Connect with us

Science

How a Small Gender Clinic Landed in a Political Storm

Published

on

How a Small Gender Clinic Landed in a Political Storm

The small Midwestern gender clinic was buckling under an unrelenting surge in demand.

Last year, dozens of young patients were seeking appointments every month, far too many for the clinic’s two psychologists to screen. Doctors in the emergency room downstairs raised alarms about transgender teenagers arriving every day in crisis, taking hormones but not getting therapy.

Opened in 2017 inside a children’s hospital affiliated with Washington University in St. Louis, the prestigious clinic was welcomed by many families as a godsend. It was the only place for hundreds of miles where distressed adolescents could see a team of experts to help them transition to a different gender.

But as the number of these patients soared, the clinic became overwhelmed — and soon found itself at the center of a political storm. In February, Jamie Reed, a former case manager, went public with explosive allegations, claiming in a whistle-blower complaint that doctors at the clinic had hastily prescribed hormones with lasting effects to adolescents with pressing psychiatric problems.

Ms. Reed’s claims thrust the clinic between warring factions. Missouri’s attorney general, a Republican, opened an investigation, and lawmakers in Missouri and other states trumpeted her allegations when they passed a slew of bans on gender treatments for minors. L.G.B.T.Q. advocates have pointed to parents who disputed her account in local news reports and to a Washington University investigation that determined her claims were “unsubstantiated.”

Advertisement

The reality was more complex than what was portrayed by either side of the political battle, according to interviews with dozens of patients, parents, former employees and local health providers, as well as more than 300 pages of documents shared by Ms. Reed.

Some of Ms. Reed’s claims could not be confirmed, and at least one included factual inaccuracies. But others were corroborated, offering a rare glimpse into one of the 100 or so clinics in the United States that have been at the center of an intensifying fight over transgender rights.

The turmoil in St. Louis underscores one of the most challenging questions in gender care for young people today: How much psychological screening should adolescents receive before they begin gender treatments?

Shaped by ideas pioneered in Europe, these clinics have opened over the past decade to serve the growing number of young people seeking hormonal medications to transition. Many patients and parents told The New York Times that the St. Louis team provided essential care, helping adolescents feel comfortable in their bodies for the first time. Some patients said they were lifted out of grave depression.

But as demand rose, more patients arrived with complex mental health issues. The clinic’s staff often grappled with how best to help, documents show, bringing into sharp relief a tension in the field over whether some children’s gender distress is the root cause of their mental health problems, or possibly a transient consequence of them.

Advertisement

With its psychologists overbooked, the clinic relied on external therapists, some with little experience in gender issues, to evaluate the young patients’ readiness for hormonal medications. Doctors prescribed hormones to patients who had obtained such approvals, even adolescents whose medical histories raised red flags. Some of these patients later stopped identifying as transgender, and received little to no support from the clinic after doing so.

Unwanted outcomes and regrets happen in every branch of medicine, but several clinics around the world have reported challenges similar to those in St. Louis. Pediatric gender medicine is a nascent specialty, and few studies have tracked how patients fare in the long term, making it difficult for doctors to judge who is likely to benefit.

In several European countries, health officials have limited — but not banned — the treatments for young patients and have expanded mental health care while more data is collected. In the United States, health groups have endorsed what’s known as affirming care even as their peers in Europe have grown more cautious. And conservative lawmakers in more than 20 states have taken the draconian step of banning or severely restricting gender treatments for minors.

Civil rights groups are challenging the Missouri ban in a hearing this week, and Ms. Reed testified on Tuesday in favor of it, describing her allegations in detail.

Washington University created an oversight committee to carry out weekly reviews of the gender clinic’s operations. The school’s investigation claimed that none of the clinic’s 598 patients on hormonal medications reported “adverse physical reactions.” In a statement to The Times, the university said that it would not address specific allegations because of patient privacy, and that “physicians and staff have treated patients according to the existing standard of care.”

Advertisement

But doctors in St. Louis and elsewhere are wrestling with evolving standards and uncertain scientific evidence — all while facing intense political pressure and an adolescent mental health crisis.

America’s first youth gender center opened in Boston, in 2007, after two clinicians — Dr. Norman Spack, an endocrinologist, and Laura Edwards-Leeper, a child psychologist — traveled to the Netherlands to observe a promising treatment for children with gender distress, known as dysphoria.

