Science
The Ex-Patients’ Club
On a recent Friday morning, Daniel, a lawyer in his early 40s, was in a Zoom counseling session describing tapering off lithium. Earlier that week he had awakened with racing thoughts, so anxious that he could not read, and he counted the hours before sunrise.
At those moments, Daniel doubted his decision to wean off the cocktail of psychiatric medications which had been part of his life since his senior year in high school, when he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
Was this his body adjusting to the lower dosage? Was it a reaction to the taco seasoning he had eaten the night before? Or was it what his psychiatrist would have called it: a relapse?
“It still does go to the place of — what if the doctors are right?” said Daniel.
On his screen, Laura Delano nodded sympathetically.
Ms. Delano is not a doctor; her main qualification, she likes to say, is having been “a professional psychiatric patient between the ages of 13 and 27.” During those years, when she attended Harvard and was a nationally ranked squash player, she was prescribed 19 psychiatric medications, often in combinations of three or four at a time.
Then Ms. Delano decided to walk away from psychiatric care altogether, a journey she detailed in a new memoir, “Unshrunk: A Story of Psychiatric Treatment Resistance.” Fourteen years after taking her last psychotropic drug, Ms. Delano projects a radiant good health that also serves as her argument — living proof that, all along, her psychiatrists were wrong.
Since then, to the alarm of some physicians, an online DIY subculture focused on quitting psychiatric medications has expanded and begun to mature into a service industry.
Ms. Delano is a central figure in this shift. From her house outside Hartford, Conn., she offers coaching to paying clients like Daniel. But her ambitions are grander. Through Inner Compass Initiative, the nonprofit she runs with her husband, Cooper Davis, she hopes to provide support to a large swath of people interested in reducing or quitting psychiatric medications.
“People are realizing, ‘I don’t actually need to go find a doctor who knows how to do this,’” she said. In fact, she added, they may not even need to tell their doctor.
“That sounds quite radical,” she allowed. “I imagine a lot of people would hear that and be, like, ‘That’s dangerous.’ But it’s just been the reality for thousands and thousands of people out there who have realized, ‘I have to stop thinking that psychiatry is going to get me out of this situation.’”
Increasingly, many psychiatrists agree that the health care system needs to do a better job helping patients get off psychotropic medications when they are ineffective or no longer necessary. The portion of American adults taking them approached 25 percent during the pandemic, according to government data, more than triple what it was in the early 1990s.
But they also warn that quitting medications without clinical supervision can be dangerous. Severe withdrawal symptoms can occur, and so can a relapse, and it takes expertise to tease them apart. Psychosis and depression may flare up, and the risk of suicide rises. And for people with the most disabling mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, medication remains the only evidence-based treatment.
“What makes tremendous sense for Laura” and “millions of people who are over-diagnosed and over-treated makes no sense at all for people who can’t get medicine,” said Dr. Allen Frances, a professor emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine.
“Laura does not generalize to the person with chronic mental illness and has a clear chance of ending up homeless or in the hospital,” he said. “Those people don’t wind up looking like Laura when they are taken off medication.”
It was hard to say what a life after psychiatric treatment would look like for Daniel, who asked to be identified by only his first name to discuss his mental health history. He has been tapering off lithium for nine months under the care of a nurse-practitioner, and settled, for the moment, at 450 milligrams, half his original dose.
He had become convinced that the drugs were harming him. And yet, when the waves of anxiety and insomnia hit him, he wavered. Daniel is a litigator. He had depositions coming up at work, and the way his thoughts were jumping around scared him.
“I can’t avoid that fear, you know, ‘I’m doing a lot better on less lithium, but it’s just going to fall apart again,’ ” he told Ms. Delano.
Ms. Delano listened quietly, and then told him a story from her own life.
It happened a few months after she quit the last of her medications. On a night walk, her senses built to a crescendo. Christmas lights seemed to be winking messages at her. She recognized hypomania, a symptom of bipolar disorder, and the thought crossed her mind: The doctors had been right. Then some kind of force moved through her, and she realized that these sensations were not a sign of mental illness at all.
“I was like, ‘This is you healing,’ ” she said. “This is you, coming alive.”
