Connect with us

Science

The Ex-Patients’ Club

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

“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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

“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.”

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

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.

Advertisement

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?”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

“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.”

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.”

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.)

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

“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.”

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.

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

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.

Continue Reading
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

Tuberculosis outbreak reported at Catholic high school in Bay Area. Cases statewide are climbing

Published

on

Tuberculosis outbreak reported at Catholic high school in Bay Area. Cases statewide are climbing

Public health officials in Northern California are investigating a tuberculosis outbreak, identifying more than 50 cases at a private Catholic high school and ordering those who are infected to stay home. The outbreak comes as tuberculosis cases have been on the rise statewide since 2023.

The San Francisco Department of Public Health issued a health advisory last week after identifying three active cases and 50 latent cases of tuberculosis at Archbishop Riordan High School in San Francisco. The disease attacks the lungs and remains in the body for years before becoming potentially deadly.

A person with active TB can develop symptoms and is infectious; a person with a latent tuberculosis infection cannot spread the bacteria to others and doesn’t feel sick. However, a person with a latent TB infection is at risk of developing the disease anytime.

The three cases of active TB have been diagnosed at the school since November, according to public health officials. The additional cases of latent TB have been identified in people within the school community.

Archbishop Riordan High School, which recently transitioned from 70 years of exclusively admitting male students to becoming co-ed in 2020, did not immediately respond to the The Times’ request for comment.

Advertisement

School officials told NBC Bay Area news that in-person classes had been canceled and would resume Feb. 9, with hybrid learning in place until Feb. 20. Students who test negative for tuberculosis will be allowed to return to campus even after hybrid learning commences.

Officials with the San Francisco Department of Public Health said the risk to the general population was low. Health officials are currently focused on the high school community.

How serious is a TB diagnosis?

Active TB disease is treatable and curable with appropriate antibiotics if it is identified promptly; some cases require hospitalization. But the percentage of people who have died from the disease is increasing significantly, officials said.

In 2010, 8.4% of Californians with TB died, according to the California Department of Public Health. In 2022, 14% of people in the state with TB died, the highest rate since 1995. Of those who died, 22% died before receiving TB treatment.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that up to 13 million people nationwide live with latent TB.

Advertisement

How does California’s TB rate compare to the country?

Public health officials reported that California’s annual TB incidence rate was 5.4 cases per 100,000 people last year, nearly double the national incidence rate of 3.0 per 100,000 in 2023.

In 2024, 2,109 California residents were reported to have TB compared to 2,114 in 2023 — the latter was about the same as the total number of cases reported in 2019, according to the state Department of Public Health.

The number of TB cases in the state has remained consistent from 2,000 to 2,200 cases since 2012, except during the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2022.

California’s high TB rates could be caused by a large portion of the population traveling to areas where TB is endemic, said Dr. Shruti Gohil, associate medical director for UCI Health Epidemiology and Infection Prevention.

Nationally, the rates of TB cases have increased in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic, which “was in some ways anticipated,” said Gohil. The increasing number of TB cases nationwide could be due to a disruption in routine care during the pandemic and a boom in travel post-pandemic.

Advertisement

Routine screening is vital in catching latent TB, which can lie dormant in the body for decades. If the illness is identified, treatment could stop it from becoming active. This type of routine screening wasn’t accessible during the pandemic, when healthcare was limited to emergency or essential visits only, Gohil said.

When pandemic restrictions on travel were lifted, people started to travel again and visit areas where TB is endemic, including Asia, Europe and South America, she said.

To address the uptick in cases and suppress spread, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2132 into law in 2024, which requires adult patients receiving primary care services to be offered tuberculosis screening if risk factors are identified. The law went into effect in 2025.

What is TB?

In the United States, tuberculosis is caused by a germ called Mycobacterium tuberculosis, which primarily affects the lungs and can impact other parts of the body such as the brain, kidneys and spine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If not treated properly, TB can be fatal.

TB is spread through the air when an infected person speaks, coughs or sings and a nearby person breathes in the germs.