The Dutch doctors were prescribing drugs that stalled puberty in order to prevent the physical changes that often exacerbate dysphoria. The approach, they reasoned, would give the adolescents time to consider whether to proceed with estrogen or testosterone treatments later on.

Transgender children have high rates of anxiety, depression and suicide attempts. The Dutch found that for a specific group — adolescents with no severe psychiatric disorders who had experienced gender dysphoria since early childhood — their depression lessened after taking puberty blockers.

When Dr. Spack and Dr. Edwards-Leeper opened the Boston clinic, they hewed closely to the Dutch approach. In its first five years, the clinic treated just 70 patients.

Advertisement

Similar clinics opened around the country, diverging over time from the strict Dutch protocols into an affirming approach that prioritized a child’s inner sense of gender. It was unethical, some argued, to deny care to children with psychiatric problems when gender treatments could help resolve those issues.

In 2012, parents in St. Louis began lobbying leaders of the children’s hospital to set up an affirming clinic. The parents invited Dr. Spack to town to talk about his experience in Boston.

“In Missouri there were no knowledgeable doctors on this subject,” said Kim Hutton, a founder of the group, called TransParent. “It was left to the parents to try to figure it out.”

The clinic opened in 2017, led by Dr. Christopher Lewis, a pediatric endocrinologist, and Dr. Sarah Garwood, an adolescent medicine specialist, who had each attended TransParent meetings. They saw patients once a week on the second floor of the St. Louis Children’s Hospital, spending most days elsewhere in the sprawling complex.

When Ms. Reed arrived, in 2018, she was the clinic’s only full-time employee. Eventually, the clinic would have about nine staff members, most part-time.

Advertisement

Their patients were part of a striking generational change: Between 2017 and 2020, about 1.4 percent of 13- to 17-year-olds in the United States identified as transgender, nearly double the rate from a few years earlier.

It’s clear the St. Louis clinic benefited many adolescents: Eighteen patients and parents said that their experiences there were overwhelmingly positive, and they refuted Ms. Reed’s depiction of it. For example, her affidavit claimed that the clinic’s doctors did not inform parents or children of the serious side effects of puberty blockers and hormones. But emails show that Ms. Reed herself provided parents with fliers outlining possible risks.

Ms. Hutton’s son, who requested anonymity because of privacy concerns, is now in college, and said he was grateful he transitioned years earlier. “I have normal-people problems, which is all that I ever wanted,” he said.

Another patient, Chris, now 19, who also requested anonymity to protect his privacy, recalled Dr. Lewis patiently drawing diagrams on the paper sheet of his exam chair, explaining how testosterone would redistribute his body fat and permanently deepen his voice. Chris felt “drastically improved” after taking the hormone, he said, but was still distressed by his breasts. At 17, he went to a surgeon in Ohio for a mastectomy.

And Becky Hormuth, a teacher in St. Charles, Mo., praised the center’s doctors for their approach to her son’s mental health. The doctors diagnosed her 15-year-old with autism, she said, and connected him with a dietitian to help treat his eating disorder — before prescribing testosterone. Now, at 16, her son is “better than he’s ever been,” Ms. Hormuth said.

Advertisement

A family therapist in St. Louis, Katie Heiden-Rootes, said she had counseled about 50 of the clinic’s patients and had never seen problems with their care.

“The biggest complaint I heard about the clinic was, ‘We can’t get in,’” Dr. Heiden-Rootes said.

When Ms. Reed, 43, began working at the clinic, she considered herself a fierce champion of the gender-affirming model. In her previous jobs — at Planned Parenthood, at an H.I.V. clinic and in the foster care system — she had also supported L.G.B.T.Q. young people. And her husband, a transgender man, had shown her how essential gender-affirming care could be.

Ms. Reed’s job at the clinic was akin to that of a social worker — collecting medical histories, triaging appointments and supporting patients in the hospital, at school and in court.

Her doubts about the affirming model arose in 2019, she said, after hearing from an upset patient who regretted their medical transition. She grew more concerned in 2020 as more new patients sought the clinic’s help, many with psychological problems exacerbated by the pandemic. She saw parallels with England’s youth gender clinic, known as the Tavistock, which was under investigation after employees complained about feeling pressure to approve children for puberty blockers as their wait-list swelled.