She told Daniel that she couldn’t promise he would never have another manic episode. But she could tell him that her own fear had dissipated, over time. “I get to write my own story from here on in,” she said. “And that takes an act of faith.”
Housewives and retirees
Peer support around withdrawing from psychiatric medications dates back 25 years, to the early days of digital social networks.
Adele Framer, a retired information architect from San Francisco, discovered such groups in 2005 while going through a difficult withdrawal from Paxil. At the time, Ms. Framer said, physicians dismissed severe withdrawal as “basically impossible.”
People circulated between the groups, comparing “tapers” in “a viral information-sharing process,” said Ms. Framer, who launched her own site, Surviving Antidepressants, in 2011. Users on her site exchanged highly technical tapering protocols, with dose reductions so tiny that they sometimes required syringes and precision scales.
Dr. Mark Horowitz, an Australian psychiatrist, discovered Ms. Framer’s site in 2015 and used the peer advice he found to taper off Lexapro himself.
“At that point, I understood who the experts were,” he said. “I have six academic degrees, I have a Ph.D., I know how antidepressants work, and I was taking advice from retired engineers and housewives on a peer support site to help come off the drugs.”
In recent years, mainstream psychiatry has begun to acknowledge the need for more support for patients getting off medications.
This is most visible in Britain, whose health service has updated its guidance for clinicians to acknowledge withdrawal and recommend regular reviews to discontinue unnecessary medications. In 2024, the Maudsley Prescribing Guidelines in Psychiatry, a respected clinical handbook, issued its first “de-prescribing” volume. Dr. Horowitz was one of its authors.
There are early signs of movement in the United States, as well. Dr. Jonathan E. Alpert, chairman of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Research, said that the group plans to issue its own de-prescribing guide.
The American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology is working on a guide to help doctors identify when a medication should be discontinued. “There has never been an incentive in industry to tell people when to stop using their product,” said Dr. Joseph F. Goldberg, the group’s president. “So it really falls to the nonindustry community to ask those questions.”
Dr. Gerard Sanacora, the director of the Yale Depression Research Program, said there are practical reasons the current health care system “doesn’t provide much support” for patients seeking to reduce medications: Relapse prevention can be time-consuming, and many physicians are only reimbursed for 15-minute “med management” appointments.
But he said it was important that trained clinicians still have a role. In a “taper,” patients encounter difficulties of two kinds: withdrawal, and the relapse of underlying conditions. It takes skill to distinguish between them, he said, and a licensed practitioner guarantees “some level of minimum competency” during a period of especially high risk.
“The main thing is, they can worsen and kill themselves,” he said of patients.
A success story
Ms. Delano entered the conversation in 2010, when she began blogging about her life. She was 27 years old, living with her aunt and uncle and attending day treatment at McLean Hospital in Massachusetts. Her platform was Mad in America, a website where a range of former psychiatric patients exchanged stories about their treatment.
Within that subculture, Ms. Delano stood out for her eloquence and charisma. She had grown up in Greenwich, Conn., where she was a top student and standout athlete. A relative of Franklin D. Roosevelt, she was presented as a debutante on two successive nights at New York’s Waldorf Astoria and Plaza hotels.
On her blog, and later in a 10,000-word profile in The New Yorker, she described the shadow plot of her psychiatric treatment.
In ninth grade, she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and prescribed Depakote and Prozac. In college, her pharmacologists added Ambien and Provigil. Over the years, this list expanded, but she still seemed to be getting worse. Four times she was so desperate that she checked herself into psychiatric hospitals. At 25, she made a harrowing attempt at suicide.
Then, at 27, she picked up a book by the journalist Robert Whitaker, “Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America.” In the book, Mr. Whitaker proposed that the increasing use of psychotropic medications was to blame for the rise in psychiatric disorders. In scientific journals, reviewers dismissed Mr. Whitaker’s analysis as polemical, cherry-picking data to support a broad, oversimplified argument.
But for Ms. Delano, it was an epiphany. She mentally reviewed her treatment history and came to a radical conclusion. “I’d been confronted with something I’d never considered,” she writes in “Unshrunk.”“What if it wasn’t treatment-resistant mental illness that had been sending me ever deeper into the depths of despair and dysfunction, but the treatment itself?”
She quit five drugs over the six months that followed, under the guidance of a psychopharmacologist. She describes a brutal withdrawal, complete with constipation, diarrhea, aches, spasms and insomnia, as “angsty energy that had lived in me for years began to scratch viciously beneath the surface of my skin.”
But she also experienced a kind of awakening. “I knew it as clear as day, the second it occurred to me,” she writes. “I was ready to stop being a psychiatric patient.”
Born in 1983, five years before Prozac entered the market, Ms. Delano was part of the first large wave of Americans to be prescribed medications in their teens. Many readers recognized, in her blog entries, elements of their own stories — the way a diagnosis had become part of their identities, the way a single prescription had expanded into a cocktail.
She also provided something the ex-patient community had lacked: an aspirational model. Her life had clearly flourished after quitting her medications. In 2019 she married Mr. Davis, an activist she met in the ex-patient movement; they are raising two boys in an airy, sun-drenched colonial-style house.
On the Surviving Antidepressants website, users sometimes invoked her name wistfully.
“I thought I’d be like a Laura Delano and others and heal right away,” a user from Kansas commented.
A French user, struggling to wean off Valium, returned to Ms. Delano’s videos as to a mantra.
“9.30 am: I manage to stop a panic attack with agitation, by breathing.
10:30 a.m.: It rains. I spend time on my smartphone. Laura Delano. Laura Delano. Laura Delano. On a loop. Maybe I’m in love.”
‘I feel for psychiatry’
Emails began to flow in to Ms. Delano as she blogged about quitting her medications. Most were from people who wanted her advice on tapering. Often, she said, they had tried to taper too fast and were spinning out.
She encouraged them, assuring “overwhelmed, exhausted partners and parents” that what they were witnessing was not relapse, but withdrawal. Ms. Delano found that she was spending 25 hours a week on these calls. And a coaching business was born.
“I saw the demand for what I had to offer and made the difficult decision to stop giving my time away for free,” she writes in her memoir.
The market for assisting withdrawal from psychiatric medications is becoming crowded these days, with some private clinics charging thousands of dollars a week. And a watershed moment arrived last month, when Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the new “Make America Healthy Again” commission would examine the “threat” posed by antidepressants and stimulants.
Mr. Kennedy has long expressed skepticism about psychiatric medications; in his confirmation hearings, he suggested that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or S.S.R.I.s, have contributed to a rise in school shootings, and that they can be harder to quit than heroin. There is no evidence to back up either of these statements. But Mr. Davis agreed.
“He might be the only person in the room who gets how serious it can be,” Mr. Davis wrote on X during the hearings.
Ms. Delano and Mr. Davis both offer coaching — for $595 a month, you can join a group support program. But the project that excites them more is the membership community hosted by their nonprofit, Inner Compass Initiative, which, for $30 a month, links up members via livestreams, Zoom gatherings and a private social network.
They dream of a national “de-prescribing” network along the lines of Alcoholics Anonymous, said Mr. Davis, who became the group’s executive director early this year. “We know there is a sea change coming,” he said. “It’s already beginning. In a lot of circles, it’s deeply unfashionable to take psych meds.”
Ms. Delano has tempered her language since her Mad in America Days, when she protested outside annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association, denouncing the use of four-point restraints and electroshock machines.
In the early pages of her memoir, she assures readers that she is not “anti-medication” or “anti-psychiatry.”
“To be clear, I am neither of these things,” she writes. “I know that many people feel helped by psychiatric drugs, especially when they’re used in the short term.”
Still, there is no mistaking the bedrock of mistrust that underlies her project. “I feel for psychiatry,” she said. “It’s a big ask we’re putting on them, to basically step back and consider that their entire paradigm of care is inadvertently causing harm to a lot of people.”
An echo chamber
Earlier this month, Mr. Davis flew to Washington to hand-deliver copies of “Unshrunk” to elected officials and explore whether Inner Compass might find new sources of funding in the new, pharma-skeptical dispensation. He wanted to make sure, he said, “that the people working on policy are at least considering our ideas.”