Advertisement

When a person breathes in the TB germs, they settle in the lungs and can spread through the blood to other parts of the body.

The symptoms of active TB include:

  • A cough that lasts three weeks or longer
  • Chest pain
  • Coughing up blood or phlegm
  • Weakness or fatigue
  • Weight loss
  • Loss of appetite
  • Chills
  • Fever
  • Night sweats

Generally, who is at risk of contracting TB?

Those at higher risk of contracting TB are people who have traveled outside the United States to places where TB rates are high including Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America.

A person has an increased risk of getting TB if they live or work in such locations as hospitals, homeless shelters, correctional facilities and nursing homes, according to the CDC.

People with weakened immune systems caused by health conditions that include HIV infection, diabetes, silicosis and severe kidney disease have a higher risk of getting TB.

Others at higher risk of contracting the disease include babies and young children.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Contributor: Animal testing slows medical progress. It wastes money. It’s wrong

Published

on

Contributor: Animal testing slows medical progress. It wastes money. It’s wrong

I am living with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, often called Lou Gehrig’s disease. The average survival time after diagnosis is two to five years. I’m in year two.

When you have a disease like ALS, you learn how slowly medical research moves, and how often it fails the people it is supposed to save. You also learn how precious time is.

For decades, the dominant pathway for developing new drugs has relied on animal testing. Most of us grew up believing this was unavoidable: that laboratories full of caged animals were simply the price of medical progress. But experts have known for a long time that data tell a very different story.

The Los Angeles Times reported in 2017: “Roughly 90% of drugs that succeed in animal tests ultimately fail in people, after hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent.”

The Times editorial board summed it up in 2018: “Animal experiments are expensive, slow and frequently misleading — a major reason why so many drugs that appear promising in animals fail in human trials.”

Advertisement

Then there’s the ethical cost — confining, sickening and killing millions of animals each year for a system that fails 9 times out of 10. As Jane Goodall put it, “We have the choice to use alternatives to animal testing that are not cruel, not unethical, and often more effective.”

Despite overwhelming evidence and well-reasoned arguments against animal-based pipelines, they remain central to U.S. medical research. Funding agencies, academic medical centers, government labs, pharmaceutical companies and even professional societies have been painfully slow to move toward human- and technology-based approaches.

Yet medical journals are filled with successes involving organoids (mini-organs grown in a lab), induced pluripotent stem cells, organ-on-a-chip systems (tiny devices with human cells inside), AI-driven modeling and 3D-bioprinted human tissues. These tools are already transforming how we understand disease.

In ALS research, induced pluripotent stem cells have allowed scientists to grow motor neurons in a dish, using cells derived from actual patients. Researchers have learned how ALS-linked mutations damage those neurons, identified drug candidates that never appeared in animal models and even created personalized “test beds” for individual patients’ cells.

Human-centric pipelines can be dramatically faster. Some are reported to be up to 10 times quicker than animal-based approaches. AI-driven human biology simulations and digital “twins” can test thousands of drug candidates in silico, with a simulation. Some models achieve results hundreds, even thousands, of times faster than conventional animal testing.

Advertisement

For the 30 million Americans living with chronic or fatal diseases, these advances are tantalizing glimpses of a future in which we might not have to suffer and die while waiting for systems that don’t work.

So why aren’t these tools delivering drugs and therapies at scale right now?

The answer is institutional resistance, a force so powerful it can feel almost god-like. As Pulitzer Prize–winning columnist Kathleen Parker wrote in 2021, drug companies and the scientific community “likely will fight … just as they have in past years, if only because they don’t want to change how they do business.”

She reminds us that we’ve seen this before. During the AIDS crisis, activists pushed regulators to move promising drugs rapidly into human testing. Those efforts helped transform AIDS from a death sentence into a chronic condition. We also saw human-centered pipelines deliver COVID vaccines in a matter of months.

Which brings me, surprisingly, to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In December, Kennedy told Fox News that leaders across the Department of Health and Human Services are “deeply committed to ending animal experimentation.” A department spokesperson later confirmed to CBS News that the agency is “prioritizing human-based research.”