Advertisement

The St. Louis center relied heavily on outside therapists to vet patients, emails show. Doctors there prescribed hormones to patients who had identified as transgender for at least six months, had received a letter of support from a therapist and had parental consent.

Frustrated that the clinic had no system to keep track of patient outcomes, Ms. Reed and the clinic’s nurse, Karen Hamon, kept a private spreadsheet, which they called the “red flag list.” (Ms. Reed gave The Times a version of the spreadsheet without identifying information. Ms. Hamon and other clinic employees declined to comment for this article.)

The list eventually included 60 adolescents with complex psychiatric diagnoses, a shifting sense of gender or complicated family situations. One patient on testosterone stopped taking schizophrenia medication without consulting a doctor. Another patient had visual and olfactory hallucinations. Another had been in an inpatient psychiatric unit for five months.

On a different tab, they tallied 16 patients who they knew had detransitioned, meaning they had changed their gender identity or stopped hormone treatments.

One patient emailed the clinic, in January 2020, to say they had detransitioned and were seeking a voice coach for their masculinized voice. They also requested a referral for an autism screening, noting, “I have mentioned this before at appointments and over email, but it did not seem to go anywhere.”

Advertisement

In another email thread, the center’s staff discussed a patient who regretted a recent mastectomy. The patient had messaged their surgeon at Washington University twice about wanting a breast reconstruction, but had not received a reply.

The Times independently found another St. Louis patient who detransitioned, Alex, who posted on Reddit last year to “give a warning” about the clinic. (Alex shared medical records with The Times to corroborate her account.)

Alex arrived at the center in late 2017 at age 15, she said, after identifying as transgender for three years. She had been referred by a therapist who was treating her for bipolar disorder and anxiety.

Alex was prescribed testosterone, she said, after one appointment with Dr. Lewis. “There was no actual speaking to a psychiatrist or another therapist or even a case worker,” she wrote on Reddit.

After three years on the hormone, she realized she was nonbinary and told the clinic she was stopping her testosterone injections. The nurse was dismissive, she recalled, and said there was no need for any follow-ups.

Advertisement

Alex, now 21, does not exactly regret taking testosterone, she told The Times, because it helped her sort out her identity. But “overall, there was a major lack of care and consideration for me,” she said.

The number of people who detransition or discontinue gender treatments is not precisely known. Small studies with differing definitions and methodologies have found rates ranging from 2 to 30 percent. In a new, unpublished survey of more than 700 young people who had medically transitioned, Canadian researchers found that 16 percent stopped taking hormones or tried to reverse their effects after five years. Survey responders reported a variety of reasons, including health concerns, a lack of social support and changes in gender identity.

Nearly 15 years after bringing the Dutch approach to America, Dr. Edwards-Leeper, the Boston psychologist, had grown alarmed by the rise in adolescents seeking gender treatments.

In a November 2021 Washington Post opinion piece, Dr. Edwards-Leeper warned that American gender clinics were prescribing hormones to some children who needed mental health support first.

Advertisement

“We may be harming some of the young people we strive to support — people who may not be prepared for the gender transitions they are being rushed into,” she wrote with Erica Anderson, the former president of the U.S. Professional Association for Transgender Health and a transgender woman.

In St. Louis, Dr. Andrea Giedinghagen, the clinic’s psychiatrist, emailed the essay to her colleagues. “This basically encapsulates the (very complex, nuanced) views that the child and adolescent psychiatrists I know at various gender centers hold,” Dr. Giedinghagen wrote.

The head of the clinic, Dr. Lewis, responded, adding a university administrator to the thread. “I DO think our clinic, and transgender care at large, exhibits some of the concerns mentioned,” he wrote, including being “disastrously overwhelmed.”

But, he added, “No matter the approach there will be a percentage of patients that should have been started that weren’t and vice versa.”

By the end of 2021, emails show, the clinic was getting calls from four or five new patients every day — a sharp rise from 2018, when it saw that many over the course of a month. And, according to an internal presentation from 2021, 73 percent of new patients were identified as girls at birth. Gender clinics in Western Europe, Canada and the United States have reported a similarly disproportionate sex skew that has bewildered clinicians.

Advertisement

Other parts of the St. Louis hospital were also seeing more transgender patients. In August and September of 2022, Ms. Reed and Ms. Hamon, the clinic’s nurse, conducted a half-dozen training sessions with the emergency department to explain their work at the gender clinic. At the trainings, E.R. staff shared concerns about their own experiences with their young transgender patients, which Ms. Hamon later relayed to her team and university administrators.

The E.R. staff, she wrote in an email, had been seeing more transgender adolescents experiencing mental health crises, “to the point where they said they at least have one TG patient per shift.”

“They aren’t sure why patients aren’t required to continue in counseling if they are continuing hormones,” Ms. Hamon added. And they were concerned that “no one is ever told no.”

As similar mental health issues bubbled up at clinics worldwide, the international professional association for transgender medicine tried to address them by publishing specific guidelines for adolescents for the first time. The new “standards of care,” released in September, said that adolescents should question their gender for “several years” and undergo rigorous mental health evaluations before starting hormonal drugs.

Dr. Lewis worried that his clinic would not be able to adjust to the new standards, known as the S.O.C.

Advertisement

“Right now I have no idea how to meet what would be the most intensive interpretations of the SOC,” Dr. Lewis texted Ms. Hamon. (She took a screenshot of the message and sent it to Ms. Reed.) He suggested meeting with staff members to discuss how they could abide by the new guidelines.

In its statement, the university said that the clinic prioritized mental health care and that licensed external therapists “make a vital contribution to that effort.” It also said that “patients have ongoing relationships with mental health providers.”

Some former staff members said the clinic was doing the best it could for patients with complex psychiatric histories. Cate Hensley, a social worker who interned at the clinic from 2020 to 2021, said that the team had a weekly meeting to discuss such cases.

She also said that U.S. hospitals and health insurers invested far too little in mental health, putting extra pressure on doctors and hurting patients.

“This center is providing ethical care in an unethical system,” Mx. Hensley said.

Advertisement

By the end of last year, Republican lawmakers in Missouri had turned gender care for minors into a rallying cry. And Ms. Reed, formerly a staunch defender of the affirming model, had become openly skeptical of it, raising concerns in internal emails and in meetings despite warnings from higher-ups.

Her performance review in 2022 stated that she “responds poorly to direction from management with defensiveness and hostility.” In November, she left the gender clinic and started a new role at the university coordinating pediatric cancer research.

Ms. Hamon raised doubts as well, according to text messages and emails provided by Ms. Reed. In January of this year, she emailed an administrator to explain why she did not want a management role at the center.

“You know I have struggled with ethical dilemmas about how we do things for quite some time,” Ms. Hamon wrote.

That month, Ms. Reed obtained a prominent parental rights lawyer, Vernadette Broyles. Shortly thereafter, she filed her complaint with the state and publicized her allegations in an essay in The Free Press. Ms. Broyles is a vocal proponent of gender treatment bans for minors and has said the “transgender movement” poses an “existential threat to our culture.”

Advertisement

Ms. Reed said that she supported the rights of transgender adults like her husband, and that Ms. Broyles was the only lawyer who would take her case pro bono. Still, Ms. Reed does not deny that her views have hardened and become political: “I support a national moratorium on the medicalization of kids,” she said.

One parent said that, perhaps in pursuit of this political aim, Ms. Reed had misrepresented her child’s experience.

Ms. Reed’s affidavit describes a patient whose liver was damaged after taking bicalutamide, a drug that blocks testosterone. It makes a specific claim about what a parent had written to the child’s doctors: “The parent said they were not the type to sue, but ‘this could be a huge P.R. problem for you.’”

The parent, Heidi, a data scientist in the St. Louis area who requested anonymity because of privacy concerns, said she was stunned to read this “twisted” description of her teenage daughter’s case.

Heidi’s daughter indeed had liver damage, a rare side effect of bicalutamide. But she had been taking the drug for a year, records show, and had a complicated medical history. She was immunocompromised, and experienced liver problems only after getting Covid and taking another drug with possible liver side effects.

Advertisement

In a message to doctors that was shared with The Times, Heidi actually wrote, “In our world, it’s like a P.R. nightmare” — referring to tensions in her family about the gender treatments. The message did not mention anything about suing the clinic. To the contrary, it said: “We don’t regret any decision.”

Ms. Reed said that she learned about the case from Ms. Hamon, who helped compile examples for the affidavit, and that she regretted citing the case when she had not seen the medical record herself.

“My daughter’s situation was exploited,” Heidi said, noting that the hospital told her that her records would be shared with the state.

Missouri’s ban of gender care for minors will begin on Aug. 28 unless the hearing this week results in a preliminary injunction. If the law goes into effect, the clinic will not be allowed to enroll new patients.

Some families are not waiting for the legal proceedings to play out. Jennifer Harris Dault, a Mennonite pastor, moved her family from St. Louis to New York in July to ensure that her 8-year-old transgender daughter could get gender treatments when she nears puberty.

Advertisement

“The more I see coming out of Missouri the more I know we made the decision that was right for us,” she said.

The attorney general’s investigation into the clinic’s practices is ongoing, as is an inquiry by Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican. While several families said they blamed Ms. Reed for the political fallout, others said the university bears responsibility, too.

For decades, Dr. John Daniels was the sole endocrinologist in St. Louis prescribing hormones to transgender adults. He did so, he said, because he saw profound benefits in his patients and because, as a gay man, he appreciated the diversity of the human experience.

When Ms. Reed’s allegations came out, he was shocked, and emailed her to ask if she had ever reported concerns to Washington University. She replied that she had, but was ignored.

“I hate that the politicians have gotten involved with this, but I do have great concerns about how adolescents and preadolescents are being treated,” Dr. Daniels wrote. “That the higher-ups at W.U. didn’t take you seriously is now on them.”

Advertisement

Kirsten Noyes contributed research.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Science

The Tijuana River smells so bad, the CDC is coming to investigate

Published

on

The Tijuana River smells so bad, the CDC is coming to investigate

San Diego County residents will have an opportunity to share their pollution concerns about the Tijuana River when officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention arrive later this month to conduct a health survey.

This is the first time that a federal agency is investigating the potential harm caused by millions of gallons of raw sewage pouring through the Tijuana River that have caused beach closures of more than 1,000 days. Residents living near the river say they have been suffering unexplained illnesses, including gastrointestinal issues and chronic breathing problems, because of the stench of hydrogen sulfide.

“We’re continuing to lean in and listen in on what our community residents are feeling,” said Dr. Seema Shah, the interim deputy public health officer with San Diego County. Supervisor Nora Vargas first wrote to the CDC back in May, formally asking the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to look into the health complaints.

This week, the county began reaching out to thousands of residents to inform them that the CDC is coming in the hope that they will be more receptive to answering questions. “This is our chance to be able to communicate [pollution concerns] on a national level,” Shah added.

As part of what the CDC calls a Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response, 210 households will be surveyed about their mental and physical health, as well as the pollution’s effects on property values. The families will be randomly selected from 30 clusters of neighborhoods where San Diego County has identified air pollution complaints in the Tijuana River Valley.

Advertisement

Around 30 officials from the CDC and 50 graduate student volunteers from San Diego State University’s School of Public Health will be going door to door to conduct interviews with local residents over a three-day period. Here are the times when the survey will be conducted:

  • Thursday, Oct. 17, 2024, from 2 p.m. to 7 p.m.
  • Friday, Oct. 18, 2024, from 2 p.m. to 7 p.m.
  • Saturday, Oct. 19, 2024, from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m.

The goal is to accommodate people’s schedules and, officials hope, catch them after work, Shah said. The volunteers are helping to bridge the language barriers with Spanish-speaking families.

“A lot of students, many of whom are bilingual, are from the community themselves,” said Paula Granados, an associate professor at San Diego State University’s School of Public Health, who’s been testing the Tijuana River for contaminants over the past month. “Our students are super excited. They want to help.”

The CDC could take weeks to months to release even the preliminary results from the survey, but for longtime residents like Bethany Case, this renewed attention already feels like a breath of hope.

“I just really want [this survey] to inform policy so that we don’t have to worry about our kids being sick,” said Case, the mother of two who’s lived in Imperial Beach for 16 years. For seven years she’s been an activist fighting to clean up the river as a volunteer with Surfrider, a nonprofit that works to preserve ocean access and cleanliness.

“I’m hoping that their survey shows that oftentimes it doesn’t just smell like sewage,” Case added. She doesn’t want the focus on the sewage to distract from the industrial waste that is dumped into the river that could be making people ill. “Oftentimes it smells like a chemical, it smells like a bite in the air, it burns your sinuses.”

Advertisement

Granados said the CDC’s survey is only a snapshot of what was going on when the data were collected, and conditions could worsen for residents when rainy seasons flood the river once more. Granados wants residents to know that even if they aren’t picked to respond to this survey, SDSU will be conducting its own yearlong survey that they can answer multiple times at tjriver.sdsu.edu.

“There’s research that’s still ongoing,” Granados said, and all that data will help policy decisions in the future. “We’re just committed to the long haul, whatever it takes to support the community.”

The county and other federal and state representatives have been working to raise awareness around the pollution to a national level.

Next week, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors will consider a proposal by Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer to petition the Environmental Protection Agency to label the Tijuana River a Superfund site in need of remediation.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

'More serious than we had hoped': Bird flu deaths mount among California dairy cows

Published

on

'More serious than we had hoped': Bird flu deaths mount among California dairy cows

As California struggles to contain an increasing number of H5N1 bird flu outbreaks at Central Valley dairy farms, veterinary experts and industry observers are voicing concern that the number of cattle deaths is far higher than anticipated.

Although dairy operators had been told to expect a mortality rate of less than 2%, preliminary reports suggest that between 10% and 15% of infected cattle are dying, according to veterinarians and dairy farmers.

“I was shocked the first time I encountered it in one of my herds,” said Maxwell Beal, a Central Valley-based veterinarian who has been treating infected herds in California since late August. “It was just like, wow. Production-wise, this is a lot more serious than than we had hoped. And health-wise, it’s a lot more serious than we had been led to believe.”

A total of 56 California dairy farms have reported bird flu outbreaks. At the same time, state health officials have reported two suspected cases of H5N1 infections among dairy workers in Tulare County, the largest dairy-producing county in the nation. With more than 600,000 dairy cows, the county accounts for roughly 30% of the state’s milk production.

Beal’s observations were confirmed by others during a Sept. 26 webinar for dairy farmers that was hosted by the California Dairy Quality Assurance Program — an arm of the industry-funded California Dairy Research Foundation. A summary of the findings and observations was reported in a newsletter published earlier this week by the program.

Advertisement

Beal, along with Murray Minnema, another Central Valley veterinarian, and Jason Lombard, a Colorado State University veterinarian, described their observations and data to dairy farmers to help them anticipate the signs of, and treatments for, the virus.

The webcast was not made available to The Times.

“The animals really don’t do well,” Beal told The Times.

He said the infected cows he has seen are not dissimilar to people who are suffering from a typical flu: “They don’t look so hot.”

He and others think the recent heat may be a factor.

Advertisement

Since the end of August, the Central Valley has suffered multiple heat waves, with daytime temperatures exceeding 100 degrees.

“Heat stress is always a problem in dairy cattle here in California,” he said. “So you take that, you add in this virus, which does have some affinity for the respiratory tract … we always see a little bit of snotty noses and heavy breathing in animals that are affected … and for some of them, just the stress takes them.”

Indeed, most of the deaths are not directly the result of the virus, he said, but are “virus adjacent.” For instance, he has seen a lot of bacterial pneumonia, which is likely the result of the cow’s depressed immune system, as well as bloat.

He said that when the cows aren’t feeling well, they often don’t eat.

“The digestive tract, or rumen, basically requires movement. There has to be things moving out of that rumen constantly in order for the pH balance and microbiome to stay where it should be,” he said. So, when they’re not eating, things in the digestive tract stagnate.

Advertisement

That, in turn, causes them to “asphyxiate because their diaphragm has too much pressure on it.”

In addition, he and others are seeing a lot of variation in the duration of illness.

While early reports had suggested the virus seemed mild and lasted only about a week or two, others are seeing it last several weeks. According to the industry newsletter, at one dairy, cows were shedding virus 14 days before they showed clinical signs of illness. It then took another three weeks for the cows to get rid of the virus.

They’re also noticing the virus is affecting larger percentages of herds — in some cases 50%-60% of the animals. This is much more than the 10% that had been previously reported.

Some say the actual rate may be even higher.

Advertisement

“I would speculate infection is even higher; 50-60% are showing clinical signs due to heat stress or better herd monitoring earlier in infection. Unfortunately, few or no herds have been assessed retrospectively through serology testing to determine actual infection rates,” said John Korslund, a retired U.S. Department of Agriculture veterinarian epidemiologist.

Cows are also not returning to 100% production after they’ve cleared the virus, said Beal. Instead, he and others say it’s closer to 60%-70%.

“There’s going to be some animals that are removed from the herd, because they never seem to come back,” he said.

Beal said his firsthand observations have really challenged his notions about the disease, which has so often been described as mild and insignificant.

“Once I saw it myself, I said, this is something I need to communicate with my clients about … this is not something that is just a joke at the dinner table,” he said. “I didn’t want people to not take it seriously, because I see what it is doing to the animals, and it is rough to see — as an animal caretaker, as a veterinarian like myself — it’s just not something that’s enjoyable. It’s more serious than we had been led to believe.”

Advertisement

He said he is working hard with Central Valley farmers to treat the animals — largely by making sure the cattle are adequately hydrated. He also treats sick cows with a medication similar to aspirin, to reduce fever, pain and discomfort.

He said the treatment is pretty effective, and seems to be helping.

Others are not surprised H5N1 is becoming more severe in cows.

“As I’ve said since we first learned of the outbreak in dairy cows, nothing we’ve learned about this virus is new or unexpected,” said Rick Bright, a virologist and former head of the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. “It’s behaving exactly as we’ve come to know of this virus over the past 25 years. It’s spreading very efficiently now among mammals, and it’s mutating and adapting to mammals as it does.”

He credited state health officials and veterinarian for “being more forthcoming and transparent with their data” than other states, and said this may be the reason the virus seems to be hitting California cows so hard.

Advertisement

“This virus is out of control. It is time for urgent and serious leadership and action to halt further transmission and mutation,” Bright said. “The concept of letting it burn out through food animals, with unmonitored voluntary testing, has failed. There are pandemic playbooks that we need to dust off and begin to implement.”

In the meantime, officials continue to reassure the public about the safety of the nation’s dairy supply. They say pasteurization inactivates the virus. They also warn people to stay away from raw milk.

Beal noted one of the sentinel signs that a farm has been infected is dead barn cats that have drunk the infected, raw milk.

“It’s weird, actually, how consistently that seems to be happening everywhere,” he said. “It’s pretty sad and shocking. But that’s one of the first things that people see sometimes.”

There is also some suggestion that some cows that have recovered from the virus have been reinfected, although this has not been confirmed.

Advertisement

“We don’t have any data to support this yet, but there have been anecdotal reports of reinfections in herds,” said Kay Russo, a dairy-poultry vet with RSM Consulting, an international consulting firm.

She said it could just be a persistent infection that is being observed, but also speculated that the virus could be mutating rapidly — and evolving “enough to reinfect an animal.”

And Jason Lombard, one of the speakers at the dairy webinar, said in an email that he had been told by veterinarians that they are observing clinical signs of disease in animals that had been infected, “but I don’t believe any of them have been confirmed via testing.”

As of Oct. 4, California officials have reported 56 infected herds. Although state officials will not disclose the location of these herds, the Valley Veterinarians Inc. website — a veterinary clinic run by large-animal vets in the Central Valley — said the infections are in Tulare and Fresno counties.

Steve Lyle, a California Department of Food and Agriculture spokesman, would not confirm the counties.

Advertisement

There are more than 200 herds in Tulare County and more than 100 in Fresno County. The state’s largest raw milk dairy is also in Fresno County.

Requests by The Times to observe infected farms or speak with the owners of infected dairies went unanswered by the state and declined by industry insiders.

“We are not recommending farmers engage on this due to farm security issues we’ve had,” said Anja Raudabaugh, chief executive officer of Western United Dairies, an industry trade group for California dairy farmers. “It is very unwise to consider viewing a dairy under quarantine … this is just not the time.”

She said her organization doesn’t want anyone “doxing” farmers or increasing traffic at or near a farm, “both of which have happened.”

In the last week, the H5N1 virus has been detected in wastewater samples collected in Turlock, San Francisco, Sunnyvale and Palo Alto.

Advertisement

State epidemiologist Erica Pan said it was hard to know where the virus is coming from. While Turlock is a dairy center, the hits in the Bay Area cities could potentially be from wild birds, she said, but the source is not known.

Continue Reading

Science

Opinion: The evidence shows women make better doctors. So why do men still dominate medicine?

Published

on

Opinion: The evidence shows women make better doctors. So why do men still dominate medicine?

“When will I see the doctor?” Most female doctors have been asked this question many times. It feels like a slight — a failure to recognize the struggle it took to get to where they are, a fight that is far from over once a woman has her medical degree.

Women now make up more than half of medical students but only about 37% of practicing doctors. That is partly because the makeup of the medical workforce lags that of the student body. But it’s also because persistent sexism drives higher attrition among women in medicine.

Even in households headed by a mother and father who both work, the woman is frequently expected to be the primary caretaker. As a result, female physicians often feel forced to work part time, choose lower-paying specialties such as pediatrics or leave the profession altogether.

That’s unfortunate not just for doctors but also for patients. On the whole, female doctors are more empathetic, detail-oriented and likely to follow through than their male counterparts. In other words, they are better doctors.

Advertisement

Admittedly, that is a generalization, but it’s one worth making. I experienced it firsthand working with female colleagues, and I’m informed by that experience in addressing my own medical needs. I prefer to see female doctors.

It wasn’t always that way. But after seeing a series of male doctors who were not listening to me, in a hurry to get out of the exam room or appearing only mildly interested in figuring out the cause of my problem, I made the switch — and I’m not going back. While I found that male doctors typically decided what my diagnosis was and how to treat it before entering the exam room, female doctors tended to be open-minded about what my medical issues were and — gasp! — listen to my answers to their questions.

But don’t take my word for it. Look at the data.

One recent study found that both female and male patients had lower mortality rates when they were treated by female physicians. Perhaps not surprisingly, the benefits of getting care from women were greater for women than for men.

“What our findings indicate is that female and male physicians practice medicine differently, and these differences have a meaningful impact on patients’ health outcomes,” said Yusuke Tsugawa, a senior author of the study.

Advertisement

Female doctors seem more likely to discover the root cause of a medical problem, as we are taught to do in medical school, rather than merely treat the symptoms.

“Female physicians spend more time with patients and spend more time engaging in shared medical decision-making,” Dr. Lisa Rotenstein, a co-author of the study, told Medical News Today. “Evidence from the outpatient setting demonstrates that female physicians spend more time on the electronic health record than male counterparts and deliver higher-quality care. In the surgical realm, female physicians spend longer on a surgical procedure and have lower rates of postoperative readmissions. We need to be asking ourselves how to provide the training and incentives so that all doctors can emulate the care provided by female physicians.”

One reason for the discrepancy might be male doctors’ propensity to be more ego-driven. They may revert to “mansplaining” to patients instead of engaging in an equal, cooperative patient-physician relationship. I’ve been guilty of that myself, so I know it when I see it.

What’s blocking women’s advancement in medicine? Old-fashioned sexism in the workplace is the most obvious answer. Female doctors are paid 25% less than their male counterparts on average, according to the 2019 Medscape Physician Compensation Report, earning an estimated $2 million less over a 40-year career.

There is also a power imbalance. Men are more likely to be full professors at medical schools and presidents of professional medical associations. A 2019 survey found that women oncologists were less likely than their male counterparts to attend scientific meetings because of child care and other demands. And anyone in medicine will attest that these conferences provide opportunities to angle for leadership positions.

Advertisement

Excluding women from leadership deprives young female doctors of role models. While I haven’t seen female doctors being asked to get coffee for their male colleagues (though I have seen women nurses asked to do so, even recently), the unequal distribution of responsibilities is undeniable. Female physicians are often overburdened with menial, uncompensated assignments, secretarial tasks and committee service that does not necessarily lead to promotions, taking precious time away from activities that would be more likely to advance their careers.

These and other factors lead to higher burnout rates among women physicians. A 2022 American Medical Assn. survey found that 57% of female physicians reported suffering at least one symptom of burnout, compared with 47% of men.

“Women physicians are paid less than men, work harder, have less resources, are less likely to be promoted and receive less respect in the workplace,” Roberta Gebhard, a former president of the American Medical Women’s Association, told the Hill. “With all of these barriers to success in the workplace … it’s no wonder that women physicians are more likely to stop practicing than men.”

The patriarchal system is alive and well in medicine, and it isn’t helping our patients. We must address this antiquated disparity. It is incumbent on medical institutions to champion female physicians, not only as rank-and-file doctors but also as leaders of the profession and its organizations. Patients should also examine their own assumptions and challenge the notion that seeing a male doctor will yield better results.

It’s time for doctors to live up to one of the highest ideals of medicine: that all people should be treated equally. That includes female physicians.

Advertisement

David Weill is a physician, a former director of Stanford’s Center for Advanced Lung Disease, the principal of the Weill Consulting Group and the author, most recently, of “All That Really Matters.”

Continue Reading

Trending