The rollout of Mr. Kennedy’s agenda has raised hopes throughout “critical psychiatry” and “anti-psychiatry” communities that their critiques will, for the first time, be taken seriously.
Some in the medical world fear this augurs a deepening mistrust in science. And it is true — the written resources Inner Compass provides are overwhelmingly negative about every major class of psychiatric medications, which remain the only evidence-based treatment for severe mental illnesses.
A section on antipsychotics, for instance, cites studies that purport to show that people who take them fare worse than people who never take them or stop them. (This is misleading; people do not take them unless they have severe symptoms.) A section on antidepressants cites a study suggesting that they cause people to commit acts of violence. (The study was criticized for distorting its findings.)
Dr. Alpert, who is also chairman of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Montefiore Einstein, reviewed Inner Compass’s resources and described them as “biased” and “frightening.” He said online peer communities risk becoming “echo chambers,” since they tend to attract people who have had bad experiences with medical treatment.
Because quitting psychiatric medications can be so risky, he said, a pervasive mistrust of medical care could have serious consequences.
“I mean, what happens when people taper their medications because of an echo chamber, and they’re more suicidal, or they get more psychotic, and they need to be hospitalized, or they lose their job?” he said. “Who cares about those people?”
This worry was shared even by some of Ms. Delano’s admirers in the world of patient advocacy. Mr. Whitaker recalled acquaintances who, after setting out to quit their medications, fell into “despair.”
“Once you start going down that road, it becomes your identity,” said Mr. Whitaker. “People want to come off, and the next thing you know, there’s no service provider, no science, and they’re moving into that void.”
Numerous people in withdrawal communities described members who struggled with suicidal thinking, or who had died by suicide.
“More often than not, at least from what I’ve seen, once people conclude that the medications hurt them, then it’s all-or-nothing, black-and-white thinking,” said Kate Speer, a strategist for the Harvard T.H.Chan School of Public Health’s Center for Health Communication “They can’t recognize the providers are there to help, even when what they have done is not helpful.”
Ms. Delano said the issue of suicide comes up regularly in withdrawal communities. “I know so many people who have killed themselves over the years, in withdrawal or even beyond” she said. In 2023, a young woman who joined Inner Compass died by suicide, she said.
Afterward, Ms. Delano and Mr. Davis consoled distraught community members, who worried that they should have taken some action to intervene.
Ms. Delano said she would call 911 if a member overdosed on pills, but, short of that, she doesn’t weigh in on treatment choices. She noted that many members come to withdrawal groups precisely because they feel they have been harmed by the medical system.
“We have given psychiatry and licensed mental health professionals this godlike power to keep people alive,” she said. “Speaking for myself — this is not an organizational belief, but for me personally — I don’t think anyone should have that power over another human being.”
A ‘better me’
In Inner Compass gatherings, many people describe tapering processes as so difficult that they had to stop and reinstate medications. Some were on their fifth or sixth attempt, and some wept, describing how challenging it was.
Ms. Delano tries to keep the pressure off. “You’re in the driver’s seat,” she told one coaching client, who had reinstated a low dose of Valium. “It doesn’t mean, quote unquote, giving up or losing or failing.”
Daniel seemed to be looking for some inspiration to stick it out. He was getting better, he was sure of it, accessing levels of emotion that had been blunted by medication for 15 years.
He credited Ms. Delano for getting him this far; it was reading her story in the New Yorker that made him see it was possible to “come off the medications and be OK.” On a recent Zoom session, he showed her the Post-it note that he sometimes pulls out as a reminder to himself.
“IT WAS THE DRUGS,” he had written
“It was the drugs!” Ms. Delano exclaimed. She welled up toward the end of their session, reflecting on how much he had already achieved.
“The trade-off is worth it,” she told him. “The more your life expands — the meaning, the connection, the beauty, the possibility, the more that continues to expand in your life, the more all these beautiful things come online, the less weight, the less power the hard stuff has.”
When they hung up, he was feeling certain of his path again.
She has this effect on him, making him imagine how he will feel when he is off medication — “this better, more complete me,” as he put it. He thinks it will take two or three years to taper off completely.
If it proves too difficult, “I just have to take 450 milligrams and consider myself lucky,” he said. “But there is a desire to, you know, just kind of be free. Free of it.”
If you are having thoughts of suicide, call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline or go to SpeakingOfSuicide.com/resources for a list of additional resources.
Science
FEMA to pay for lead testing at 100 homes destroyed in Eaton fire, after months of saying it was unnecessary
In a remarkable reversal, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce that the Federal Emergency Management Agency will pay for soil testing for lead at 100 homes that were destroyed by the Eaton fire and cleaned up by federal disaster workers.
The forthcoming announcement would mark an about-face for FEMA officials, who repeatedly resisted calls to test properties for toxic substances after federal contractors finished removing fire debris. The new testing initiative follows reporting by The Times that workers repeatedly violated cleanup protocols, possibly leaving fire contaminants behind or moving them into unwanted areas, according to federal reports.
The EPA plan, presented to a small group of environmental experts and community members on Jan. 5, said the agency would randomly select 100 sites from the 5,600 homes that had burned down in the Eaton fire and where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oversaw the removal of ash, debris and a layer of soil. The soil samples would be collected near the surface and about 6 inches below ground.
Sampling is expected to begin next week, with test results published in April.
During the Jan. 5 presentation, some attendees questioned whether the testing would meaningfully assess whether properties are safe to rebuild on.
Local environmental health advocates worry the EPA testing is designed only to justify FEMA’s decision not to undertake comprehensive soil testing, instead of providing real relief to their communities.
“The EPA’s plan to run a study that retroactively validates a limited soil-removal response after the L.A. Fires is deeply concerning, especially when there is ample independent data indicating contamination persists beyond what was addressed,” said Jane Lawton Potelle, executive director of the grassroots environmental health group Eaton Fire Residents United, in a statement. “The hard truth is that meaningful contamination recovery still has not been funded or delivered by the federal government or the State of California.“
The EPA’s proposed approach is narrower than soil-testing efforts for previous fires in California. Although lead is one of the most common and dangerous contaminants left behind after fires, federal and state disaster officials have traditionally tested soil for 17 toxic metals, including cancer-causing arsenic and toxic mercury.
The EPA plan also calls for taking soil from 30 different parts of each cleanup area and combining them into one singular representative sample. That method doesn’t align with California’s soil-testing policy and could obscure “hot spots” of contamination on a property.
“If you don’t want to find a high number [of contaminants], you take a lot of samples and you mix them together,” said Andrew Whelton, a Purdue University professor who researches natural disasters.
“Based on the experimental design of [the EPA plan], I do not understand the purpose of what they’re doing, because it is not meant to determine if the properties are safe or not,” Whelton added.
For nearly a year, FEMA refused to pay for soil testing, insisting it was time-consuming, costly and unnecessary. FEMA, along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, maintained that removing ash, debris and a layer of soil would be enough to rid properties of toxic substances.
Federal officials insisted any lingering contamination on properties likely predated the fire and was caused by decades’ worth of pollution from cars and industry.
Daisy Rosas Vargas, a chemist and soil scientist with SoilWise, a local soil health and landscaping consulting business, was skeptical that the EPA’s testing, now a year after the fire, could meaningfully distinguish fire-related contamination supposedly on the surface from any legacy contamination deeper underground.
Historic fire data showed about 20% of properties still contain toxic substances above California’s benchmarks for residential properties.
What’s more, a trove of federal reports obtained by The Times revealed federal contractors repeatedly deviated from their cleanup plans for the January 2025 fires, possibly leaving dozens of properties with toxic ash and debris.
FEMA hired inspectors to observe the cleanup process and document any issues; the resulting reports say, in some cases, that workers sprayed contaminated pool water on properties, walked through recently clean properties with dirty boot covers and mixed clean and contaminated soil by using improper equipment.
In one of the most egregious violations, an inspector noted that an official with Environmental Chemical Corp., the primary contractor hired to oversee debris removal in the Eaton and Palisades fires, ordered a work crew to dump ash and debris onto a neighboring property.
A spokesperson for the Army Corps said “all deficiencies logged by” federal inspectors were “addressed and corrected.”
“Our robust quality assurance program was staffed with hundreds of quality assurance inspectors and engineers,” the spokesperson said. “The deficiencies that were identified in the article were corrected immediately or before Final Sign Off.”
The agency did not provide any details about how workers resolved the alleged illegal dumping, or any other deficiencies.
Numerous soil-testing efforts had already found contamination above state standards. Los Angeles Times journalists launched a soil-testing project and published the first evidence that fire-destroyed homes in the Eaton fire still contained elevated levels of soil contamination, even after federal cleanup workers finished removing debris.
Los Angeles County and UCLA-led soil testing initiatives also found elevated levels of contaminants at Army Corps-cleared properties.
EPA officials said the agency would share soil-testing results with property owners, in addition to Los Angeles County and state agencies. However, they did not say whether they intended to remove another layer of soil if lead levels exceed state and federal standards.
After hearing about the EPA plan, Jessica Handy, one of the co-founders of the Dena Soil Project, a grassroots coalition focused on providing soil testing and other aid to those impacted by the Eaton fire, questioned the value of such testing without a commitment to cleanup. “If it does show that there’s still contaminants, what is the solution?” asked Handy, a Pasadena native. “We’re at risk of losing more community members because they’re afraid that they’re going to expose themselves, their families, their pets, their elders.”
U.S. Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park), who previously called on federal disaster agencies to provide comprehensive soil testing for fire victims, sent an email to her constituents last week saying she is “seeking assurance that they take action if the results of their testing find contamination.”
The Army Corps and its contractors initially aimed to demobilize by Jan. 8, 2026, the one-year anniversary of the fires, but federal cleanup efforts finished much earlier than expected. Federal cleanup workers removed fire debris from the final home enrolled in the federal program in Los Angeles’ Pacific Palisades in early September.
Federal and state officials hailed the Army Corps efforts as the fastest major cleanup in modern American history.
As of Monday afternoon, FEMA and the EPA have not responded to questions sent by The Times regarding specifics of the testing plan.
Science
49ers coach Kyle Shanahan shows performance-enhancing smelling salts aren’t just for players
Football leans on tradition, providing convenient cover for the NFL’s lenient stance on smelling salts, ammonia crystals that players believe enhance performance when inhaled.
Does the olfactory exhilaration also enhance play-calling, amplifying one’s grasp of X’s and O’s?
Kyle Shanahan apparently believes so.
The San Francisco 49ers coach was caught by a Fox television camera moments before a playoff game Sunday against the Philadelphia Eagles taking several whiffs from a small packet before handing it to an assistant.
Earlier this season, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that 49ers players created a system to make sure everyone has immediate access to smelling salts during games. General manager John Lynch and Shanahan are users, according to the story, which stated that Shanahan “isn’t opposed to the occasional whiff.”
Is the NFL OK with this? The answer is a qualified yes.
Ahead of the 2025 season, the league’s head, neck and spine committee recommended that teams end the longtime practice of providing smelling salts to players. The decision was prompted by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration warning about the potential side effects of inhaling ammonia, which include lung damage and masking signs of a concussion.
Players all but panicked. George Kittle, the 49ers All-Pro tight end, jumped on an NFL Network broadcast to proclaim that smelling salts were crucial to his performance.
“I’m a regular user of smelling salts, taking them for a boost of energy before every offensive drive,” he said. “We have got to figure out a middle ground here, guys. Somebody help me out.”
The NFL came to his rescue, saying smelling salts — also known as ammonia inhalants, or AIs — were not banned. Teams could no longer provide them, but players could bring their own. It’s a compromise that may or may not pass the smell test. Either way, it’s not just the 49ers using them.
An ESPN Magazine piece in 2017 reported that “just a few minutes into the game, the Cowboys have discarded so many capsules that the area in front of their bench looks like the floor of a kid’s bedroom after trick-or-treating.”
Bottom line, legions of NFL players believe AIs enhance performance. They do so by irritating the linings of the nose and lungs, triggering a reflex that increases breathing rate and blood flow, fostering alertness.
Their effectiveness was discovered long before football was invented. Craft beer drinkers know Pliny the Elder as the inspiration for his namesake double IPA. The noted Roman naturalist and historian was indeed an early expert in fermentation, yet he also wrote about “sal ammoniac” — yes, smelling salts — in his encyclopedic work “Natural History,” published in 79 A.D.
Their popularity spread through Europe until, in Victorian tradition, they were used to rouse ladies after fainting spells. Later they were used in battle, with British medics supplying World War II soldiers with a whiff of the substance that doctors say triggers the body’s “fight-or-flight” response.
These days, the Federal Aviation Administration requires that U.S. airlines carry smelling salts onboard in case a pilot needs to be awakened after fainting. Blocking and tackling on a flight, however, remains strictly forbidden.
The NFL’s middling position isn’t curious. Experts say it’s an attempt to reduce liability in case of concussions or other medical complications. But it is their constant use that concerns doctors.
“The use of smelling salts in sports is definitely not their intended use,” Dr. Laura Boxley, a neuropsychologist at Ohio State’s Wexner Medical Center, told NPR. “What’s happening with some athletes is they’re using them with much higher frequency than their intended use.”
Given the relative safety of the sidelines, Shanahan isn’t in danger of a brain-rattling concussion. Shortly after the NFL ceased supplying AIs, he was asked by a reporter whether he had concerns about their prevalence.
“I mean, I don’t,” Shanahan replied with a grin. “If someone gives me one, I’ll take a smell of the salt. I’m not too worried about it. I like to take one to wake myself up and lock myself in.”
Science
AI windfall helps California narrow projected $3-billion budget deficit
SACRAMENTO — California and its state-funded programs are heading into a period of volatile fiscal uncertainty, driven largely by events in Washington and on Wall Street.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget chief warned Friday that surging revenues tied to the artificial intelligence boom are being offset by rising costs and federal funding cuts. The result: a projected $3-billion state deficit for the next fiscal year despite no major new spending initiatives.
The Newsom administration on Friday released its proposed $348.9-billion budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1, formally launching negotiations with the Legislature over spending priorities and policy goals.
“This budget reflects both confidence and caution,” Newsom said in a statement. “California’s economy is strong, revenues are outperforming expectations, and our fiscal position is stable because of years of prudent fiscal management — but we remain disciplined and focused on sustaining progress, not overextending it.”
Newsom’s proposed budget did not include funding to backfill the massive cuts to Medicaid and other public assistance programs by President Trump and the Republican-led Congress, changes expected to lead to millions of low-income Californians losing healthcare coverage and other benefits.
“If the state doesn’t step up, communities across California will crumble,” California State Assn. of Counties Chief Executive Graham Knaus said in a statement.
The governor is expected to revise the plan in May using updated revenue projections after the income tax filing deadline, with lawmakers required to approve a final budget by June 15.
Newsom did not attend the budget presentation Friday, which was out of the ordinary, instead opting to have California Director of Finance Joe Stephenshaw field questions about the governor’s spending plan.
“Without having significant increases of spending, there also are no significant reductions or cuts to programs in the budget,” Stephenshaw said, noting that the proposal is a work in progress.
California has an unusually volatile revenue system — one that relies heavily on personal income taxes from high-earning residents whose capital gains rise and fall sharply with the stock market.
Entering state budget negotiations, many expected to see significant belt tightening after the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office warned in November that California faces a nearly $18-billion budget shortfall. The governor’s office and Department of Finance do not always agree, or use the LAO’s estimates.
On Friday, the Newsom administration said it is projecting a much smaller deficit — about $3 billion — after assuming higher revenues over the next three fiscal years than were forecast last year. The gap between the governor’s estimate and the LAO’s projection largely reflects differing assumptions about risk: The LAO factored in the possibility of a major stock market downturn.
“We do not do that,” Stephenshaw said.
Among the key areas in the budget:
-
Detroit, MI1 week ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology7 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Montana3 days agoService door of Crans-Montana bar where 40 died in fire was locked from inside, owner says
-
Delaware4 days agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Dallas, TX5 days agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Dallas, TX1 week agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Iowa7 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Virginia3 days agoVirginia Tech gains commitment from ACC transfer QB