Advertisement

Kennedy is right.

His directive to wind down animal testing is not anti-science. It is pro-patient, pro-ethics and pro-progress. For people like me, living on borrowed time, it is not just good policy, it is hope — and a potential lifeline.

The pressure to end animal testing and let humans step up isn’t new. But it’s getting new traction. The actor Eric Dane, profiled about his personal fight with ALS, speaks for many of us when he expresses his wish to contribute as a test subject: “Not to be overly morbid, but you know, if I’m going out, I’m gonna go out helping somebody.”

If I’m going out, I’d like to go out helping somebody, too.

Kevin J. Morrison is a San Francisco-based writer and ALS activist.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

A push to end a fractured approach to post-fire contamination removal

Published

on

A push to end a fractured approach to post-fire contamination removal

The patchwork efforts to identify and safely remove contamination left by the 2025 Eaton and Palisades fires has been akin to the Wild West.

Experts have given conflicting guidance on best practices. Shortly after the fires, the federal government suddenly refused to adhere to California’s decades-old post-fire soil-testing policy; California later considered following suit.

Meanwhile, insurance companies have resisted remediation practices widely recommended by scientists for still-standing homes.

A new bill introduced this week by state Assemblymember John Harabedian (D-Pasadena) aims to change that by creating statewide science-based standards for the testing and removal of contamination deposited by wildfires — specifically within still-standing homes, workplaces and schools, and in the soil around those structures.

Advertisement

“In a state where we’ve had a number of different wildfires that have happened in urban and suburban areas, I was shocked that we didn’t have a black-and-white standard and protocol that would lay out a uniform post-fire safety standard for when a home is habitable again,” Harabedian said.

The bill, AB 1642, would task the state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control with creating standards by July 1, 2027. The standards would only serve as guidance — not requirements — but even that would be helpful, advocates say.

“Guidance, advisories — those are extremely helpful for families that are trying to return home safely,” said Nicole Maccalla, who leads data science efforts with Eaton Fire Residents United, a grassroots organization addressing contamination in still-standing homes. “Right now, there’s nothing … which means that insurance companies are the decision-makers. And they don’t necessarily prioritize human health. They’re running a business.”

Maccalla supports tasking DTSC with determining what levels of contamination pose an unacceptable health risk, though she does want the state to convene independent experts including physicians, exposure scientists and remediation professionals to address the best testing procedures and cleanup techniques.

Harabedian said the details are still being worked out.

Advertisement

“What’s clear from my standpoint, is, let’s let the public health experts and the science and the scientists actually dictate what the proper standards and protocol is,” Harabedian said. “Not bureaucrats and definitely not insurance companies.”

For many residents with still-standing homes that were blanketed in toxic soot and ash, clear guidance on how to restore their homes to safe conditions would be a much welcome relief.

Insurance companies, environmental health academics, and professionals focused on addressing indoor environmental hazards have all disagreed on the necessary steps to restore homes, creating confusion for survivors.

Insurance companies and survivors have routinely fought over who is responsible for the costs of contamination testing. Residents have also said their insurers have pushed back on paying for the replacement of assets like mattresses that can absorb contamination, and any restoration work beyond a deep clean, such as replacing contaminated wall insulation.

Scientists and remediation professionals have clashed over which contaminants homeowners ought to test for after a fire. Just last week, researchers hotly debated the thoroughness of the contamination testing at Palisades Charter High School’s campus. The school district decided it was safe for students to return; in-person classes began Tuesday.

Advertisement

Harabedian hopes the new guidelines could solidify the state’s long-standing policy to conduct comprehensive, post-fire soil testing.

Not long after the federal government refused to adhere to the state’s soil testing policy, Nancy Ward, the former director of the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, had privately contemplated ending state funding for post-fire soil testing as well, according to an internal memo obtained by The Times.

“That debate, internally, should have never happened,” Harabedian said. “Obviously, if we have statewide standards that say, ‘This is what you do in this situation,’ then there is no debate.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending