time, we’ve heard mostly about the “good” outcomes in the mainstream media, while those with “bad” outcomes were resigned to telling their stories on internet forums. What Mad in America has sought to do, in its efforts to serve as a forum for rethinking psychiatry, is provide an outlet for this latter group, so their voices can be heard too. The personal accounts, of course, do not change the bottom-line “evidence” that shows up in outcome studies of larger groups of patients. Unfortunately, that tells of medications that, on the whole, do more harm than good.

As a case in point, in regard to this “saving lives” theme, this benefit does not show up in public health data. The “standard mortality rate” for those with serious mental disorders, compared to the general public, has notably increased in the last 40 years. Horgan. Do you see any promising trends in psychiatry?. Whitaker.

Yes, definitely. You have the spread of Hearing Voices networks, which are composed of people who hear voices and offer support for learning to live with voices as opposed to squashing them, which is what the drugs are supposed to do. These networks are up and running in the U.S., and in many countries worldwide. You have Open Dialogue approaches, which were pioneered in northern Finland and proved successful there, being adopted in the United States and many European countries (and beyond.) This practice puts much less emphasis on treatment with antipsychotics, and much greater emphasis on helping people re-integrate into family and community. You have many alternative programs springing up, even at the governmental level.

Norway, for instance, ordered its hospital districts to offer “medication free” treatment for those who want it, and there is now a private hospital in Norway that is devoted to helping chronic patients taper down from their psychiatric medications. In Israel, you have Soteria houses that have sprung up (sometimes they are called stabilizing houses), where use of antipsychotics is optional, and the environment—a supportive residential environment—is seen as the principal “therapy.” You have the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Health, Dainius Pūras, calling for a “revolution” in mental health, one that would supplant today’s biological paradigm of care with a paradigm that paid more attention to social justice factors—poverty, inequality, etc.—as a source of mental distress. All of those initiatives tell of an effort to find a new way. But perhaps most important, in terms of “positive trends,” the narrative that was told to us starting in the 1980s has collapsed, which is what presents the opportunity for a new paradigm to take hold.

More and more research tells of how the conventional narrative, in all its particulars, has failed to pan out. The diagnoses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) have not been validated as discrete illnesses. The genetics of mental disorders remain in doubt. MRI scans have not proven to be useful. Long-term outcomes are poor.

And the notion that psychiatric drugs fix chemical imbalances has been abandoned. Ronald Pies, the former editor in chief of Psychiatric Times, has even sought to distance psychiatry, as an institution, from ever having made such a claim. Horgan. Do brain implants or other electrostimulation devices show any therapeutic potential?. Whitaker.

I don’t have a ready answer for this. We have published two articles about the spinning of results from a trial of deep-brain stimulation, and the suffering of some patients so treated over the long-term. Those articles tell of why it may be difficult to answer that question. There are financial influences that push for published results that tell of a therapeutic success, even if the data doesn’t support that finding, and we have a research environment that fails to study long-term outcomes. The history of somatic treatments for mental disorders also provides a reason for caution.

It’s a history of one somatic treatment after another being initially hailed as curative, or extremely helpful, and then failing the test of time. The inventor of frontal lobotomy, Egas Moniz, was awarded a Nobel Prize for inventing that surgery, which today we understand as a mutilation. It’s important to remain open to the possibility that somatic treatments may be helpful, at least for some patients. But there is plenty of reason to be wary of initial claims of success. Horgan.

Should psychedelic drugs be taken seriously as treatments?. Whitaker. I think caution applies here too. Surely there are many risks with psychedelic drugs, and if you were to do a study of first-episode psychosis today, you would find a high percentage of the patients had been using mind-altering drugs before their psychotic break—antidepressants, marijuana, LSD and so forth. At the same time, we’ve published reviews of papers that have reported positive results with use of psychedelics.

What are the benefits versus the risks?. Can possible benefits be realized while risks are minimized?. It is a question worth exploring, but carefully so. Horgan. What about meditation?.

Whitaker. I know that many people find meditation helpful. I also know other people find it difficult—and even threatening—to sit with the silence of their minds. Mad in America has published reviews of research about meditation, we have had a few bloggers write about it, and in our resource section on “non-drug therapies,” we have summarized research findings regarding its use for depression. We concluded that the research on this is not as robust as one would like.

However, I think your question leads to this broader thought. People struggling with their minds and emotions may come up with many different approaches they find helpful. Exercise, diet, meditation, yoga and so forth all represent efforts to change one’s environment, and ultimately, I think that can be very helpful. But the individual has to find his or her way to whatever environmental change that works best for them. Horgan.

Do you see any progress toward understanding the causes of mental illness?. Whitaker. Yes, and that progress might be summed up in this way. Researchers are returning to investigations of how we are impacted by what has “happened to us.” The Adverse Childhood Experiences study provides compelling evidence of how traumas in childhood—divorce, poverty, abuse, bullying and so forth—exact a long-term toll on physical and mental health. Interview any group of women diagnosed with a serious mental disorder, and you’ll regularly find accounts of sexual abuse.

Racism exacts a toll. So too poverty, oppressive working conditions, and so forth. You can go on and on, but all of this is a reminder that we humans are designed to respond to our environment, and it is quite clear that mental distress, in large part, arises from difficult environments and threatening experiences, past and present. And with a focus on life experiences as a source of “mental illness,” a related question is now being asked. What do we all need to be mentally well?.

Shelter, good food, meaning in life, someone to love and so forth—if you look at it from this perspective, you can see why, when those supporting elements begin to disappear, psychiatric difficulties appear. I am not discounting that there may be biological factors that cause “mental illness.” While biological markers that tell of a particular disorder have not been discovered, we are biological creatures, and we do know, for instance, that there are physical illnesses and toxins that can produce psychotic episodes. However, the progress that is being made at the moment is a moving away from the robotic “it’s all about brain chemistry” toward a rediscovery of the importance of our social lives and our experiences. Horgan. Do we still have anything to learn from Sigmund Freud?.

Whitaker. I certainly think so. Freud is a reminder that so much of our mind is hidden from us and that what spills into our consciousness comes from a blend of the many parts of our mind, our emotional centers and our more primal instincts. You can still see merit in Freud’s descriptions of the id, ego and superego as a conceptualization of different parts of the brain. I read Freud when I was in college, and it was a formative experience for me.

Horgan. I fear that American-style capitalism doesn’t produce good health care, including mental-health care. What do you think?. Whitaker. It’s clear that it doesn’t.

First, we have for-profit health-care that is set up to treat “disease.” With mental-health care, that means there is a profit to be made from seeing people as “diseased” and treating them for that “illness.” Take a pill!. In other words, American-style capitalism, which works to create markets for products, provides an incentive to create mental patients, and it has done this to great success over the past 35 years. Second, without a profit to be made, you don’t have as much investment in psychosocial care that can help a person remake his or her life. There is a societal expense, but little corporate profit, in psychosocial care, and American-style capitalism doesn’t lend itself to that equation. Third, with our American-style capitalism (think neoliberalism), it is the individual that is seen as “ill” and needs to be fixed.

Society gets a free pass. This too is a barrier to good “mental health” care, for it prevents us from thinking about what changes we might make to our society that would be more nurturing for us all. With our American-style capitalism, we now have a grossly unequal society, with more and more wealth going to the select few, and more and more people struggling to pay their bills. That is a prescription for psychiatric distress. Good “mental health care” starts with creating a society that is more equal and just.

Horgan. How might the COVID-19 pandemic affect care of the mentally ill?. Whitaker. That is something Mad in America has reported on. The pandemic, of course, can be particularly threatening to people in mental hospitals, or in group homes.

The threat is more than just the exposure to the virus that may come in such settings. People who are struggling in this way often feel terribly isolated, alone, and fearful of being with others. COVID-19 measures, with calls for social distancing, can exacerbate that. I think this puts hospital staff and those who run residential homes into an extraordinarily difficult position—how can they help ease the isolation of patients even as they are being expected to enforce a type of social distancing?. Horgan.

If the next president named you mental health czar, what would be at the top of your To Do list?. Whitaker. Well, I am pretty sure that’s not going to happen, and if it did, I would quickly confess to my being utterly unqualified for the job. But from my perch at Mad in America, here is what I would like to see happen in our society. As you can see from my answers above, I think the fundamental problem is that our society has organized itself around a false narrative, which was sold to us as a narrative of science.

In the early 1980s, we began to hear that psychiatric disorders were discrete brain illnesses, which were caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, and that a new generation of psychiatric drugs fixed those imbalances, like insulin for diabetes. That is a story of an amazing medical breakthrough. Researchers had discovered the very chemicals in our brain that cause madness, depression, anxiety or ADHD, and they had developed drugs that could put brain chemistry back into a normal state. Given the complexity of the human brain, if this were true, it would arguably be the greatest achievement in medical history. And we understood it to be true.

We came to believe that there was a sharp line between the “normal” brain and the “abnormal” brain, and that it was medically helpful to screen for these illnesses, and that psychiatric drugs were very safe and effective, and often needed to be taken for life. But what can be seen clearly today is that this narrative was a marketing story, not a scientific one. It was a story that psychiatry, as an institution, promoted for guild purposes, and it was a story that pharmaceutical companies promoted for commercial reasons. Science actually tells a very different story. The biology of psychiatric disorders remains unknown.

The disorders in the DSM have not been validated as discrete illnesses. The drugs do not fix chemical imbalances but rather perturb normal neurotransmitter functions. And even their short term efficacy is marginal at best. As could be expected, organizing our thinking around a false narrative has been a societal disaster. A sharp rise in the burden of mental illness in our society.

Poor long-term functional outcomes for those who are continuously medicated. The pathologizing of childhood. And so on. What we need now is a new narrative to organize ourselves around, one steeped in history, literature, philosophy, and good science. I think step one is ditching the DSM.

That book presents the most impoverished “philosophy of being” imaginable. Anyone who is too emotional, or struggles with his or her mind, or just doesn’t like being in a boring environment (think ADHD) is a candidate for a diagnosis. We need a narrative that, if truth be told, can be found in literature. Novels, Shakespeare, the Bible—they all tell of how we humans struggle with our minds, our emotions and our behaviors. That is the norm.

It is the human condition. And yet the characters we see in literature, if they were viewed through the DSM lens, would regularly qualify for a diagnosis. At the same time, literature tells of how humans can be so resilient, and that we change as we age and move through different environments. We need that to be part of a new narrative too. Our current disease-model narrative tells of how people are likely going to be chronically ill.

Their brains are defective, and so the therapeutic goal is to manage the symptoms of the “disease.” We need a narrative that replaces that pessimism with hope. If we embraced that literary understanding of what it is to be human, then a “mental health” policy could be forged that would begin with this question. How do we create environments that are more nurturing for us all?. How do we create schools that build on a child’s curiosity?. How do we bring nature back into our lives?.

How do we create a society that helps provide people with meaning, a sense of community, and a sense of civic duty?. How do we create a society that promotes good physical health, and provides access to shelter and medical care?. Furthermore, with this conception in mind, individual therapy would help people change their environments. You could encourage walks in nature. Recommend volunteer work.

Provide settings where people could go and recuperate, and so forth. Most important, in contrast to a “disease-based” paradigm of care, a “wellness-based” paradigm would help people feel hopeful, and help them find a way to create a different future for themselves. This is an approach, by the way, that can be helpful to people who have suffered a psychotic episode. Soteria homes and Open Dialogue are “therapies” that strive to help psychotic patients in this manner. Within this “wellness” paradigm of care, there would still be a place for use of medications that help people feel differently, at least for a time.

Sedatives, tranquilizers, and so forth. And you would still want to fund science that seeks to better understand the many pathways to debilitating mood states and to “psychosis”—trauma, poor physical health, physical disease, lack of sleep, setbacks in life, isolation, loneliness, and yes, whatever biological vulnerabilities that may be present. At the same time, you would want to fund science that seeks to better understand the pillars of “wellness.” Horgan. What’s your utopia?. Whitaker.

My “utopia” would be a world like the one I just described, based on a new narrative about mental illness, rooted in an understanding of how emotional we humans are, of how we struggle with our minds, and of how we are built to be responsive to our environments. And that really is the mission of Mad in America. We want it to be a forum for creating a new societal narrative for “mental health.” Further Reading. Can Psychiatry Heal Itself?. Are Psychiatric Medications Making Us Sicker?.

Meta-Post. Posts on Mental Illness Meta-Post. Posts on Brain Implants Meta-Post. Posts on Psychedelics Meta-Post. Posts on Buddhism and Meditation See also “The Meaning of Madness,” a chapter in my free online book Mind-Body Problems.1970 Sweet Suburbia “Massive movement from central cities to their suburbs, a population boom in the West and Southwest, and a lower rate of population growth in the 1960's than in the 1950's are the findings that stand out in the preliminary results of the 1970 Census as issued by the U.S.

Bureau of the Census. The movement to the suburbs was pervasive. Its extent is indicated by the fact that 13 of the 25 largest cities lost population, whereas 24 of the 25 largest metropolitan areas gained. Washington, D.C., was characteristic. The population of the city changed little between 1960 and 1970, but the metropolitan area grew by 800,000, or more than 38 percent.” 1920 Air Cargo “The proposed machine, known as the ‘Pelican Four-Ton Lorry,' is a colossal cantilever monoplane designed for two 460-horse-power Napier engines.

Its cruising speed is 72 miles per hour. Its total weight is to be 24,100 pounds. The useful load is four tons, with sufficient fuel for the London-Paris journey. Most interesting of all, however, is the novel system of quick loading and unloading which has been planned. This permits handling of shipments with the utmost speed, and is based on a similar practice in the motor truck field.

Idle airplanes mean a large idle capital, hence the designers plan to keep the airplane in the air for the greater part of the time.” Don't Try This Anywhere “Dr. Charles Baskerville points out that while the data thus far obtained on chlorine and influenza do not warrant drawing conclusions, such facts as have been established would indicate to the medical man the advisability of trying experimentally dilute chlorinated air as a prophylactic in such epidemics as so-called influenza. Dr. Baskerville determined to what extent workers in plants where small amounts of chlorine were to be found in the atmosphere were affected seriously by influenza. Many of those from whom information was requested expressed the opinion that chlorine workers are noticeably free from colds and other pneumatic diseases.” 1870 The Rise of Telegraphy “The rapid progress of the telegraph during the last twenty-five years has changed the whole social and commercial systems of the world.

Its advantages and capabilities were so evident that immediately on its introduction, and demonstration of its true character, the most active efforts were made to secure them for every community which desired to keep pace with the advances of modern times. The Morse or signal system seemed for a time to be the perfection of achievement, until Professor Royal E. House astonished the world with his letter printing telegraph. Now, almost every considerable expanse of water is traversed, or soon will be, by the slender cords which bind continents and islands together and practically bring the human race into one great family.” The Transport of Goods 1887. Cargo ship launched as Golconda had room for 6,000 tons of cargo, loaded and unloaded by crane and cargo nets, and 108 passengers.

Credit. Scientific American Supplement, Vol. XXIII, No. 574. January 1, 1887 Oxcarts, railroad cars and freight ships can be loaded and unloaded one item at a time, but it is more efficient to handle cargo packed into “intermodal shipping containers” that are a standardized size and shape.

Our October 1968 issue noted that a “break-bulk” freighter took three days to unload, a container ship less than one (including loading new cargo). Air transport became a link in this complex system, but the concept in the 1920 illustration shown is a little ahead of its time. These days air cargo (and luggage) makes abundant use of “unit load devices,” cargo bins shaped to fit the fuselage of specific aircraft models.The items below are highlights from the free newsletter, “Smart, useful, science stuff about COVID-19.” To receive newsletter issues daily in your inbox, sign-up here. Are you in need of a “dose of optimism” about the pandemic, at least in the U.S.?. Check out this 10/12/20 story at The New York Times by by Donald McNeil Jr., who has covered infectious diseases and epidemics for many years.

McNeil notes the 215,000 people in the U.S. Dead so far from the novel coronavirus, as well as the estimates that the figure could go as high as 400,000 before this era draws to a close. But here is some of the good news that he tallies. 1) mask-wearing by the public is “widely accepted”. 2) the development of vaccines to protect against SARS-CoV-2 and of treatments for COVID-19 are proceeding at record speed.

3) “experts are saying, with genuine confidence, that the pandemic in the United States will be over far sooner than they expected, possibly by the middle of next year”. And 4) fewer infected people die today than did earlier this year, even at nursing homes. About 10 percent of people in the U.S. Have been infected with the virus so far, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the story states.

€œPandemics don’t end abruptly. They decelerate gradually,” McNeil writes. A 10/14/20 story by Carl Zimmer for The New York Times puts into context three late-stage (Phase 3 safety and effectiveness) COVID-19 experiments that have been paused in recent weeks due to illness among some study participants. Pauses in vaccine studies — in this case Johnson &. Johnson’s vaccine candidate and AstraZeneca’s vaccine candidate — are “not unusual,” the story states, partly because the safety threshold is extremely high for a product that, if approved, could be given to millions or billions of people.

But pauses are rare in treatment studies — in this case Eli Lilly’s monoclonal antibody cocktail drug. Once a drug or treatment experiment (trial) is paused, a safety board determines whether the ill participant was given the new product or a placebo. If it was the placebo, the study can resume. If not, the board looks deeper into the case to determine whether or not the illness is related to the drug or treatment. If a clear connection is discovered, “the trial may have to stop,” Zimmer writes.

Dr. Eric Topol at Scripps Research is quoted in the piece as saying he is “still fairly optimistic” about monoclonal antibody treatments for COVID-19. The safety-related pauses of all three experiments are “an example of how things are supposed to work,” says Dr. Anna Durbin of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the story. The top of a story at The Washington Post features an instructive interactive that sketches “Scienceville,” a fictional place where “politicians and public health officials use every tool at their disposal to contain the coronavirus.” It basically shows how genetic analysis and tracing of viral strains found in a frequently and widely tested population could help officials control outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2.

Then the 10/13/20 text story below, by Brady Dennis, Chris Mooney, Sarah Kaplan, and Harry Stevens, focuses on the details of such a “genomic epidemiology” approach and describes some real-life efforts under way, primarily in the UK, to implement the approach. The U.S. Has not been able to effectively use the approach, in part because genetic sequencing of viral strains “has largely been left up to states and individual researchers, rather than being part of a coordinated and well-funded national program,” the story states. The rise in SARS-CoV-2 infections in the U.S. Is now driven by “small gatherings in people’s homes,” according to officials with the U.S.

Centers for Disease Control, reports Carolyn Crist for WebMD (10/14/20). People should continue to wear face masks and to practice social distancing “since most people have still not been exposed to the coronavirus worldwide," the researchers suggest, Crist writes. A newly developed test can detect SARS-CoV-2 in 5 minutes, reports Robert F. Service at Science (10/8/20). The test relies on CRISPR gene-editing technology, for which Jennifer Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley, and Emmanuelle Charpentier of the Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry earlier this month.

Doudna heads up the work that led to this new 5-minute CRISPR test for the coronavirus. By comparison, it can take a day or more to get back standard SARS-CoV-2 test results, the story states. Donald G. McNeil Jr. At The New York Times has written a guide to distinguishing common cold, flu, and COVID-19 symptoms (10/3/20).

A major difference between having a cold and having the flu is that "Flu makes you feel as if you were hit by a truck,” McNeil quotes experts as saying. The symptom that best distinguishes COVID-19 from flu is loss of your sense of smell — strong smells don’t register, he writes. But many flu and COVID-19 symptoms overlap, the story states. The most common symptoms for COVID-19 are a high fever, chills, dry cough and fatigue. For flu, it’s a fever, headaches, body aches, sore throat, runny nose, stuffed sinuses, coughing and sneezing, the story states.

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s three daughters do not plan to visit him for Thanksgiving to avoid potentially transmitting the new coronavirus to their parents, reports Ralph Ellis at WebMD. The story includes holiday traveling and visiting tips from a pulmonary critical care doctor at the University of Washington Medical Center who “believes traveling for the holidays is risky.” The tips include ensuring you have no COVID-19-like symptoms two weeks before traveling, getting tested before traveling, quarantining in a hotel for at least 48 hours before visiting with loved ones, traveling by car, and cutting down on “close contact and talking without a mask” (10/9/20). Adele Chapin has written a guide for reducing kids’ risk of catching and spreading SARS-CoV-2 at the playground. The 10/8/20 piece in The Washington Post makes the usual recommendations for mask-wearing, hand-washing, hand-sanitizer, disinfecting wipes, and distancing.

It quotes a Children’s National Hospital pediatrician advises against gloves, because “people wearing them often touch their faces, which defeats the purpose.” The piece also recommends visiting playgrounds at less busy times and choosing playgrounds with more than one play structure, which makes it easier for kids to distance from one another. A story by Carl Zimmer for The New York Times beautifully describes and illustrates some of the amazing imaging work that scientists have done to study the structure of SARS-CoV-2 and how it infects our cells and multiplies (10/9/20). For starters, check out a mesmerizing video about a quarter of the way down-page that simulates spike proteins (complex molecules) doing a “molecular dance” on the virus membrane. The video (just one of several in this stunning piece) is part of research by a computational biophysicist at the Max Planck Institute of Biophysics and colleagues.

For many, credibility has been eroded by online celexa prescription Trump’s outlandish assertions, like suggesting injections of bleach might cure COVID-19, or enthusing over a plant toxin touted by a pillow salesman, while scientific experts in attendance grimace and bite their lips. In the last election Trump was a little-known newcomer as a political figure, but that is not the case this time with either candidate. The “gut -reaction” decision-making process excels in complex situations where there is not enough factual information or time to make a reasoned decision.

We follow gut instinct, for example, when selecting online celexa prescription a dish from a menu at a new restaurant, where we have never seen or tasted the offering before. We’ve had our fill of the politics this time, no matter what position one may favor. Whether voters choose to vote for Trump on the basis of emotion or reason, they will be better able to articulate the reasons, or rationalizations, for their choice.

This should give pollsters better data to online celexa prescription make a more accurate prediction.One of the most impressive, disturbing works of science journalism I’ve encountered is Anatomy of an Epidemic. Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America, published in 2010. In the book, which I review here, award-winning journalist Robert Whitaker presents evidence that medications for mental illness, over time and in the aggregate, cause net harm.

In 2012, I brought Whitaker to my school to give a talk, in part to check online celexa prescription him out. He struck me as a smart, sensible, meticulous reporter whose in-depth research had led him to startling conclusions. Since then, far from encountering persuasive rebuttals of Whitaker’s thesis, I keep finding corroborations of it.

If Whitaker is right, modern psychiatry, together with the pharmaceutical industry, has inflicted iatrogenic harm on millions online celexa prescription of people. Reports of surging mental distress during the pandemic have me thinking once again about Whitaker’s views and wondering how they have evolved. Below he answers some questions.

€”John Horgan
 online celexa prescription Horgan. When and why did you start reporting on mental health?. Whitaker.

It came about in a very roundabout online celexa prescription way. In 1994, I had co-founded a publishing company called CenterWatch that covered the business aspects of the “clinical trials industry,” and I soon became interested in writing about how financial interests were corrupting drug trials. Risperdal and Zyprexa had just come to market, and after I used a Freedom of Information request to obtain the FDA’s review of those two drugs, I could see that psychiatric drug trials were a prime example of that corruption.

In addition, I had learned of NIMH-funded research that seemed abusive of schizophrenia patients, and in 1998, I co-wrote a series for the Boston online celexa prescription Globe on abuses of patients in psychiatric research. My interest was in that broader question of corruption and abuse in research settings, and not specific to psychiatry. At that time, I still had a conventional understanding of psychiatric drugs.

My understanding was that researchers were making great advances in understanding mental disorders, and that they had found that schizophrenia online celexa prescription and depression were due to chemical imbalances in the brain, which psychiatric medications then put back in balance. However, while reporting that series, I stumbled upon studies that didn’t make sense to me, for they belied what I knew to be “true,” and that was what sent me down this path of reporting on mental health. First, there were two studies by the World Health Organization that found that longer-term outcomes for schizophrenia patients in three “developing” countries were much better than in the U.S.

And five online celexa prescription other “developed” countries. This didn’t really make sense to me, and then I read this. In the developing countries, they used antipsychotic drugs acutely, but not chronically.

Only 16 percent of patients in the developing countries were regularly maintained on antipsychotics, whereas in online celexa prescription the developed countries this was the standard of care. That didn’t fit with my understanding that these drugs were an essential treatment for schizophrenia patients. Second, a study by Harvard researchers found that schizophrenia outcomes had declined in the previous 20 years, and were now no better than they had been in the first third of the 20th century.

That didn’t fit with my understanding that psychiatry had made great progress in treating people so online celexa prescription diagnosed. Those studies led to my questioning the story that our society told about those we call “mad,” and I got a book contract to dig into that question. That project turned into Mad in America, which told of the history of our society’s treatment of the seriously mentally ill, from colonial times until today—a history marked by bad science and societal mistreatment of those so diagnosed.

Horgan. Do you still see yourself as a journalist, or are you primarily an activist?. Whitaker.

I don’t see myself as an “activist” at all. In my own writings, and in the webzine I direct, Mad in America, I think you’ll see journalistic practices at work, albeit in the service of an “activist” mission. Here is our mission statement.

€œMad in America’s mission is to serve as a catalyst for rethinking psychiatric care in the United States (and abroad). We believe that the current drug-based paradigm of care has failed our society, and that scientific research, as well as the lived experience of those who have been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, calls for profound change.” Thus, our starting point is that “change” is needed, and while that does have an activist element, I think journalism—serving as an informational source—is fundamental to that effort. As an organization, we are not asserting that we have the answers for what that change should be, which would be the case if we were striving to be activists.

Instead, we strive to be a forum for promoting an informed societal discussion about this subject. Here’s what we do. We publish daily summaries of scientific research with findings that are rarely covered in the mainstream media.

You’ll find, in the archives of our research reports, a steady parade of findings that counter the conventional narrative. For instance, there are reports of how the effort to find genes for mental disorders has proven rather fruitless, or of how social inequalities trigger mental distress, or of poor long-term outcomes with our current paradigm of care. And so forth—we simply want these scientific findings to become known.
We regularly feature interviews with researchers and activists, and podcasts that explore these issues.

We launched MIA Reports as a showcase for our print journalism. We have published in-depth articles on promising new initiatives in Europe. Investigative pieces on such topics as compulsory outpatient treatment.

Coverage of “news” related to mental health policy in the United States. And occasional reports on how the mainstream media is covering mental health issues. €¨We also publish blogs by professionals, academics, people with lived experience, and others with a particular interest in this subject.

These blogs and personal stories are meant to help inform society’s “rethinking” of psychiatric care. All of these efforts, I think, fit within the framework of “journalism.” However, I do understand that I am going beyond the boundaries of usual “science journalism” when I publish critiques of the “evidence base” related to psychiatric drugs. I did this in my books Mad in America and Anatomy of an Epidemic, as well as a book I co-wrote, Psychiatry Under the Influence.

I have continued to do this with MIA Reports. The usual practice in “science journalism” is to look to the “experts” in the field and report on what they tell about their findings and practices. However, while reporting and writing Mad in America, I came to understand that when “experts” in psychiatry spoke to journalists they regularly hewed to a story that they were expected to tell, which was a story of how their field was making great progress in understanding the biology of disorders and of drug treatments that—as I was told over and over when I co-wrote the series for the Boston Globe—fixed chemical imbalances in the brain.

But their own science, I discovered, regularly belied the story they were telling to the media. That’s why I turned to focusing on the story that could be dug out from a critical look at their own scientific literature. So what I do in these critiques—such as suicide in the Prozac era and the impact of antipsychotics on mortality—is review the relevant research and put those findings together into a coherent report.

I also look at research cited in support of mainstream beliefs and see if the data, in those articles, actually supports the conclusions presented in the abstract. None of this is really that difficult, and yet I know it is unusual for a journalist to challenge conventional “medical wisdom” in this way. Horgan.

Anatomy of an Epidemic argues that medications for mental illness, although they give many people short-term reliefs, cause net harm. Is that a fair summary?. Whitaker.

Yes, although my thinking has evolved somewhat since I wrote that book. I am more convinced than ever that psychiatric medications, over the long term, cause net harm. I wish that weren’t the case, but the evidence just keeps mounting that these drugs, on the whole, worsen long-term outcomes.

However, my thinking has evolved in this way. I am not so sure any more that the medications provide a short-term benefit for patient populations as a whole. When you look at the short-term studies of antidepressants and antipsychotics, the evidence of efficacy in reducing symptoms compared to placebo is really pretty marginal, and fails to rise to the level of a “clinically meaningful” benefit.

Furthermore, the problem with all of this research is that there is no real placebo group in the studies. The placebo group is composed of patients who have been withdrawn from their psychiatric medications and then randomized to placebo. Thus, the placebo group is a drug-withdrawal group, and we know that withdrawal from psychiatric drugs can stir myriad negative effects.

A medication-naïve placebo group would likely have much better outcomes, and if that were so, how would that placebo response compare to the drug response?. In short, research on the short-term effects of psychiatric drugs is a scientific mess. In fact, a 2017 paper that was designed to defend the long-term use of antipsychotics nevertheless acknowledged, in an off-hand way, that “no placebo-controlled trials have been reported in first-episode psychosis patients.” Antipsychotics were introduced 65 years ago, and we still don’t have good evidence that they work over the short term in first episode patients.

Which is rather startling, when you think of it. Horgan. Have any of your critics—E.

Fuller Torrey, for example—made you rethink your thesis?. Whitaker. When the first edition of Anatomy of an Epidemic was published (2010), I knew there would be critics, and I thought, this will be great.

This is just what is needed, a societal discussion about the long-term effects of psychiatric medications. I have to confess that I have been disappointed in the criticism. They mostly have been ad hominem attacks—I cherry-picked the data, or I misunderstood findings, or I am just biased, but the critics don’t then say what data I missed, or point to findings that tell of medications that improve long-term outcomes.

I honestly think I could do a much better job of critiquing my own work. You mention E. Fuller Torrey’s criticism, in which he states that I both misrepresented and misunderstood some of the research I cited.

I took this seriously, and answered it at great length. Now if your own “thesis” is indeed flawed, then a critic should be able to point out its flaws while accurately detailing what you wrote. If that is the case, then you have good reason to rethink your beliefs.

But if a critique doesn’t meet that standard, but rather relies on misrepresenting what you wrote, then you have reason to conclude that the critic lacks the evidence to make an honest case. And that is how I see Torrey’s critique. For example, Torrey said that I misunderstood Martin Harrow’s research on long-term outcomes for schizophrenia patients.

Harrow reported that the recovery rate was eight times higher for those who got off antipsychotic medication compared to those who stayed on the drugs. However, in his 2007 paper, Harrow stated that the better outcomes for those who got off medication was because they had a better prognosis and not because of negative drug effects. If you read Anatomy of an Epidemic, you’ll see that I present his explanation.

Yet, in my interview with Harrow, I noted that his own data showed that those who were diagnosed with milder psychotic disorders who stayed on antipsychotics fared worse over the long term than schizophrenia patients who stopped taking the medication. This was a comparison that showed the less ill maintained on antipsychotics doing worse than the more severely ill who got off these medications. And I presented that comparison in Anatomy of an Epidemic.

By doing that, I was going out on a limb. I was saying that maybe Harrow’s data led to a different conclusion than he had drawn, which was that the antipsychotic medication, over the long-term, had a negative effect. After Anatomy was published, Harrow and his colleague Thomas Jobe went back to their data and investigated this very possibility.

They have subsequently written several papers exploring this theme, citing me in one or two instances for raising the issue, and they found reason to conclude that it might be so. They wrote. €œHow unique among medical treatments is it that the apparent efficacy of antipsychotics could diminish over time or become harmful?.

There are many examples for other medications of similar long-term effects, with this often occurring as the body readjusts, biologically, to the medications.” Thus, in this instance, I did the following. I accurately reported the results of Harrow’s study and his interpretation of his results, and I accurately presented data from his research that told of a possible different interpretation. The authors then revisited their own data to take up this inquiry.

And yet Torrey’s critique is that I misrepresented Harrow’s research. This same criticism, by the way, is still being flung at me. Here is a recent article in Vice which, once again, quotes people saying I misrepresent and misunderstand research, with Harrow cited as an example.

I do want to emphasize that critiques of “my thesis” regarding the long-term effects of psychiatric drugs are important and to be welcomed. See two papers in particular that take this on (here and here), and my response in general to such criticisms, and to the second one. Horgan.

When I criticize psychiatric drugs, people sometimes tell me that meds saved their lives. You must get this reaction a lot. How do you respond?.

Whitaker. I do hear that, and when I do, I reply, “Great!. I am so glad to know that the medications have worked for you!.

€ But of course I also hear from many people who say that the drugs ruined their lives. I do think that the individual’s experience of psychiatric medication, whether good or bad, should be honored as worthy and “valid.” They are witnesses to their own lives, and we should incorporate those voices into our societal thinking about the merits of psychiatric drugs. However, for the longest time, we’ve heard mostly about the “good” outcomes in the mainstream media, while those with “bad” outcomes were resigned to telling their stories on internet forums.

What Mad in America has sought to do, in its efforts to serve as a forum for rethinking psychiatry, is provide an outlet for this latter group, so their voices can be heard too. The personal accounts, of course, do not change the bottom-line “evidence” that shows up in outcome studies of larger groups of patients. Unfortunately, that tells of medications that, on the whole, do more harm than good.

As a case in point, in regard to this “saving lives” theme, this benefit does not show up in public health data. The “standard mortality rate” for those with serious mental disorders, compared to the general public, has notably increased in the last 40 years. Horgan.

Do you see any promising trends in psychiatry?. Whitaker. Yes, definitely.

You have the spread of Hearing Voices networks, which are composed of people who hear voices and offer support for learning to live with voices as opposed to squashing them, which is what the drugs are supposed to do. These networks are up and running in the U.S., and in many countries worldwide. You have Open Dialogue approaches, which were pioneered in northern Finland and proved successful there, being adopted in the United States and many European countries (and beyond.) This practice puts much less emphasis on treatment with antipsychotics, and much greater emphasis on helping people re-integrate into family and community.

You have many alternative programs springing up, even at the governmental level. Norway, for instance, ordered its hospital districts to offer “medication free” treatment for those who want it, and there is now a private hospital in Norway that is devoted to helping chronic patients taper down from their psychiatric medications. In Israel, you have Soteria houses that have sprung up (sometimes they are called stabilizing houses), where use of antipsychotics is optional, and the environment—a supportive residential environment—is seen as the principal “therapy.” You have the U.N.

Special Rapporteur for Health, Dainius Pūras, calling for a “revolution” in mental health, one that would supplant today’s biological paradigm of care with a paradigm that paid more attention to social justice factors—poverty, inequality, etc.—as a source of mental distress. All of those initiatives tell of an effort to find a new way. But perhaps most important, in terms of “positive trends,” the narrative that was told to us starting in the 1980s has collapsed, which is what presents the opportunity for a new paradigm to take hold.

More and more research tells of how the conventional narrative, in all its particulars, has failed to pan out. The diagnoses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) have not been validated as discrete illnesses. The genetics of mental disorders remain in doubt.

MRI scans have not proven to be useful. Long-term outcomes are poor. And the notion that psychiatric drugs fix chemical imbalances has been abandoned.

Ronald Pies, the former editor in chief of Psychiatric Times, has even sought to distance psychiatry, as an institution, from ever having made such a claim. Horgan. Do brain implants or other electrostimulation devices show any therapeutic potential?.

Whitaker. I don’t have a ready answer for this. We have published two articles about the spinning of results from a trial of deep-brain stimulation, and the suffering of some patients so treated over the long-term.

Those articles tell of why it may be difficult to answer that question. There are financial influences that push for published results that tell of a therapeutic success, even if the data doesn’t support that finding, and we have a research environment that fails to study long-term outcomes. The history of somatic treatments for mental disorders also provides a reason for caution.

It’s a history of one somatic treatment after another being initially hailed as curative, or extremely helpful, and then failing the test of time. The inventor of frontal lobotomy, Egas Moniz, was awarded a Nobel Prize for inventing that surgery, which today we understand as a mutilation. It’s important to remain open to the possibility that somatic treatments may be helpful, at least for some patients.

But there is plenty of reason to be wary of initial claims of success. Horgan. Should psychedelic drugs be taken seriously as treatments?.

Whitaker. I think caution applies here too. Surely there are many risks with psychedelic drugs, and if you were to do a study of first-episode psychosis today, you would find a high percentage of the patients had been using mind-altering drugs before their psychotic break—antidepressants, marijuana, LSD and so forth.

At the same time, we’ve published reviews of papers that have reported positive results with use of psychedelics. What are the benefits versus the risks?. Can possible benefits be realized while risks are minimized?.

It is a question worth exploring, but carefully so. Horgan. What about meditation?.

Whitaker. I know that many people find meditation helpful. I also know other people find it difficult—and even threatening—to sit with the silence of their minds.

Mad in America has published reviews of research about meditation, we have had a few bloggers write about it, and in our resource section on “non-drug therapies,” we have summarized research findings regarding its use for depression. We concluded that the research on this is not as robust as one would like. However, I think your question leads to this broader thought.

People struggling with their minds and emotions may come up with many different approaches they find helpful. Exercise, diet, meditation, yoga and so forth all represent efforts to change one’s environment, and ultimately, I think that can be very helpful. But the individual has to find his or her way to whatever environmental change that works best for them.

Horgan. Do you see any progress toward understanding the causes of mental illness?. Whitaker.

Yes, and that progress might be summed up in this way. Researchers are returning to investigations of how we are impacted by what has “happened to us.” The Adverse Childhood Experiences study provides compelling evidence of how traumas in childhood—divorce, poverty, abuse, bullying and so forth—exact a long-term toll on physical and mental health. Interview any group of women diagnosed with a serious mental disorder, and you’ll regularly find accounts of sexual abuse.

Racism exacts a toll. So too poverty, oppressive working conditions, and so forth. You can go on and on, but all of this is a reminder that we humans are designed to respond to our environment, and it is quite clear that mental distress, in large part, arises from difficult environments and threatening experiences, past and present.

And with a focus on life experiences as a source of “mental illness,” a related question is now being asked. What do we all need to be mentally well?. Shelter, good food, meaning in life, someone to love and so forth—if you look at it from this perspective, you can see why, when those supporting elements begin to disappear, psychiatric difficulties appear.

I am not discounting that there may be biological factors that cause “mental illness.” While biological markers that tell of a particular disorder have not been discovered, we are biological creatures, and we do know, for instance, that there are physical illnesses and toxins that can produce psychotic episodes. However, the progress that is being made at the moment is a moving away from the robotic “it’s all about brain chemistry” toward a rediscovery of the importance of our social lives and our experiences. Horgan.

Do we still have anything to learn from Sigmund Freud?. Whitaker. I certainly think so.

Freud is a reminder that so much of our mind is hidden from us and that what spills into our consciousness comes from a blend of the many parts of our mind, our emotional centers and our more primal instincts. You can still see merit in Freud’s descriptions of the id, ego and superego as a conceptualization of different parts of the brain. I read Freud when I was in college, and it was a formative experience for me.

Horgan. I fear that American-style capitalism doesn’t produce good health care, including mental-health care. What do you think?.

Whitaker. It’s clear that it doesn’t. First, we have for-profit health-care that is set up to treat “disease.” With mental-health care, that means there is a profit to be made from seeing people as “diseased” and treating them for that “illness.” Take a pill!.

In other words, American-style capitalism, which works to create markets for products, provides an incentive to create mental patients, and it has done this to great success over the past 35 years. Second, without a profit to be made, you don’t have as much investment in psychosocial care that can help a person remake his or her life. There is a societal expense, but little corporate profit, in psychosocial care, and American-style capitalism doesn’t lend itself to that equation.

Third, with our American-style capitalism (think neoliberalism), it is the individual that is seen as “ill” and needs to be fixed. Society gets a free pass. This too is a barrier to good “mental health” care, for it prevents us from thinking about what changes we might make to our society that would be more nurturing for us all.

With our American-style capitalism, we now have a grossly unequal society, with more and more wealth going to the select few, and more and more people struggling to pay their bills. That is a prescription for psychiatric distress. Good “mental health care” starts with creating a society that is more equal and just.

Horgan. How might the COVID-19 pandemic affect care of the mentally ill?. Whitaker.

That is something Mad in America has reported on. The pandemic, of course, can be particularly threatening to people in mental hospitals, or in group homes. The threat is more than just the exposure to the virus that may come in such settings.

People who are struggling in this way often feel terribly isolated, alone, and fearful of being with others. COVID-19 measures, with calls for social distancing, can exacerbate that. I think this puts hospital staff and those who run residential homes into an extraordinarily difficult position—how can they help ease the isolation of patients even as they are being expected to enforce a type of social distancing?.

Horgan. If the next president named you mental health czar, what would be at the top of your To Do list?. Whitaker.

Well, I am pretty sure that’s not going to happen, and if it did, I would quickly confess to my being utterly unqualified for the job. But from my perch at Mad in America, here is what I would like to see happen in our society. As you can see from my answers above, I think the fundamental problem is that our society has organized itself around a false narrative, which was sold to us as a narrative of science.

In the early 1980s, we began to hear that psychiatric disorders were discrete brain illnesses, which were caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, and that a new generation of psychiatric drugs fixed those imbalances, like insulin for diabetes. That is a story of an amazing medical breakthrough. Researchers had discovered the very chemicals in our brain that cause madness, depression, anxiety or ADHD, and they had developed drugs that could put brain chemistry back into a normal state.

Given the complexity of the human brain, if this were true, it would arguably be the greatest achievement in medical history. And we understood it to be true. We came to believe that there was a sharp line between the “normal” brain and the “abnormal” brain, and that it was medically helpful to screen for these illnesses, and that psychiatric drugs were very safe and effective, and often needed to be taken for life.

But what can be seen clearly today is that this narrative was a marketing story, not a scientific one. It was a story that psychiatry, as an institution, promoted for guild purposes, and it was a story that pharmaceutical companies promoted for commercial reasons. Science actually tells a very different story.

The biology of psychiatric disorders remains unknown. The disorders in the DSM have not been validated as discrete illnesses. The drugs do not fix chemical imbalances but rather perturb normal neurotransmitter functions.

And even their short term efficacy is marginal at best. As could be expected, organizing our thinking around a false narrative has been a societal disaster. A sharp rise in the burden of mental illness in our society.

Poor long-term functional outcomes for those who are continuously medicated. The pathologizing of childhood. And so on.

What we need now is a new narrative to organize ourselves around, one steeped in history, literature, philosophy, and good science. I think step one is ditching the DSM. That book presents the most impoverished “philosophy of being” imaginable.

Anyone who is too emotional, or struggles with his or her mind, or just doesn’t like being in a boring environment (think ADHD) is a candidate for a diagnosis. We need a narrative that, if truth be told, can be found in literature. Novels, Shakespeare, the Bible—they all tell of how we humans struggle with our minds, our emotions and our behaviors.

That is the norm. It is the human condition. And yet the characters we see in literature, if they were viewed through the DSM lens, would regularly qualify for a diagnosis.

At the same time, literature tells of how humans can be so resilient, and that we change as we age and move through different environments. We need that to be part of a new narrative too. Our current disease-model narrative tells of how people are likely going to be chronically ill.

Their brains are defective, and so the therapeutic goal is to manage the symptoms of the “disease.” We need a narrative that replaces that pessimism with hope. If we embraced that literary understanding of what it is to be human, then a “mental health” policy could be forged that would begin with this question. How do we create environments that are more nurturing for us all?.

How do we create schools that build on a child’s curiosity?. How do we bring nature back into our lives?. How do we create a society that helps provide people with meaning, a sense of community, and a sense of civic duty?.

How do we create a society that promotes good physical health, and provides access to shelter and medical care?. Furthermore, with this conception in mind, individual therapy would help people change their environments. You could encourage walks in nature.

Recommend volunteer work. Provide settings where people could go and recuperate, and so forth. Most important, in contrast to a “disease-based” paradigm of care, a “wellness-based” paradigm would help people feel hopeful, and help them find a way to create a different future for themselves.

This is an approach, by the way, that can be helpful to people who have suffered a psychotic episode. Soteria homes and Open Dialogue are “therapies” that strive to help psychotic patients in this manner. Within this “wellness” paradigm of care, there would still be a place for use of medications that help people feel differently, at least for a time.

Sedatives, tranquilizers, and so forth. And you would still want to fund science that seeks to better understand the many pathways to debilitating mood states and to “psychosis”—trauma, poor physical health, physical disease, lack of sleep, setbacks in life, isolation, loneliness, and yes, whatever biological vulnerabilities that may be present. At the same time, you would want to fund science that seeks to better understand the pillars of “wellness.” Horgan.

What’s your utopia?. Whitaker. My “utopia” would be a world like the one I just described, based on a new narrative about mental illness, rooted in an understanding of how emotional we humans are, of how we struggle with our minds, and of how we are built to be responsive to our environments.

And that really is the mission of Mad in America. We want it to be a forum for creating a new societal narrative for “mental health.” Further Reading. Can Psychiatry Heal Itself?.

Are Psychiatric Medications Making Us Sicker?. Meta-Post. Posts on Mental Illness Meta-Post.

Posts on Brain Implants Meta-Post. Posts on Psychedelics Meta-Post. Posts on Buddhism and Meditation See also “The Meaning of Madness,” a chapter in my free online book Mind-Body Problems.1970 Sweet Suburbia “Massive movement from central cities to their suburbs, a population boom in the West and Southwest, and a lower rate of population growth in the 1960's than in the 1950's are the findings that stand out in the preliminary results of the 1970 Census as issued by the U.S.

Bureau of the Census. The movement to the suburbs was pervasive. Its extent is indicated by the fact that 13 of the 25 largest cities lost population, whereas 24 of the 25 largest metropolitan areas gained.

Washington, D.C., was characteristic. The population of the city changed little between 1960 and 1970, but the metropolitan area grew by 800,000, or more than 38 percent.” 1920 Air Cargo “The proposed machine, known as the ‘Pelican Four-Ton Lorry,' is a colossal cantilever monoplane designed for two 460-horse-power Napier engines. Its cruising speed is 72 miles per hour.

Its total weight is to be 24,100 pounds. The useful load is four tons, with sufficient fuel for the London-Paris journey. Most interesting of all, however, is the novel system of quick loading and unloading which has been planned.

This permits handling of shipments with the utmost speed, and is based on a similar practice in the motor truck field. Idle airplanes mean a large idle capital, hence the designers plan to keep the airplane in the air for the greater part of the time.” Don't Try This Anywhere “Dr. Charles Baskerville points out that while the data thus far obtained on chlorine and influenza do not warrant drawing conclusions, such facts as have been established would indicate to the medical man the advisability of trying experimentally dilute chlorinated air as a prophylactic in such epidemics as so-called influenza.

Dr. Baskerville determined to what extent workers in plants where small amounts of chlorine were to be found in the atmosphere were affected seriously by influenza. Many of those from whom information was requested expressed the opinion that chlorine workers are noticeably free from colds and other pneumatic diseases.” 1870 The Rise of Telegraphy “The rapid progress of the telegraph during the last twenty-five years has changed the whole social and commercial systems of the world.

Its advantages and capabilities were so evident that immediately on its introduction, and demonstration of its true character, the most active efforts were made to secure them for every community which desired to keep pace with the advances of modern times. The Morse or signal system seemed for a time to be the perfection of achievement, until Professor Royal E. House astonished the world with his letter printing telegraph.

Now, almost every considerable expanse of water is traversed, or soon will be, by the slender cords which bind continents and islands together and practically bring the human race into one great family.” The Transport of Goods 1887. Cargo ship launched as Golconda had room for 6,000 tons of cargo, loaded and unloaded by crane and cargo nets, and 108 passengers. Credit.

Scientific American Supplement, Vol. XXIII, No. 574.

January 1, 1887 Oxcarts, railroad cars and freight ships can be loaded and unloaded one item at a time, but it is more efficient to handle cargo packed into “intermodal shipping containers” that are a standardized size and shape. Our October 1968 issue noted that a “break-bulk” freighter took three days to unload, a container ship less than one (including loading new cargo). Air transport became a link in this complex system, but the concept in the 1920 illustration shown is a little ahead of its time.

These days air cargo (and luggage) makes abundant use of “unit load devices,” cargo bins shaped to fit the fuselage of specific aircraft models.The items below are highlights from the free newsletter, “Smart, useful, science stuff about COVID-19.” To receive newsletter issues daily in your inbox, sign-up here. Are you in need of a “dose of optimism” about the pandemic, at least in the U.S.?. Check out this 10/12/20 story at The New York Times by by Donald McNeil Jr., who has covered infectious diseases and epidemics for many years.

McNeil notes the 215,000 people in the U.S. Dead so far from the novel coronavirus, as well as the estimates that the figure could go as high as 400,000 before this era draws to a close. But here is some of the good news that he tallies.

1) mask-wearing by the public is “widely accepted”. 2) the development of vaccines to protect against SARS-CoV-2 and of treatments for COVID-19 are proceeding at record speed. 3) “experts are saying, with genuine confidence, that the pandemic in the United States will be over far sooner than they expected, possibly by the middle of next year”.

And 4) fewer infected people die today than did earlier this year, even at nursing homes. About 10 percent of people in the U.S. Have been infected with the virus so far, according to the U.S.

Centers for Disease Control, the story states. €œPandemics don’t end abruptly. They decelerate gradually,” McNeil writes.

A 10/14/20 story by Carl Zimmer for The New York Times puts into context three late-stage (Phase 3 safety and effectiveness) COVID-19 experiments that have been paused in recent weeks due to illness among some study participants. Pauses in vaccine studies — in this case Johnson &. Johnson’s vaccine candidate and AstraZeneca’s vaccine candidate — are “not unusual,” the story states, partly because the safety threshold is extremely high for a product that, if approved, could be given to millions or billions of people.

But pauses are rare in treatment studies — in this case Eli Lilly’s monoclonal antibody cocktail drug. Once a drug or treatment experiment (trial) is paused, a safety board determines whether the ill participant was given the new product or a placebo. If it was the placebo, the study can resume.

If not, the board looks deeper into the case to determine whether or not the illness is related to the drug or treatment. If a clear connection is discovered, “the trial may have to stop,” Zimmer writes. Dr.

Eric Topol at Scripps Research is quoted in the piece as saying he is “still fairly optimistic” about monoclonal antibody treatments for COVID-19. The safety-related pauses of all three experiments are “an example of how things are supposed to work,” says Dr. Anna Durbin of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the story.

The top of a story at The Washington Post features an instructive interactive that sketches “Scienceville,” a fictional place where “politicians and public health officials use every tool at their disposal to contain the coronavirus.” It basically shows how genetic analysis and tracing of viral strains found in a frequently and widely tested population could help officials control outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2. Then the 10/13/20 text story below, by Brady Dennis, Chris Mooney, Sarah Kaplan, and Harry Stevens, focuses on the details of such a “genomic epidemiology” approach and describes some real-life efforts under way, primarily in the UK, to implement the approach. The U.S.

Has not been able to effectively use the approach, in part because genetic sequencing of viral strains “has largely been left up to states and individual researchers, rather than being part of a coordinated and well-funded national program,” the story states. The rise in SARS-CoV-2 infections in the U.S. Is now driven by “small gatherings in people’s homes,” according to officials with the U.S.

Centers for Disease Control, reports Carolyn Crist for WebMD (10/14/20). People should continue to wear face masks and to practice social distancing “since most people have still not been exposed to the coronavirus worldwide," the researchers suggest, Crist writes. A newly developed test can detect SARS-CoV-2 in 5 minutes, reports Robert F.

Service at Science (10/8/20). The test relies on CRISPR gene-editing technology, for which Jennifer Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley, and Emmanuelle Charpentier of the Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry earlier this month. Doudna heads up the work that led to this new 5-minute CRISPR test for the coronavirus.

By comparison, it can take a day or more to get back standard SARS-CoV-2 test results, the story states. Donald G. McNeil Jr.

At The New York Times has written a guide to distinguishing common cold, flu, and COVID-19 symptoms (10/3/20). A major difference between having a cold and having the flu is that "Flu makes you feel as if you were hit by a truck,” McNeil quotes experts as saying. The symptom that best distinguishes COVID-19 from flu is loss of your sense of smell — strong smells don’t register, he writes.

But many flu and COVID-19 symptoms overlap, the story states. The most common symptoms for COVID-19 are a high fever, chills, dry cough and fatigue. For flu, it’s a fever, headaches, body aches, sore throat, runny nose, stuffed sinuses, coughing and sneezing, the story states.

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s three daughters do not plan to visit him for Thanksgiving to avoid potentially transmitting the new coronavirus to their parents, reports Ralph Ellis at WebMD. The story includes holiday traveling and visiting tips from a pulmonary critical care doctor at the University of Washington Medical Center who “believes traveling for the holidays is risky.” The tips include ensuring you have no COVID-19-like symptoms two weeks before traveling, getting tested before traveling, quarantining in a hotel for at least 48 hours before visiting with loved ones, traveling by car, and cutting down on “close contact and talking without a mask” (10/9/20).

Adele Chapin has written a guide for reducing kids’ risk of catching and spreading SARS-CoV-2 at the playground. The 10/8/20 piece in The Washington Post makes the usual recommendations for mask-wearing, hand-washing, hand-sanitizer, disinfecting wipes, and distancing. It quotes a Children’s National Hospital pediatrician advises against gloves, because “people wearing them often touch their faces, which defeats the purpose.” The piece also recommends visiting playgrounds at less busy times and choosing playgrounds with more than one play structure, which makes it easier for kids to distance from one another.

A story by Carl Zimmer for The New York Times beautifully describes and illustrates some of the amazing imaging work that scientists have done to study the structure of SARS-CoV-2 and how it infects our cells and multiplies (10/9/20). For starters, check out a mesmerizing video about a quarter of the way down-page that simulates spike proteins (complex molecules) doing a “molecular dance” on the virus membrane. The video (just one of several in this stunning piece) is part of research by a computational biophysicist at the Max Planck Institute of Biophysics and colleagues.

The spikes appear to shimmy, which “increases the odds of encountering the protein on the surface of our cells it uses to attach,” the researchers suspect, Zimmer writes. You might enjoy, “A letter of recommendation in the age of Zoom,” by Matt Cheung, for McSweeney’s (10/14/20).Editor’s Note (10/16/20). This story is being republished in light of the interim results of a large international clinical trial of remdesivir by the World Health Organization.

The trial found that the drug, which is widely used to treat COVID patients, failed to prevent deaths. An experimental drug—and one of the world’s best hopes against COVID-19—could shorten the time to recovery from coronavirus infection, according to the largest and most rigorous clinical trial of the compound. The experimental drug, called remdesivir, interferes with replication of some viruses, including the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for the current pandemic.

On 29 April, Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), announced that a clinical trial of more than a thousand people showed that people taking remdesivir recovered in 11 days on average, compared to 15 days for those on a placebo. €œAlthough a 31% improvement doesn’t seem like a knockout 100%, it is a very important proof of concept,” Fauci said. €œWhat it has proven is that a drug can block this virus.” Deaths were also lower in trial participants who received the drug, he said, but that trend was not statistically significant.

The shortened recovery time, however, was significant, and was enough of a benefit that investigators decided to stop the trial early for ethical reasons, he said, to ensure that those participants who were receiving placebo could now access the drug. Fauci added that remdesivir would become a standard treatment for COVID-19. The news comes after weeks of data leaks and on a day of mixed results from clinical trials of the drug.

In a trial run by the drug’s maker, Gilead Sciences of Foster City, California, more than half of 400 participants with severe COVID-19 recovered from their illness within two weeks of receiving treatment. But the study lacked a placebo controlled arm, making the results difficult to interpret. Another smaller trial run in China found no benefits from remdesivir when compared with a placebo.

But the trial was stopped early due to the difficulty in enroling participants as the outbreak subsided in China. Nevertheless, onlookers are hopeful that the large NIAID trial provides the first glimmer of hope in a race to find a drug that works against the coronavirus, which has infected more than 3 million people worldwide. €œThere is a lot of focus on remdesivir because it’s potentially the best shot we have,” says virologist Stephen Griffin at the University of Leeds in the UK.

Small trials The fast-flowing, conflicting information on remdesivir has left people reeling over the past weeks. In the rush to find therapies to combat COVID-19, small, clinical trials without control groups have been common. €œI’m just very annoyed by all of these non-controlled studies,” says Geoffrey Porges, an analyst for the investment bank SVB Leerink in New York City.

€œIt’s reassuring that 50–60% of patients are discharged from the hospital, but this is a disease that mostly gets better anyway.” With so much uncertainty, the remdesivir-watchers were waiting anxiously for final results from the NIAID trial, which were not expected until the end of May. In lieu of a vaccine, which could still be more than a year away, effective therapies are critical to reducing deaths and limiting economic damage from the pandemic. Yet, despite the flood of small clinical trials, no therapy has been convincingly shown to boost survival in people with COVID-19.

The NIAID results put a new sheen on remdesivir.

How to wean off of celexa

Even though they successfully amplify how to wean off of celexa sound for millions of Americans, there are approximately 25 million more who would benefit from their use, but won’t wear them. Hearing aids come in a variety of stylesand colors. They generally either fitin the ear (top) or behind the ear (bottom).

Why?. Some are afraid the devices make them look old. Others refuse to believe they have a hearing problem.

Others don’t believe they will improve their ability to hear because of an experience a friend or family member shared. Sound familiar?. Maybe it’s time to familiarize yourself with a few FAQs about hearing aids.

What is a hearing aid?. A hearing aid is a small electronic device worn behind the ear or in the ear canal. It amplifies sound so that a person with hearing loss can hear sound better.

Hearing devices have three components. A microphone, amplifier and speaker. Sound comes through the microphone and is converted into an electrical signal and sent to the amplifier.

The amplifier increases the power of the signals and sends them to the ear through the speaker. Today’s hearing aid is much smaller and more powerful than the hearing devices our parents and grandparents wore even 10 years ago. Advances in digital technology make them better able to distinguish conversation in noisy environments.

Many are Bluetooth capable and connect with smartphones and other personal electronic devices we now use on a daily basis. More. See the different types and styles of hearing aids Can hearing aids improve my hearing?.

That depends on what type of hearing loss you have. Sensorineural hearing loss is caused by damage to the sensory hair cells of the inner ear. This damage can be caused by exposure to loud noise, illness, medication, injury or age.

If your hearing healthcare professional determines you have sensorineural hearing loss, you will probably benefit from wearing a hearing aid. Age-related hearing loss, generally a subset of sensorineural, is the loss of hearing that occurs in most people as they age. This condition, known medically as presbycusis, is common and can often be improved with hearing aids.

Conductive hearing loss, however is usually caused by an obstruction in the ear canal, such as swelling due to an ear infection or a benign tumor. If your hearing healthcare professional determines your hearing loss is conductive, your hearing may return to normal once the obstruction has been removed. If your hearing does not return to normal, you may benefit from wearing a hearing aid, cochlear implant or bone-anchored hearing system.

What should I look for when choosing a hearing aid?. That depends on your lifestyle and your budget. An active person who enjoys traveling and athletic activities will most likely need a different model of hearing aid than someone who spends most of their time at home watching television.

Your hearing healthcare professional will ask a variety of questions to help you determine what type of amplification you need, then work with you to make sure your hearing device works properly to help you hear the sounds that are most important to you. Remember that friend who told you they keep their hearing aids in the dresser drawer?. That just might be because they weren’t honest with their hearing healthcare professional about their expectations and lifestyle, or didn’t schedule follow-up visits as requested.

How long will it take for me to adjust to wearing hearing aids?. Wondering what to expect from new hearing aids?. Adjusting to hearing aids varies from person to person and depends upon how long you waited to treat your hearing loss as well as its severity.

Although our ears collect noise from our environment, it’s actually our brain that translates it into recognizable sound. If hearing loss is left untreated, the auditory part of your brain can actually atrophy, in which case your rehabilitation may take a while longer. You’ll also want to wear them as recommended.

Following your doctor’s orders improves your chances for success. More. 7 tips for getting used to hearing aids How long do hearing aids last?.

With proper use and maintenance, hearing aids typically last between three and five years. Can I return my hearing aids if I’m not satisfied?. Many hearing centers offer a trial period to ensure you are satisfied.

Be sure to ask your hearing healthcare professional about their policies before you purchase any hearing device. How can I find out if I need a hearing aid?. The best way to find out if you need a hearing aid is to have your hearing tested by a hearing healthcare professional.

A thorough hearing test will take approximately an hour of your time during which you will most likely be asked to provide your health history, undergo a series of hearing assessments, and discuss your lifestyle and expectations for better hearing. Afterward, a hearing healthcare professional will discuss the results of your test with you and, if its determined that your hearing can benefit from amplification, discuss next steps. If your hearing has changed recently or you suspect you have hearing loss, make an appointment to see a hearing healthcare professional in your community as soon as possible.

There’s a lot to hear in this world – laughing children, music, the sound of someone you love calling your name – and hearing aids may be able to help you hear them.When deciding on a new pair of hearing aids, you should consider how long they will last. Just like buying a car, the actual mileage may vary.Most modern high-quality hearing aids have a life expectancy on average between three and seven years. However, keep in mind that two people can buy exactly the same hearing aids and have them last vastly different amounts of time.

Here's why. New hearing aids generally last aroundfive years, but this depends on a lotof different factors. Factors impacting how long hearing aids will last There are at least nine factors that impact the average lifespan of a hearing aid.

Materials used to make hearing aids Frequency of cleaning Where hearing aids are worn How hearing aids are stored Hearing aid style A person's body physiology Frequency of maintenance Technological advancements Unique hearing needs 1. Materials used to make hearing aids Although they are designed to be durable, hearing aids are made of plastic, metal, silicon, polymers and other materials that may be subject to some degree of structural degradation over time. Most hearing aids sold today have a protective nanocoating on them to resist water, dust and moisture, but you should still treat them gently to protect them from shock and impacts.

2. Frequency of cleaning Most people would never dream of going months without washing their hair, face or body. However, they forget their hearing aids are exposed to the same environment—moisture, dust, skin oils and sweat, extreme temperatures and sunlight.

All this occurs in addition to the earwax generated by your ear canal in its natural cleaning process. Some wearers only have their hearing aids professionally cleaned twice a year or so. This takes a toll on hearing aids and can significantly reduce their life expectancy.

To help your hearing aids life expectancy, clean them daily as directed by your hearing care practitioner and have them professionally cleaned in the hearing clinic every three to four months. 3. Where hearing aids are worn Hearing aids that are consistently in damp or dusty environments often have more performance issues than other hearing aids.

If you’re concerned about the environments in which you wear your hearing aids, consult your hearing care professional for ideas about protective measures. You may need to use protective sleeves or schedule more frequent professional cleanings to extend the life of your hearing aids. 4.

How hearing aids are stored The way hearing aids are stored when you’re not wearing them can also be a factor in hearing aid life expectancy. For hearing aids with disposable batteries, storing hearing aids with the battery door open will keep them safer. A case with a dehumidifier will keep them drier as well, which will also help them last longer.

Ask your hearing care practitioner what type of storage case or dehumidifier options would work best for your hearing aids. For rechargeable hearing aids, lithium batteries last about four to five years. Just like with smartphones, the battery lifespan gets shorter the longer you own the device.

If you notice your battery draining faster than usual, speak to your hearing care provider about whether new rechargeable batteries will help, or if you should get new devices. 5. Style of hearing aids Conventional wisdom in the hearing aid industry is that behind-the-ear (BTE) styles tend to have a long lifespan than in-the-ear (ITE) styles.

The reason behind this wisdom is more of the electronic components sit in the damp environment of the ear canal with ITE styles. However, recent technical advancements in nanocoatings on internal and external components may soon make this durability difference a thing of the past. 6.

Your body’s physiology Some body chemistries are harder on the plastic and metal components of hearing aids and tend to discolor or degrade parts much faster than others. Some people have very oily skin, produce a lot of earwax or sweat profusely–all of these factors can impact hearing aid life, too. You can’t control these things, of course, but if you have any of these issues you should discuss them with your hearing care practitioner when you’re selecting hearing aids.

7. Frequency of maintenance Most hearing aids have some readily-replaceable parts, such as wax guards, earmold tubing and silicone dome earpiece tips. These parts are regularly replaced during routine maintenance visits with your hearing care practitioner.

There are other parts which can usually be replaced or repaired in the clinic if they become damaged or nonfunctional, like battery doors, earmolds, external speakers and microphone covers. These types of maintenance activities are very important for making your hearing aids last as long as possible. 8.

Technological advancements Hearing aid technology changes often.Many new hearing aids can connectto phones via Bluetooth, for example. Obsolescence can become an issue for very old hearing aids. After several years (usually between five and 10), hearing aid manufacturers may stop making replacement parts for a particular aid, which may make repairs on old hearing aids difficult or impossible.

Software used to program hearing aids also changes over time and eventually becomes obsolete.

Why?. Some are afraid the devices make them look old. Others refuse to believe they have a hearing problem. Others don’t believe they will improve their ability to hear because of an experience a friend or family member shared.

Sound familiar?. Maybe it’s time to familiarize yourself with a few FAQs about hearing aids. What is a hearing aid?. A hearing aid is a small electronic device worn behind the ear or in the ear canal.

It amplifies sound so that a person with hearing loss can hear sound better. Hearing devices have three components. A microphone, amplifier and speaker. Sound comes through the microphone and is converted into an electrical signal and sent to the amplifier.

The amplifier increases the power of the signals and sends them to the ear through the speaker. Today’s hearing aid is much smaller and more powerful than the hearing devices our parents and grandparents wore even 10 years ago. Advances in digital technology make them better able to distinguish conversation in noisy environments. Many are Bluetooth capable and connect with smartphones and other personal electronic devices we now use on a daily basis.

More. See the different types and styles of hearing aids Can hearing aids improve my hearing?. That depends on what type of hearing loss you have. Sensorineural hearing loss is caused by damage to the sensory hair cells of the inner ear.

This damage can be caused by exposure to loud noise, illness, medication, injury or age. If your hearing healthcare professional determines you have sensorineural hearing loss, you will probably benefit from wearing a hearing aid. Age-related hearing loss, generally a subset of sensorineural, is the loss of hearing that occurs in most people as they age. This condition, known medically as presbycusis, is common and can often be improved with hearing aids.

Conductive hearing loss, however is usually caused by an obstruction in the ear canal, such as swelling due to an ear infection or a benign tumor. If your hearing healthcare professional determines your hearing loss is conductive, your hearing may return to normal once the obstruction has been removed. If your hearing does not return to normal, you may benefit from wearing a hearing aid, cochlear implant or bone-anchored hearing system. What should I look for when choosing a hearing aid?.

That depends on your lifestyle and your budget. An active person who enjoys traveling and athletic activities will most likely need a different model of hearing aid than someone who spends most of their time at home watching television. Your hearing healthcare professional will ask a variety of questions to help you determine what type of amplification you need, then work with you to make sure your hearing device works properly to help you hear the sounds that are most important to you. Remember that friend who told you they keep their hearing aids in the dresser drawer?.

That just might be because they weren’t honest with their hearing healthcare professional about their expectations and lifestyle, or didn’t schedule follow-up visits as requested. How long will it take for me to adjust to wearing hearing aids?. Wondering what to expect from new hearing aids?. Adjusting to hearing aids varies from person to person and depends upon how long you waited to treat your hearing loss as well as its severity.

Although our ears collect noise from our environment, it’s actually our brain that translates it into recognizable sound. If hearing loss is left untreated, the auditory part of your brain can actually atrophy, in which case your rehabilitation may take a while longer. You’ll also want to wear them as recommended. Following your doctor’s orders improves your chances for success.

More. 7 tips for getting used to hearing aids How long do hearing aids last?. With proper use and maintenance, hearing aids typically last between three and five years. Can I return my hearing aids if I’m not satisfied?.

Many hearing centers offer a trial period to ensure you are satisfied. Be sure to ask your hearing healthcare professional about their policies before you purchase any hearing device. How can I find out if I need a hearing aid?. The best way to find out if you need a hearing aid is to have your hearing tested by a hearing healthcare professional.

A thorough hearing test will take approximately an hour of your time during which you will most likely be asked to provide your health history, undergo a series of hearing assessments, and discuss your lifestyle and expectations for better hearing. Afterward, a hearing healthcare professional will discuss the results of your test with you and, if its determined that your hearing can benefit from amplification, discuss next steps. If your hearing has changed recently or you suspect you have hearing loss, make an appointment to see a hearing healthcare professional in your community as soon as possible. There’s a lot to hear in this world – laughing children, music, the sound of someone you love calling your name – and hearing aids may be able to help you hear them.When deciding on a new pair of hearing aids, you should consider how long they will last.

Just like buying a car, the actual mileage may vary.Most modern high-quality hearing aids have a life expectancy on average between three and seven years. However, keep in mind that two people can buy exactly the same hearing aids and have them last vastly different amounts of time. Here's why. New hearing aids generally last aroundfive years, but this depends on a lotof different factors.

Factors impacting how long hearing aids will last There are at least nine factors that impact the average lifespan of a hearing aid. Materials used to make hearing aids Frequency of cleaning Where hearing aids are worn How hearing aids are stored Hearing aid style A person's body physiology Frequency of maintenance Technological advancements Unique hearing needs 1. Materials used to make hearing aids Although they are designed to be durable, hearing aids are made of plastic, metal, silicon, polymers and other materials that may be subject to some degree of structural degradation over time. Most hearing aids sold today have a protective nanocoating on them to resist water, dust and moisture, but you should still treat them gently to protect them from shock and impacts.

2. Frequency of cleaning Most people would never dream of going months without washing their hair, face or body. However, they forget their hearing aids are exposed to the same environment—moisture, dust, skin oils and sweat, extreme temperatures and sunlight. All this occurs in addition to the earwax generated by your ear canal in its natural cleaning process.

Some wearers only have their hearing aids professionally cleaned twice a year or so. This takes a toll on hearing aids and can significantly reduce their life expectancy. To help your hearing aids life expectancy, clean them daily as directed by your hearing care practitioner and have them professionally cleaned in the hearing clinic every three to four months. 3.

Where hearing aids are worn Hearing aids that are consistently in damp or dusty environments often have more performance issues than other hearing aids. If you’re concerned about the environments in which you wear your hearing aids, consult your hearing care professional for ideas about protective measures. You may need to use protective sleeves or schedule more frequent professional cleanings to extend the life of your hearing aids. 4.

How hearing aids are stored The way hearing aids are stored when you’re not wearing them can also be a factor in hearing aid life expectancy. For hearing aids with disposable batteries, storing hearing aids with the battery door open will keep them safer. A case with a dehumidifier will keep them drier as well, which will also help them last longer. Ask your hearing care practitioner what type of storage case or dehumidifier options would work best for your hearing aids.

For rechargeable hearing aids, lithium batteries last about four to five years. Just like with smartphones, the battery lifespan gets shorter the longer you own the device. If you notice your battery draining faster than usual, speak to your hearing care provider about whether new rechargeable batteries will help, or if you should get new devices. 5.

Style of hearing aids Conventional wisdom in the hearing aid industry is that behind-the-ear (BTE) styles tend to have a long lifespan than in-the-ear (ITE) styles. The reason behind this wisdom is more of the electronic components sit in the damp environment of the ear canal with ITE styles. However, recent technical advancements in nanocoatings on internal and external components may soon make this durability difference a thing of the past. 6.

Your body’s physiology Some body chemistries are harder on the plastic and metal components of hearing aids and tend to discolor or degrade parts much faster than others. Some people have very oily skin, produce a lot of earwax or sweat profusely–all of these factors can impact hearing aid life, too. You can’t control these things, of course, but if you have any of these issues you should discuss them with your hearing care practitioner when you’re selecting hearing aids. 7.

Frequency of maintenance Most hearing aids have some readily-replaceable parts, such as wax guards, earmold tubing and silicone dome earpiece tips. These parts are regularly replaced during routine maintenance visits with your hearing care practitioner. There are other parts which can usually be replaced or repaired in the clinic if they become damaged or nonfunctional, like battery doors, earmolds, external speakers and microphone covers. These types of maintenance activities are very important for making your hearing aids last as long as possible.

8. Technological advancements Hearing aid technology changes often.Many new hearing aids can connectto phones via Bluetooth, for example. Obsolescence can become an issue for very old hearing aids. After several years (usually between five and 10), hearing aid manufacturers may stop making replacement parts for a particular aid, which may make repairs on old hearing aids difficult or impossible.

Software used to program hearing aids also changes over time and eventually becomes obsolete. This often makes it difficult to reprogram very old hearing aids. Hearing aid performance and features advance very rapidly. The technology in the most advanced hearing aids available six or seven years ago would be considered basic today.

Who manufactures celexa

President Donald who manufactures celexa Trump on Monday said the government's top pandemic fighter, Dr. Anthony Fauci, is a "disaster" — and possibly an "idiot" — as he claimed that Americans are "tired of" Covid-19, even as the number of coronavirus cases continued spiking in much of the United States."People are tired of Covid," Trump said in a call with the staff of his reelection campaign against former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee."People are tired of hearing Fauci and all these idiots, all these idiots who got it wrong," Trump said on the call.Trump also claimed that "every time [Fauci] goes on television there's always a bomb," an apparent reference to Fauci's media appearances, which included who manufactures celexa him telling CBS's "60 Minutes" on Sunday night that he was "absolutely not" surprised that Trump himself caught the coronavirus.But Trump also offered an explanation for why he has not fired Fauci as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, despite his unhappiness with him."There's a bigger bomb if you fire him," Trump said. "This guy's a disaster."The president at another point called Fauci a "nice" man, but in a backhanded way."He's been here for 500 years," Trump said of Fauci, who is 79 years old.Fauci is a civil servant who, under the law, cannot who manufactures celexa be directly fired by the president. And Fauci could appeal any dismissal ordered by the president through the political appointees who oversee him.After this article was first published, Trump insulted Fauci with two tweets, which referenced Fauci's extremely errant ceremonial "first pitch" at a Washington Nationals baseball game earlier this year."Dr.Tony Fauci says we don't allow him to do who manufactures celexa television, and yet I saw him last night on @60Minutes, and he seems to get more airtime than anybody since the late, great, Bob Hope," Trump wrote.

"All I ask of Tony is that he make who manufactures celexa better decisions. He said 'no masks & who manufactures celexa. Let China who manufactures celexa in'. Also, Bad arm!.

""P.S. Tony should stop wearing the Washington Nationals' Mask for two reasons. Number one, it is not up to the high standards that he should be exposing. Number two, it keeps reminding me that Tony threw out perhaps the worst first pitch in the history of Baseball!.

," Trump wrote.Eduardo Silva, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee "War Room," in a statement said, "Trump claimed that 'people are tired of COVID,' and he's right — they're tired of him ignoring experts and prolonging a crisis that has already taken more than 219,000 American lives.""For months, Trump has lied to the American people about the coronavirus, and now, as cases surge and hospitals are again being pushed to the brink, he's clearly learned nothing from the pain and suffering he's already caused," Silva said. "Americans across the country are paying the price for Trump's disastrous response to the coronavirus, and the more he doubles down on this reckless strategy, the more they'll oppose his failed leadership."During a campaign event Sunday, Trump made fun of Biden by imitating him saying he would "listen to the scientists" about the pandemic."If I listened totally to the scientists, we would right now have a country that would be in a massive depression," Trump then said at the rally in Carson City, Nevada. "We're like a rocket ship."Trump also criticized Democratic governors of several states for enacting measures designed to thwart a second wave of coronavirus cases."Get the places open, let's go," Trump said.Even as he spoke, daily new cases in the United States continued rising in more than half of the states. As of Monday, more than 8.1 million Covid-19 cases have been reported in the U.S.

Since 2020 began, with at least 219,765 deaths linked to the virus.Senate Health Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said in a statement, "Dr. Fauci is one of our country's most distinguished public servants. He has served six presidents, starting with Ronald Reagan.""If more Americans paid attention to his advice, we'd have fewer cases of COVID-19, and it would be safer to go back to school and back to work and out to eat," Alexander said.Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates fired back at Trump's claim that the country would be worse off economically if Trump had listened to scientists, tweeting, "This is tellingly out of touch and the polar opposite of reality.""Trump crashed the strong economy he inherited from the Obama-Biden Administration by lying about and attacking the science, and layoffs are rising," Bates tweeted. "Meanwhile, Joe Biden would create millions more jobs than Trump."Also Sunday, the social media platform Twitter removed a tweet by the White House pandemic advisor Scott Atlas, who had written “Masks work?.

NO.”Twitter said that Atlas — who unlike Fauci seems favored by Trump — violated the platform's coronavirus misinformation policy, which bars "sharing false or misleading content which could lead to harm."Trump, first lady Melania Trump, their son Barron, and more than two dozen people linked to the White House, the president's campaign and to presidential events have been diagnosed this month with Covid-19.During his "60 Minutes" interview, Fauci said he was not surprised that Trump had gotten ill, because of the lack of sufficient precautions against the virus at a White House gathering Sept. 26 to watch Trump formally announce federal appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his nominee to the Supreme Court."I was worried that he was going to get sick when I saw him in a completely precarious situation of crowded, no separation between people, and almost nobody wearing a mask," Fauci said."When I saw that on TV, I said, 'Oh my goodness. Nothing good can come out of that, that's got to be a problem," Fauci said."And then sure enough, it turned out to be a superspreader event."Fauci last week took a shot at Trump's campaign after it featured him in a recent ad saying of Trump in an interview about the coronavirus response, "I can't imagine that anybody could be doing more."That Fauci interview was from March, the month the virus began spreading in earnest in the U.S."In my nearly five decades of public service, I have never publicly endorsed any political candidate," Fauci told CNN in a statement."The comments attributed to me without my permission in the GOP campaign ad were taken out of context from a broad statement I made months ago about the efforts of federal public health officials."A traveler wearing a protective mask waits to board a United Airlines flight at San Francisco International Airport, Oct. 15, 2020.David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty ImagesAirline stocks bucked a market sell-off on Monday after airport screenings over the weekend rose above 1 million for the first time since mid-March, a sign more travelers are getting comfortable flying again despite the coronavirus pandemic.The Transportation Security Administration screened 1.03 million people on Sunday, the most since March 16.

That is still 60% lower from a year ago, when 2.6 million people passed through TSA airport checkpoints, showing airlines' pandemic-induced struggles are far from over.But the figure still represents improvement. So far this month, daily airport screenings are down 65% compared with the first 18 days of October 2019. In April, screenings were down more than 90% from a year earlier.Delta and United executives last week noted encouraging booking trends but warned investors that a full recovery to pre-pandemic levels, particularly for once-lucrative business travel, is likely years away.Both carriers posted large losses for the third quarter. American and Southwest are scheduled to report results before the market opens Thursday.United shares gained 3.9%, while Delta eked out a 0.1% gain on Monday.

American and Southwest added 0.8% and 0.4%, respectively. The S&P 500 shed 1.6%..

President Donald Trump on Monday said the government's top online celexa prescription pandemic fighter, Dr. Anthony Fauci, is a "disaster" — and possibly an online celexa prescription "idiot" — as he claimed that Americans are "tired of" Covid-19, even as the number of coronavirus cases continued spiking in much of the United States."People are tired of Covid," Trump said in a call with the staff of his reelection campaign against former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee."People are tired of hearing Fauci and all these idiots, all these idiots who got it wrong," Trump said on the call.Trump also claimed that "every time [Fauci] goes on television there's always a bomb," an apparent reference to Fauci's media appearances, which included him telling CBS's "60 Minutes" on Sunday night that he was "absolutely not" surprised that Trump himself caught the coronavirus.But Trump also offered an explanation for why he has not fired Fauci as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, despite his unhappiness with him."There's a bigger bomb if you fire him," Trump said. "This guy's a disaster."The president at another point called Fauci a "nice" man, but in a backhanded way."He's been here for 500 years," Trump said of Fauci, who is 79 years old.Fauci is a civil servant who, online celexa prescription under the law, cannot be directly fired by the president. And Fauci could appeal any dismissal ordered by the online celexa prescription president through the political appointees who oversee him.After this article was first published, Trump insulted Fauci with two tweets, which referenced Fauci's extremely errant ceremonial "first pitch" at a Washington Nationals baseball game earlier this year."Dr.Tony Fauci says we don't allow him to do television, and yet I saw him last night on @60Minutes, and he seems to get more airtime than anybody since the late, great, Bob Hope," Trump wrote.

"All I ask of Tony is that he online celexa prescription make better decisions. He said 'no masks & online celexa prescription. Let China online celexa prescription in'. Also, Bad arm!.

""P.S. Tony should stop wearing the Washington Nationals' Mask for two reasons. Number one, it is not up to the high standards that he should be exposing. Number two, it keeps reminding me that Tony threw out perhaps the worst first pitch in the history of Baseball!.

," Trump wrote.Eduardo Silva, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee "War Room," in a statement said, "Trump claimed that 'people are tired of COVID,' and he's right — they're tired of him ignoring experts and prolonging a crisis that has already taken more than 219,000 American lives.""For months, Trump has lied to the American people about the coronavirus, and now, as cases surge and hospitals are again being pushed to the brink, he's clearly learned nothing from the pain and suffering he's already caused," Silva said. "Americans across the country are paying the price for Trump's disastrous response to the coronavirus, and the more he doubles down on this reckless strategy, the more they'll oppose his failed leadership."During a campaign event Sunday, Trump made fun of Biden by imitating him saying he would "listen to the scientists" about the pandemic."If I listened totally to the scientists, we would right now have a country that would be in a massive depression," Trump then said at the rally in Carson City, Nevada. "We're like a rocket ship."Trump also criticized Democratic governors of several states for enacting measures designed to thwart a second wave of coronavirus cases."Get the places open, let's go," Trump said.Even as he spoke, daily new cases in the United States continued rising in more than half of the states. As of Monday, more than 8.1 million Covid-19 cases have been reported in the U.S.

Since 2020 began, with at least 219,765 deaths linked to the virus.Senate Health Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said in a statement, "Dr. Fauci is one of our country's most distinguished public servants. He has served six presidents, starting with Ronald Reagan.""If more Americans paid attention to his advice, we'd have fewer cases of COVID-19, and it would be safer to go back to school and back to work and out to eat," Alexander said.Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates fired back at Trump's claim that the country would be worse off economically if Trump had listened to scientists, tweeting, "This is tellingly out of touch and the polar opposite of reality.""Trump crashed the strong economy he inherited from the Obama-Biden Administration by lying about and attacking the science, and layoffs are rising," Bates tweeted. "Meanwhile, Joe Biden would create millions more jobs than Trump."Also Sunday, the social media platform Twitter removed a tweet by the White House pandemic advisor Scott Atlas, who had written “Masks work?.

NO.”Twitter said that Atlas — who unlike Fauci seems favored by Trump — violated the platform's coronavirus misinformation policy, which bars "sharing false or misleading content which could lead to harm."Trump, first lady Melania Trump, their son Barron, and more than two dozen people linked to the White House, the president's campaign and to presidential events have been diagnosed this month with Covid-19.During his "60 Minutes" interview, Fauci said he was not surprised that Trump had gotten ill, because of the lack of sufficient precautions against the virus at a White House gathering Sept. 26 to watch Trump formally announce federal appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his nominee to the Supreme Court."I was worried that he was going to get sick when I saw him in a completely precarious situation of crowded, no separation between people, and almost nobody wearing a mask," Fauci said."When I saw that on TV, I said, 'Oh my goodness. Nothing good can come out of that, that's got to be a problem," Fauci said."And then sure enough, it turned out to be a superspreader event."Fauci last week took a shot at Trump's campaign after it featured him in a recent ad saying of Trump in an interview about the coronavirus response, "I can't imagine that anybody could be doing more."That Fauci interview was from March, the month the virus began spreading in earnest in the U.S."In my nearly five decades of public service, I have never publicly endorsed any political candidate," Fauci told CNN in a statement."The comments attributed to me without my permission in the GOP campaign ad were taken out of context from a broad statement I made months ago about the efforts of federal public health officials."A traveler wearing a protective mask waits to board a United Airlines flight at San Francisco International Airport, Oct. 15, 2020.David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty ImagesAirline stocks bucked a market sell-off on Monday after airport screenings over the weekend rose above 1 million for the first time since mid-March, a sign more travelers are getting comfortable flying again despite the coronavirus pandemic.The Transportation Security Administration screened 1.03 million people on Sunday, the most since March 16.

That is still 60% lower from a year ago, when 2.6 million people passed through TSA airport checkpoints, showing airlines' pandemic-induced struggles are far from over.But the figure still represents improvement. So far this month, daily airport screenings are down 65% compared with the first 18 days of October 2019. In April, screenings were down more than 90% from a year earlier.Delta and United executives last week noted encouraging booking trends but warned investors that a full recovery to pre-pandemic levels, particularly for once-lucrative business travel, is likely years away.Both carriers posted large losses for the third quarter. American and Southwest are scheduled to report results before the market opens Thursday.United shares gained 3.9%, while Delta eked out a 0.1% gain on Monday.

American and Southwest added 0.8% and 0.4%, respectively. The S&P 500 shed 1.6%..

Celexa and frequent urination

Start Preamble celexa and frequent urination Notice of amendment. The Secretary issues this amendment pursuant to section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act to add additional categories of Qualified Persons and amend the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures. This amendment to the Declaration published on March 17, 2020 celexa and frequent urination (85 FR 15198) is effective as of August 24, 2020. Start Further Info Robert P. Kadlec, MD, MTM&H, MS, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Office of celexa and frequent urination the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201.

Telephone. 202-205-2882. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to issue a Declaration to provide liability immunity to certain individuals and entities (Covered Persons) against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims involving “willful misconduct” as defined in the PREP Act. Under the PREP Act, a Declaration may be amended as circumstances warrant. The PREP Act was enacted on December 30, 2005, as Public Law 109-148, Division C, § 2.

It amended the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, adding section 319F-3, which addresses liability immunity, and section 319F-4, which creates a compensation program. These sections are codified at 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d and 42 U.S.C. 247d-6e, respectively. Section 319F-3 of the PHS Act has been amended by the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act (PAHPRA), Public Law 113-5, enacted on March 13, 2013 and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Public Law 116-136, enacted on March 27, Start Printed Page 521372020, to expand Covered Countermeasures under the PREP Act.

On January 31, 2020, the Secretary declared a public health emergency pursuant to section 319 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d, effective January 27, 2020, for the entire United States to aid in the response of the nation's health care community to the COVID-19 outbreak. Pursuant to section 319 of the PHS Act, the Secretary renewed that declaration on April 26, 2020, and July 25, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the Secretary issued a Declaration under the PREP Act for medical countermeasures against COVID-19 (85 FR 15198, Mar. 17, 2020) (the Declaration).

On April 10, the Secretary amended the Declaration under the PREP Act to extend liability immunity to covered countermeasures authorized under the CARES Act (85 FR 21012, Apr. 15, 2020). On June 4, the Secretary amended the Declaration to clarify that covered countermeasures under the Declaration include qualified countermeasures that limit the harm COVID-19 might otherwise cause. The Secretary now amends section V of the Declaration to identify as qualified persons covered under the PREP Act, and thus authorizes, certain State-licensed pharmacists to order and administer, and pharmacy interns (who are licensed or registered by their State board of pharmacy and acting under the supervision of a State-licensed pharmacist) to administer, any vaccine that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule (ACIP-recommended vaccines).[] The Secretary also amends section VIII of the Declaration to clarify that the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures includes not only COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases. Description of This Amendment by Section Section V.

Covered Persons Under the PREP Act and the Declaration, a “qualified person” is a “covered person.” Subject to certain limitations, a covered person is immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration or use of a covered countermeasure if a declaration under subsection (b) has been issued with respect to such countermeasure. €œQualified person” includes (A) a licensed health professional or other individual who is authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense such countermeasures under the law of the State in which the countermeasure was prescribed, administered, or dispensed. Or (B) “a person within a category of persons so identified in a declaration by the Secretary” under subsection (b) of the PREP Act. 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(8).[] By this amendment to the Declaration, the Secretary identifies an additional category of persons who are qualified persons under section 247d-6d(i)(8)(B).[] On May 8, 2020, CDC reported, “The identified declines in routine pediatric vaccine ordering and doses administered might indicate that U.S.

Children and their communities face increased risks for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” and suggested that a decrease in rates of routine childhood vaccinations were due to changes in healthcare access, social distancing, and other COVID-19 mitigation strategies.[] The report also stated that “[p]arental concerns about potentially exposing their children to COVID-19 during well child visits might contribute to the declines observed.” [] On July 10, 2020, CDC reported its findings of a May survey it conducted to assess the capacity of pediatric health care practices to provide immunization services to children during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey, which was limited to practices participating in the Vaccines for Children program, found that, as of mid-May, 15 percent of Northeast pediatric practices were closed, 12.5 percent of Midwest practices were closed, 6.2 percent of practices in the South were closed, and 10 percent of practices in the West were closed. Most practices had reduced office hours for in-person visits. When asked whether their practices would likely be able to accommodate new patients for immunization services through August, 418 practices (21.3 percent) either responded that this was not likely or the practice was permanently closed or not resuming immunization services for all patients, and 380 (19.6 percent) responded that they were unsure. Urban practices and those in the Northeast were less likely to be able to accommodate new patients compared with rural practices and those in the South, Midwest, or West.[] In response to these troubling developments, CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics have stressed, “Well-child visits and vaccinations are essential services and help make sure children are protected.” [] The Secretary re-emphasizes that important recommendation to parents and legal guardians here.

If your child is due for a well-child visit, contact your pediatrician's or other primary-care provider's office and ask about ways that the office safely offers well-child visits and vaccinations. Many medical offices are taking extra steps to make sure that well-child visits can occur safely during the COVID-19 pandemic, including. Scheduling sick visits and well-child visits during different times of the Start Printed Page 52138day or days of the week, or at different locations. Asking patients to remain outside until it is time for their appointments to reduce the number of people in waiting rooms. Adhering to recommended social (physical) distancing and other infection-control practices, such as the use of masks.

The decrease in childhood-vaccination rates is a public health threat and a collateral harm caused by COVID-19. Together, the United States must turn to available medical professionals to limit the harm and public health threats that may result from decreased immunization rates. We must quickly do so to avoid preventable infections in children, additional strains on our healthcare system, and any further increase in avoidable adverse health consequences—particularly if such complications coincide with additional resurgence of COVID-19. Together with pediatricians and other healthcare professionals, pharmacists are positioned to expand access to childhood vaccinations. Many States already allow pharmacists to administer vaccines to children of any age.[] Other States permit pharmacists to administer vaccines to children depending on the age—for example, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, or 12 years of age and older.[] Few States restrict pharmacist-administered vaccinations to only adults.[] Many States also allow properly trained individuals under the supervision of a trained pharmacist to administer those vaccines.[] Pharmacists are well positioned to increase access to vaccinations, particularly in certain areas or for certain populations that have too few pediatricians and other primary-care providers, or that are otherwise medically underserved.[] As of 2018, nearly 90 percent of Americans lived within five miles of a community pharmacy.[] Pharmacies often offer extended hours and added convenience.

What is more, pharmacists are trusted healthcare professionals with established relationships with their patients. Pharmacists also have strong relationships with local medical providers and hospitals to refer patients as appropriate. For example, pharmacists already play a significant role in annual influenza vaccination. In the early 2018-19 season, they administered the influenza vaccine to nearly a third of all adults who received the vaccine.[] Given the potential danger of serious influenza and continuing COVID-19 outbreaks this autumn and the impact that such concurrent outbreaks may have on our population, our healthcare system, and our whole-of-nation response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we must quickly expand access to influenza vaccinations. Allowing more qualified pharmacists to administer the influenza vaccine to children will make vaccinations more accessible.

Therefore, the Secretary amends the Declaration to identify State-licensed pharmacists (and pharmacy interns acting under their supervision if the pharmacy intern is licensed or registered by his or her State board of pharmacy) as qualified persons under section 247d-6d(i)(8)(B) when the pharmacist orders and either the pharmacist or the supervised pharmacy intern administers vaccines to individuals ages three through 18 pursuant to the following requirements. The vaccine must be FDA-authorized or FDA-approved. The vaccination must be ordered and administered according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule.[] The licensed pharmacist must complete a practical training program of at least 20 hours that is approved by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). This training Start Printed Page 52139program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines.[] The licensed or registered pharmacy intern must complete a practical training program that is approved by the ACPE. This training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines.[] The licensed pharmacist and licensed or registered pharmacy intern must have a current certificate in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation.[] The licensed pharmacist must complete a minimum of two hours of ACPE-approved, immunization-related continuing pharmacy education during each State licensing period.[] The licensed pharmacist must comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the jurisdiction in which he or she administers vaccines, including informing the patient's primary-care provider when available, submitting the required immunization information to the State or local immunization information system (vaccine registry), complying with requirements with respect to reporting adverse events, and complying with requirements whereby the person administering a vaccine must review the vaccine registry or other vaccination records prior to administering a vaccine.[] The licensed pharmacist must inform his or her childhood-vaccination patients and the adult caregivers accompanying the children of the importance of a well-child visit with a pediatrician or other licensed primary-care provider and refer patients as appropriate.[] These requirements are consistent with those in many States that permit licensed pharmacists to order and administer vaccines to children and permit licensed or registered pharmacy interns acting under their supervision to administer vaccines to children.[] Administering vaccinations to children age three and older is less complicated and requires less training and resources than administering vaccinations to younger children.

That is because ACIP generally recommends administering intramuscular injections in the deltoid muscle for individuals age three and older.[] For individuals less than three years of age, ACIP generally recommends administering intramuscular injections in the anterolateral aspect of the thigh muscle.[] Administering injections in the thigh muscle often presents additional complexities and requires additional training and resources including additional personnel to safely position the child while another healthcare professional injects the vaccine.[] Moreover, as of 2018, 40% of three-year-olds were enrolled in preprimary programs (i.e. Preschool or kindergarten programs).[] Preprimary programs are beginning in the coming weeks or months, so the Secretary has concluded that it is particularly important for individuals ages three through 18 to receive ACIP-recommended vaccines according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. All States require children to be vaccinated against certain communicable diseases as a condition of school attendance. These laws often apply to both public and private schools with identical immunization and exemption provisions.[] As nurseries, preschools, kindergartens, and schools reopen, increased access to childhood vaccinations is essential to ensuring children can return. Notwithstanding any State or local scope-of-practice legal requirements, (1) qualified licensed pharmacists are identified as qualified persons to order and administer ACIP-recommended vaccines and (2) qualified State-licensed or registered pharmacy interns are identified as qualified persons to administer the ACIP-recommended vaccines ordered by their supervising qualified licensed pharmacist.[] Both the PREP Act and the June 4, 2020 Second Amendment to the Declaration define “covered countermeasures” to include qualified pandemic and epidemic products that “limit the harm such pandemic or epidemic might otherwise cause.” [] The troubling decrease in ACIP-recommended childhood vaccinations and the resulting increased risk of associated diseases, adverse health conditions, and other threats are categories of harms otherwise caused by Start Printed Page 52140COVID-19 as set forth in Sections VI and VIII of this Declaration.[] Hence, such vaccinations are “covered countermeasures” under the PREP Act and the June 4, 2020 Second Amendment to the Declaration.

Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed to affect the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, including an injured party's ability to obtain compensation under that program. Covered countermeasures that are subject to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program authorized under 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq. Are covered under this Declaration for the purposes of liability immunity and injury compensation only to the extent that injury compensation is not provided under that Program. All other terms and conditions of the Declaration apply to such covered countermeasures.

Section VIII. Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat As discussed, the troubling decrease in ACIP-recommended childhood vaccinations and the resulting increased risk of associated diseases, adverse health conditions, and other threats are categories of harms otherwise caused by COVID-19. The Secretary therefore amends section VIII, which describes the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures, to clarify that the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures is not only COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases. Amendments to Declaration Amended Declaration for Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act Coverage for medical countermeasures against COVID-19. Sections V and VIII of the March 10, 2020 Declaration under the PREP Act for medical countermeasures against COVID-19, as amended April 10, 2020 and June 4, 2020, are further amended pursuant to section 319F-3(b)(4) of the PHS Act as described below.

All other sections of the Declaration remain in effect as published at 85 FR 15198 (Mar. 17, 2020) and amended at 85 FR 21012 (Apr. 15, 2020) and 85 FR 35100 (June 8, 2020). 1. Covered Persons, section V, delete in full and replace with.

V. Covered Persons 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(2), (3), (4), (6), (8)(A) and (B) Covered Persons who are afforded liability immunity under this Declaration are “manufacturers,” “distributors,” “program planners,” “qualified persons,” and their officials, agents, and employees, as those terms are defined in the PREP Act, and the United States. In addition, I have determined that the following additional persons are qualified persons. (a) Any person authorized in accordance with the public health and medical emergency response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction, as described in Section VII below, to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures, and their officials, agents, employees, contractors and volunteers, following a Declaration of an emergency.

(b) any person authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense the Covered Countermeasures or who is otherwise authorized to perform an activity under an Emergency Use Authorization in accordance with Section 564 of the FD&C Act. (c) any person authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense Covered Countermeasures in accordance with Section 564A of the FD&C Act. And (d) a State-licensed pharmacist who orders and administers, and pharmacy interns who administer (if the pharmacy intern acts under the supervision of such pharmacist and the pharmacy intern is licensed or registered by his or her State board of pharmacy), vaccines that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. Such State-licensed pharmacists and the State-licensed or registered interns under their supervision are qualified persons only if the following requirements are met. The vaccine must be FDA-authorized or FDA-approved.

The vaccination must be ordered and administered according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. The licensed pharmacist must complete a practical training program of at least 20 hours that is approved by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). This training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines. The licensed or registered pharmacy intern must complete a practical training program that is approved by the ACPE. This training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines.

The licensed pharmacist and licensed or registered pharmacy intern must have a current certificate in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The licensed pharmacist must complete a minimum of two hours of ACPE-approved, immunization-related continuing pharmacy education during each State licensing period. The licensed pharmacist must comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the jurisdiction in which he or she administers vaccines, including informing the patient's primary-care provider when available, submitting the required immunization information to the State or local immunization information system (vaccine registry), complying with requirements with respect to reporting adverse events, and complying with requirements whereby the person administering a vaccine must review the vaccine registry or other vaccination records prior to administering a vaccine. The licensed pharmacist must inform his or her childhood-vaccination patients and the adult caregiver accompanying the child of the importance of a well-child visit with a pediatrician or other licensed primary-care provider and refer patients as appropriate. Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed to affect the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, including an injured party's ability to obtain compensation under that program.

Covered countermeasures that are subject to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program authorized under 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq. Are covered under this Declaration for the purposes of liability immunity and injury compensation only to the extent that injury compensation is not provided under that Program. All other Start Printed Page 52141terms and conditions of the Declaration apply to such covered countermeasures. 2.

Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat, section VIII, delete in full and replace with. VIII. Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(2)(A) The category of disease, health condition, or threat for which I recommend the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures is not only COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases. Start Authority 42 U.S.C.

247d-6d. End Authority Start Signature Dated. August 19, 2020. Alex M. Azar II, Secretary of Health and Human Services.

End Signature End Supplemental Information [FR Doc. 2020-18542 Filed 8-20-20. 4:15 pm]BILLING CODE 4150-03-PToday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released Healthy People 2030, the nation's 10-year plan for addressing our most critical public health priorities and challenges. Since 1980, HHS's Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion has set measurable objectives and targets to improve the health and well-being of the nation.This decade, Healthy People 2030 features 355 core – or measurable – objectives with 10-year targets, new objectives related to opioid use disorder and youth e-cigarette use, and resources for adapting Healthy People 2030 to emerging public health threats like COVID-19.

For the first time, Healthy People 2030 also sets 10-year targets for objectives related to social determinants of health."Healthy People was the first national effort to lay out a set of data-driven priorities for health improvement," said HHS Secretary Alex Azar. "Healthy People 2030 adopts a more focused set of objectives and more rigorous data standards to help the federal government and all of our partners deliver results on these important goals over the next decade."Healthy People has led the nation with its focus on social determinants of health, and continues to prioritize economic stability, education access and quality, health care access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, and social and community context as factors that influence health. Healthy People 2030 also continues to prioritize health disparities, health equity, and health literacy."Now more than ever, we need programs like Healthy People that set a shared vision for a healthier nation, where all people can achieve their full potential for health and well-being across the lifespan," said ADM Brett P. Giroir, MD, Assistant Secretary for Health. "COVID-19 has brought the importance of public health to the forefront of our national dialogue.

Achieving Healthy People 2030's vision would help the United States become more resilient to public health threats like COVID-19."Healthy People 2030 emphasizes collaboration, with objectives and targets that span multiple sectors. A federal advisory committee of 13 external thought leaders and a workgroup of subject matter experts from more than 20 federal agencies contributed to Healthy People 2030, along with public comments received throughout the development process.The HHS Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion leads Healthy People in partnership with the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which oversees data in support of the initiative.HHS Secretary Alex M. Azar II, ADM Brett P. Giroir, MD, Assistant Secretary for Health, and U.S. Surgeon General Jerome M.

Adams, MD, MPH, and others from HHS and CDC will launch Healthy People 2030 during a webcast on August 18 at 1 pm (EDT) at https://www.hhs.gov/live. No registration is necessary. For more information about Healthy People 2030, visit https://healthypeople.gov..

Start Preamble online celexa prescription Notice of amendment. The Secretary issues this amendment pursuant to section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act to add additional categories of Qualified Persons and amend the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures. This amendment to the Declaration published on March 17, 2020 (85 FR 15198) is effective as of online celexa prescription August 24, 2020. Start Further Info Robert P. Kadlec, MD, online celexa prescription MTM&H, MS, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201.

Telephone. 202-205-2882. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to issue a Declaration to provide liability immunity to certain individuals and entities (Covered Persons) against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims involving “willful misconduct” as defined in the PREP Act. Under the PREP Act, a Declaration may be amended as circumstances warrant. The PREP Act was enacted on December 30, 2005, as Public Law 109-148, Division C, § 2.

It amended the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, adding section 319F-3, which addresses liability immunity, and section 319F-4, which creates a compensation program. These sections are codified at 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d and 42 U.S.C. 247d-6e, respectively. Section 319F-3 of the PHS Act has been amended by the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act (PAHPRA), Public Law 113-5, enacted on March 13, 2013 and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Public Law 116-136, enacted on March 27, Start Printed Page 521372020, to expand Covered Countermeasures under the PREP Act.

On January 31, 2020, the Secretary declared a public health emergency pursuant to section 319 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d, effective January 27, 2020, for the entire United States to aid in the response of the nation's health care community to the COVID-19 outbreak. Pursuant to section 319 of the PHS Act, the Secretary renewed that declaration on April 26, 2020, and July 25, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the Secretary issued a Declaration under the PREP Act for medical countermeasures against COVID-19 (85 FR 15198, Mar. 17, 2020) (the Declaration).

On April 10, the Secretary amended the Declaration under the PREP Act to extend liability immunity to covered countermeasures authorized under the CARES Act (85 FR 21012, Apr. 15, 2020). On June 4, the Secretary amended the Declaration to clarify that covered countermeasures under the Declaration include qualified countermeasures that limit the harm COVID-19 might otherwise cause. The Secretary now amends section V of the Declaration to identify as qualified persons covered under the PREP Act, and thus authorizes, certain State-licensed pharmacists to order and administer, and pharmacy interns (who are licensed or registered by their State board of pharmacy and acting under the supervision of a State-licensed pharmacist) to administer, any vaccine that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule (ACIP-recommended vaccines).[] The Secretary also amends section VIII of the Declaration to clarify that the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures includes not only COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases. Description of This Amendment by Section Section V.

Covered Persons Under the PREP Act and the Declaration, a “qualified person” is a “covered person.” Subject to certain limitations, a covered person is immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration or use of a covered countermeasure if a declaration under subsection (b) has been issued with respect to such countermeasure. €œQualified person” includes (A) a licensed health professional or other individual who is authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense such countermeasures under the law of the State in which the countermeasure was prescribed, administered, or dispensed. Or (B) “a person within a category of persons so identified in a declaration by the Secretary” under subsection (b) of the PREP Act. 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(8).[] By this amendment to the Declaration, the Secretary identifies an additional category of persons who are qualified persons under section 247d-6d(i)(8)(B).[] On May 8, 2020, CDC reported, “The identified declines in routine pediatric vaccine ordering and doses administered might indicate that U.S.

Children and their communities face increased risks for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” and suggested that a decrease in rates of routine childhood vaccinations were due to changes in healthcare access, social distancing, and other COVID-19 mitigation strategies.[] The report also stated that “[p]arental concerns about potentially exposing their children to COVID-19 during well child visits might contribute to the declines observed.” [] On July 10, 2020, CDC reported its findings of a May survey it conducted to assess the capacity of pediatric health care practices to provide immunization services to children during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey, which was limited to practices participating in the Vaccines for Children program, found that, as of mid-May, 15 percent of Northeast pediatric practices were closed, 12.5 percent of Midwest practices were closed, 6.2 percent of practices in the South were closed, and 10 percent of practices in the West were closed. Most practices had reduced office hours for in-person visits. When asked whether their practices would likely be able to accommodate new patients for immunization services through August, 418 practices (21.3 percent) either responded that this was not likely or the practice was permanently closed or not resuming immunization services for all patients, and 380 (19.6 percent) responded that they were unsure. Urban practices and those in the Northeast were less likely to be able to accommodate new patients compared with rural practices and those in the South, Midwest, or West.[] In response to these troubling developments, CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics have stressed, “Well-child visits and vaccinations are essential services and help make sure children are protected.” [] The Secretary re-emphasizes that important recommendation to parents and legal guardians here.

If your child is due for a well-child visit, contact your pediatrician's or other primary-care provider's office and ask about ways that the office safely offers well-child visits and vaccinations. Many medical offices are taking extra steps to make sure that well-child visits can occur safely during the COVID-19 pandemic, including. Scheduling sick visits and well-child visits during different times of the Start Printed Page 52138day or days of the week, or at different locations. Asking patients to remain outside until it is time for their appointments to reduce the number of people in waiting rooms. Adhering to recommended social (physical) distancing and other infection-control practices, such as the use of masks.

The decrease in childhood-vaccination rates is a public health threat and a collateral harm caused by COVID-19. Together, the United States must turn to available medical professionals to limit the harm and public health threats that may result from decreased immunization rates. We must quickly do so to avoid preventable infections in children, additional strains on our healthcare system, and any further increase in avoidable adverse health consequences—particularly if such complications coincide with additional resurgence of COVID-19. Together with pediatricians and other healthcare professionals, pharmacists are positioned to expand access to childhood vaccinations. Many States already allow pharmacists to administer vaccines to children of any age.[] Other States permit pharmacists to administer vaccines to children depending on the age—for example, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, or 12 years of age and older.[] Few States restrict pharmacist-administered vaccinations to only adults.[] Many States also allow properly trained individuals under the supervision of a trained pharmacist to administer those vaccines.[] Pharmacists are well positioned to increase access to vaccinations, particularly in certain areas or for certain populations that have too few pediatricians and other primary-care providers, or that are otherwise medically underserved.[] As of 2018, nearly 90 percent of Americans lived within five miles of a community pharmacy.[] Pharmacies often offer extended hours and added convenience.

What is more, pharmacists are trusted healthcare professionals with established relationships with their patients. Pharmacists also have strong relationships with local medical providers and hospitals to refer patients as appropriate. For example, pharmacists already play a significant role in annual influenza vaccination. In the early 2018-19 season, they administered the influenza vaccine to nearly a third of all adults who received the vaccine.[] Given the potential danger of serious influenza and continuing COVID-19 outbreaks this autumn and the impact that such concurrent outbreaks may have on our population, our healthcare system, and our whole-of-nation response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we must quickly expand access to influenza vaccinations. Allowing more qualified pharmacists to administer the influenza vaccine to children will make vaccinations more accessible.

Therefore, the Secretary amends the Declaration to identify State-licensed pharmacists (and pharmacy interns acting under their supervision if the pharmacy intern is licensed or registered by his or her State board of pharmacy) as qualified persons under section 247d-6d(i)(8)(B) when the pharmacist orders and either the pharmacist or the supervised pharmacy intern administers vaccines to individuals ages three through 18 pursuant to the following requirements. The vaccine must be FDA-authorized or FDA-approved. The vaccination must be ordered and administered according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule.[] The licensed pharmacist must complete a practical training program of at least 20 hours that is approved by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). This training Start Printed Page 52139program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines.[] The licensed or registered pharmacy intern must complete a practical training program that is approved by the ACPE. This training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines.[] The licensed pharmacist and licensed or registered pharmacy intern must have a current certificate in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation.[] The licensed pharmacist must complete a minimum of two hours of ACPE-approved, immunization-related continuing pharmacy education during each State licensing period.[] The licensed pharmacist must comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the jurisdiction in which he or she administers vaccines, including informing the patient's primary-care provider when available, submitting the required immunization information to the State or local immunization information system (vaccine registry), complying with requirements with respect to reporting adverse events, and complying with requirements whereby the person administering a vaccine must review the vaccine registry or other vaccination records prior to administering a vaccine.[] The licensed pharmacist must inform his or her childhood-vaccination patients and the adult caregivers accompanying the children of the importance of a well-child visit with a pediatrician or other licensed primary-care provider and refer patients as appropriate.[] These requirements are consistent with those in many States that permit licensed pharmacists to order and administer vaccines to children and permit licensed or registered pharmacy interns acting under their supervision to administer vaccines to children.[] Administering vaccinations to children age three and older is less complicated and requires less training and resources than administering vaccinations to younger children.

That is because ACIP generally recommends administering intramuscular injections in the deltoid muscle for individuals age three and older.[] For individuals less than three years of age, ACIP generally recommends administering intramuscular injections in the anterolateral aspect of the thigh muscle.[] Administering injections in the thigh muscle often presents additional complexities and requires additional training and resources including additional personnel to safely position the child while another healthcare professional injects the vaccine.[] Moreover, as of 2018, 40% of three-year-olds were enrolled in preprimary programs (i.e. Preschool or kindergarten programs).[] Preprimary programs are beginning in the coming weeks or months, so the Secretary has concluded that it is particularly important for individuals ages three through 18 to receive ACIP-recommended vaccines according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. All States require children to be vaccinated against certain communicable diseases as a condition of school attendance. These laws often apply to both public and private schools with identical immunization and exemption provisions.[] As nurseries, preschools, kindergartens, and schools reopen, increased access to childhood vaccinations is essential to ensuring children can return. Notwithstanding any State or local scope-of-practice legal requirements, (1) qualified licensed pharmacists are identified as qualified persons to order and administer ACIP-recommended vaccines and (2) qualified State-licensed or registered pharmacy interns are identified as qualified persons to administer the ACIP-recommended vaccines ordered by their supervising qualified licensed pharmacist.[] Both the PREP Act and the June 4, 2020 Second Amendment to the Declaration define “covered countermeasures” to include qualified pandemic and epidemic products that “limit the harm such pandemic or epidemic might otherwise cause.” [] The troubling decrease in ACIP-recommended childhood vaccinations and the resulting increased risk of associated diseases, adverse health conditions, and other threats are categories of harms otherwise caused by Start Printed Page 52140COVID-19 as set forth in Sections VI and VIII of this Declaration.[] Hence, such vaccinations are “covered countermeasures” under the PREP Act and the June 4, 2020 Second Amendment to the Declaration.

Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed to affect the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, including an injured party's ability to obtain compensation under that program. Covered countermeasures that are subject to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program authorized under 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq. Are covered under this Declaration for the purposes of liability immunity and injury compensation only to the extent that injury compensation is not provided under that Program. All other terms and conditions of the Declaration apply to such covered countermeasures.

Section VIII. Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat As discussed, the troubling decrease in ACIP-recommended childhood vaccinations and the resulting increased risk of associated diseases, adverse health conditions, and other threats are categories of harms otherwise caused by COVID-19. The Secretary therefore amends section VIII, which describes the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures, to clarify that the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures is not only COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases. Amendments to Declaration Amended Declaration for Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act Coverage for medical countermeasures against COVID-19. Sections V and VIII of the March 10, 2020 Declaration under the PREP Act for medical countermeasures against COVID-19, as amended April 10, 2020 and June 4, 2020, are further amended pursuant to section 319F-3(b)(4) of the PHS Act as described below.

All other sections of the Declaration remain in effect as published at 85 FR 15198 (Mar. 17, 2020) and amended at 85 FR 21012 (Apr. 15, 2020) and 85 FR 35100 (June 8, 2020). 1. Covered Persons, section V, delete in full and replace with.

V. Covered Persons 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(2), (3), (4), (6), (8)(A) and (B) Covered Persons who are afforded liability immunity under this Declaration are “manufacturers,” “distributors,” “program planners,” “qualified persons,” and their officials, agents, and employees, as those terms are defined in the PREP Act, and the United States. In addition, I have determined that the following additional persons are qualified persons. (a) Any person authorized in accordance with the public health and medical emergency response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction, as described in Section VII below, to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures, and their officials, agents, employees, contractors and volunteers, following a Declaration of an emergency.

(b) any person authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense the Covered Countermeasures or who is otherwise authorized to perform an activity under an Emergency Use Authorization in accordance with Section 564 of the FD&C Act. (c) any person authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense Covered Countermeasures in accordance with Section 564A of the FD&C Act. And (d) a State-licensed pharmacist who orders and administers, and pharmacy interns who administer (if the pharmacy intern acts under the supervision of such pharmacist and the pharmacy intern is licensed or registered by his or her State board of pharmacy), vaccines that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. Such State-licensed pharmacists and the State-licensed or registered interns under their supervision are qualified persons only if the following requirements are met. The vaccine must be FDA-authorized or FDA-approved.

The vaccination must be ordered and administered according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. The licensed pharmacist must complete a practical training program of at least 20 hours that is approved by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). This training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines. The licensed or registered pharmacy intern must complete a practical training program that is approved by the ACPE. This training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines.

The licensed pharmacist and licensed or registered pharmacy intern must have a current certificate in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The licensed pharmacist must complete a minimum of two hours of ACPE-approved, immunization-related continuing pharmacy education during each State licensing period. The licensed pharmacist must comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the jurisdiction in which he or she administers vaccines, including informing the patient's primary-care provider when available, submitting the required immunization information to the State or local immunization information system (vaccine registry), complying with requirements with respect to reporting adverse events, and complying with requirements whereby the person administering a vaccine must review the vaccine registry or other vaccination records prior to administering a vaccine. The licensed pharmacist must inform his or her childhood-vaccination patients and the adult caregiver accompanying the child of the importance of a well-child visit with a pediatrician or other licensed primary-care provider and refer patients as appropriate. Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed to affect the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, including an injured party's ability to obtain compensation under that program.

Covered countermeasures that are subject to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program authorized under 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq. Are covered under this Declaration for the purposes of liability immunity and injury compensation only to the extent that injury compensation is not provided under that Program. All other Start Printed Page 52141terms and conditions of the Declaration apply to such covered countermeasures. 2.

Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat, section VIII, delete in full and replace with. VIII. Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(2)(A) The category of disease, health condition, or threat for which I recommend the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures is not only COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases. Start Authority 42 U.S.C.

247d-6d. End Authority Start Signature Dated. August 19, 2020. Alex M. Azar II, Secretary of Health and Human Services.

End Signature End Supplemental Information [FR Doc. 2020-18542 Filed 8-20-20. 4:15 pm]BILLING CODE 4150-03-PToday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released Healthy People 2030, the nation's 10-year plan for addressing our most critical public health priorities and challenges. Since 1980, HHS's Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion has set measurable objectives and targets to improve the health and well-being of the nation.This decade, Healthy People 2030 features 355 core – or measurable – objectives with 10-year targets, new objectives related to opioid use disorder and youth e-cigarette use, and resources for adapting Healthy People 2030 to emerging public health threats like COVID-19.

For the first time, Healthy People 2030 also sets 10-year targets for objectives related to social determinants of health."Healthy People was the first national effort to lay out a set of data-driven priorities for health improvement," said HHS Secretary Alex Azar. "Healthy People 2030 adopts a more focused set of objectives and more rigorous data standards to help the federal government and all of our partners deliver results on these important goals over the next decade."Healthy People has led the nation with its focus on social determinants of health, and continues to prioritize economic stability, education access and quality, health care access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, and social and community context as factors that influence health. Healthy People 2030 also continues to prioritize health disparities, health equity, and health literacy."Now more than ever, we need programs like Healthy People that set a shared vision for a healthier nation, where all people can achieve their full potential for health and well-being across the lifespan," said ADM Brett P. Giroir, MD, Assistant Secretary for Health. "COVID-19 has brought the importance of public health to the forefront of our national dialogue.

Achieving Healthy People 2030's vision would help the United States become more resilient to public health threats like COVID-19."Healthy People 2030 emphasizes collaboration, with objectives and targets that span multiple sectors. A federal advisory committee of 13 external thought leaders and a workgroup of subject matter experts from more than 20 federal agencies contributed to Healthy People 2030, along with public comments received throughout the development process.The HHS Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion leads Healthy People in partnership with the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which oversees data in support of the initiative.HHS Secretary Alex M. Azar II, ADM Brett P. Giroir, MD, Assistant Secretary for Health, and U.S. Surgeon General Jerome M.

Adams, MD, MPH, and others from HHS and CDC will launch Healthy People 2030 during a webcast on August 18 at 1 pm (EDT) at https://www.hhs.gov/live. No registration is necessary. For more information about Healthy People 2030, visit https://healthypeople.gov..

Back To Top