Tag: medical

  • Your Day Job Does Not Have to Be Your Life’s Work

    Your Day Job Does Not Have to Be Your Life’s Work

    Why doctors and probably everyone else need work that belongs to them

    Seeing patients all day was never my favorite way to use my skills.

    Even writing that sentence feels strangely uncomfortable. Physicians aren’t supposed to say things like that. We spend more than a decade training to take care of patients. We sacrifice our twenties, accumulate debt, miss weddings, work nights, weekends, and holidays, and build an enormous amount of our identity around becoming a doctor.

    So, once you finally become one, shouldn’t patient care be the thing that gives you the greatest sense of meaning and fulfillment?

    Maybe.

    But what if it isn’t?

    And what if there is nothing particularly wrong with that?

    One of Medicine’s Quiet Expectations

    I enjoy psychiatry. I care deeply about doing good clinical work. I want the people I treat to get better.

    But if you asked me what activities make me lose track of time, they usually aren’t the routine parts of clinical medicine. They are reading. Writing. Teaching. Going down an intellectual rabbit hole because I came across an idea I don’t understand. Reading an old psychiatry paper and wondering why we stopped thinking about the problem that way. Taking something complicated and figuring out how to explain it so another person can actually use it.

    Those have always been some of the most meaningful parts of my life.

    And for years, I almost felt guilty about that.

    There is an unspoken belief in medicine that the ideal physician should receive nearly unlimited emotional and intellectual nourishment from direct patient care. Anything else can sound selfish.

    You want to write? Fine, if you see your patients first.

    You want to teach? Great, if it doesn’t interfere with productivity.

    You want to research an obscure idea, create educational content, study philosophy, build something, or spend three hours thinking about a question nobody assigned you?

    That’s a hobby. Get back to work.

    Then I Heard Someone Say It Out Loud

    Recently, psychiatrist Nassir Ghaemi described an idea during his commencement address to the 2026 Yale psychiatry residency class that immediately resonated with me.

    He called it having a “night job.”

    Your day job is the work you are paid to do. Your night job is the work that satisfies something deeper.

    As Ghaemi put it: “Many people are dissatisfied because their day job doesn’t satisfy them emotionally or intellectually.”

    That doesn’t necessarily mean your day job is bad. It means we may be asking far too much of it.

    We expect a single profession to provide income, identity, purpose, intellectual stimulation, emotional fulfillment, social connection, prestige, and happiness. That is an enormous burden to place on a job. And when it inevitably fails to provide all those things, we conclude that something must be wrong.

    Maybe we chose the wrong specialty. Maybe we are burned out. Maybe medicine has changed. Maybe we aren’t as dedicated as everyone else.

    Sometimes those explanations are true.

    But sometimes your job is simply your job. It can be important. You can be good at it. You can care deeply about doing it well.

    And it still doesn’t have to satisfy every part of you.

    The Night Job

    The term “night job” is a little misleading, because this isn’t about staying up until midnight working on another project. It isn’t another version of hustle culture. The goal isn’t to finish a twelve-hour clinical day and then punish yourself with four more hours of productivity.

    The night job is the parallel pursuit that belongs to you.

    For me, that has meant writing, teaching, and creating — studying psychology, philosophy, neuroscience, and human behavior far outside the narrow boundaries of daily clinical practice. Trying to understand not simply what the treatment guidelines tell us to prescribe, but why people suffer, why treatments work, why they fail, and what we may be getting wrong.

    And then taking those ideas and sharing them.

    That’s a large part of why I created Shrinks in Sneakers. I wanted to talk about psychiatry the way clinicians experience it. I wanted to explain treatments without pretending the evidence is cleaner than it really is. I wanted to challenge conventional wisdom when the conventional wisdom didn’t make sense. And I wanted ordinary people to have access to high-quality psychiatric education without needing a medical degree to understand it.

    Nobody assigned me that job. For most of it, nobody paid me.

    I did it because I couldn’t imagine not doing it.

    That’s the difference.

    Your Greatest Work May Not Be the Work Someone Hired You to Do

    This is the part I think young physicians need to hear.

    Your career does not have to fit neatly inside your employment contract.

    Medicine has become very good at defining our value through measurable units. Patients seen. Notes completed. RVUs generated. Charts closed. Quality metrics achieved. Those things may be necessary to operate a healthcare system.

    But they are terrible measurements of a human life.

    Some of the most important work you ever do may have no billing code. It may be the paper you write because an observation bothered you. The lecture you build because nobody ever taught the topic correctly. The student you mentor. The podcast nobody listens to for the first year. The book sitting half-finished on your computer. The research questions your institution doesn’t care about. Or simply the subject you study because understanding it makes you feel alive.

    Your employer may never reward you for it. The world might not reward you for it either.

    Do it anyway.

    But there is a catch

    There is one major problem with the night job.

    Energy.

    After a full clinical day, there isn’t always much left. This is where I think the idea needs an important modification:

    Protect your best energy for at least some of the work that matters most to you.

    Don’t automatically give your employer every productive hour you have and reserve whatever exhausted fragments remain for the things you supposedly care about most.

    Sometimes that means writing before work. Reading for an hour in the morning. Blocking off an afternoon. Saying no to another committee. Doing slightly less of something that doesn’t matter so you can do more of something that does.

    Ghaemi described doing something similar — stopping at a café before reaching the hospital so he could write while his mind was still fresh. That makes far more sense to me than glorifying exhaustion.

    The night job shouldn’t shrink your life.

    It should make your life bigger.

    You Are Allowed to Be More Than Your Profession

    Medicine has a strange way of consuming identity. First, you are a premed. Then a medical student. Then a resident. Then an attending. Eventually somebody asks who you are, and without realizing it, you answer with your specialty.

    “I’m a psychiatrist.”

    True. But incomplete.

    I’m also someone who writes. Someone who teaches. Someone who creates. Someone who is endlessly curious about why human beings do the things they do. Being a psychiatrist gives me an extraordinary vantage point from which to explore those questions.

    It doesn’t need to be the boundary around them.

    Take your work seriously. Treat people well. Become excellent at whatever profession you choose. But you do not have to surrender the rest of yourself to your job.

    Find the thing you would keep doing even if nobody put it on your performance review. Find the subject you read about when nobody assigned the chapter. Find the work that makes two hours feel like twenty minutes.

    Then build some space for it.

    Call it your night job. Call it a side project. Call it your life’s work. The name isn’t important.

    What matters is recognizing that the work that pays for your life and the work that gives your life meaning do not have to be the same thing.

    And maybe we would all be a little happier if we stopped pretending they did.

    Psychiatry Unfiltered

  • Psych Meds Are Not the Enemy. Bad Medicine Is

    Psych Meds Are Not the Enemy. Bad Medicine Is

    There is a dangerous difference between criticizing bad psychiatric practice and stigmatizing psychiatric illness.

    I have criticized aspects of psychiatry many times. I believe our field should be open to critique. We should question our prescribing habits. We should challenge lazy diagnosis. We should acknowledge when medications are used too quickly, continued too long, or substituted for the deeper work of psychotherapy, lifestyle change, social support, and careful clinical formulation.

    Psychiatry should never be above criticism.

    But criticism of psychiatric practice is not the same thing as denying the legitimacy of psychiatric illness.

    And right now, that line is being blurred.

    Serious Mental Illness Is Real

    One thing you will never hear me say is that psychiatric disease is not real.

    Schizophrenia is real.
    Bipolar disorder is real.
    Severe major depression is real.
    Catatonia is real.
    Psychotic depression is real.
    Obsessive-compulsive disorder can be profoundly disabling.
    Posttraumatic stress disorder can devastate a person’s life.

    These are not character flaws. They are not weakness. They are not simply failures of lifestyle, discipline, resilience, spirituality, or mindset.

    They are legitimate medical illnesses.

    That does not mean every painful experience is a disease. It does not mean every person who is grieving, anxious, overwhelmed, lonely, or struggling needs a diagnosis or a medication. In fact, one of the most important tasks in psychiatry is knowing the difference.

    Some people need medication.

    Some people need psychotherapy.

    Some people need sleep, exercise, nutrition, structure, social connection, housing, safety, meaning, accountability, or community.

    Many people need several of these at the same time.

    The goal is not to medicalize all suffering. The goal is to recognize real illness when it is present and treat it with the seriousness it deserves.

    The Problem Is Not “Medication”

    Psychiatric medications are often discussed as if they are inherently suspicious.

    But medication is not the enemy.

    Bad medicine is.

    A medication can be life-changing when used for the right condition, in the right person, at the right time, for the right reason.

    The same medication can be harmful when used carelessly, without a clear diagnosis, without follow-up, without discussion of risks and benefits, or without a plan for reassessment.

    That is not unique to psychiatry.

    Antibiotics can be lifesaving, but inappropriate antibiotic use causes harm. Opioids can be appropriate in some clinical contexts, but reckless prescribing devastated communities. Steroids can be powerful tools, but long-term unnecessary use can create major problems.

    The issue is not whether medications are “good” or “bad.”

    The issue is whether we are practicing medicine well.

    Deprescribing Matters, But It Is Not a Mental Health Policy

    Deprescribing is important.

    Every psychiatrist I know has experience reducing, simplifying, or stopping medications when the risks outweigh the benefits or when the original indication no longer makes sense.

    This is not a fringe idea. It is part of daily psychiatric practice.

    We stop medications that are not helping.
    We reduce unnecessary polypharmacy.
    We simplify regimens when possible.
    We monitor side effects.
    We reassess diagnoses.
    We talk with patients about what still makes sense.

    Good psychiatry includes deprescribing.

    But deprescribing alone will not solve the mental health crisis.

    People cannot deprescribe their way out of a lack of psychiatric beds. They cannot deprescribe their way out of months-long waitlists. They cannot deprescribe their way out of poverty, homelessness, trauma, addiction, loneliness, or a collapsing continuum of care.

    And they cannot deprescribe their way out of schizophrenia, mania, catatonia, psychotic depression, or severe melancholic depression.

    When we frame the mental health crisis primarily as a problem of overprescribing, we oversimplify a system failure.

    We ignore the shortage of psychiatrists. We ignore the lack of access to psychotherapy. We ignore inadequate visit times, fragmented care, insurance barriers, emergency departments boarding psychiatric patients for days, and the near disappearance of a true continuum of care.

    Those are not solved by telling people to take fewer medications.

    The Risk of Stigma Dressed Up as Reform

    My concern is not that we are talking about prescribing quality. We should be talking about that.

    My concern is that the rhetoric around psychiatric medications often sends a dangerous message to people who already feel ashamed.

    Many patients with serious mental illness already struggle with the idea of needing medication.

    They worry it means they are weak.
    They worry it means they are broken.
    They worry it means they are dependent.
    They worry it means they are not trying hard enough.
    They worry others will see them differently.

    When public conversations frame psychiatric medications as the central villain, those patients hear something very different from “we need better prescribing.”

    They hear:

    You are dependent.
    You are addicted.
    You are taking the easy way out.
    You should be able to fix this naturally.
    You are the problem.

    That is not empowerment.

    That is stigma.

    And for some patients, that stigma can be dangerous. It can lead people to stop medications abruptly, avoid treatment, disengage from care, relapse, or delay help until a crisis occurs.

    Of course patients should be informed. Of course they should understand risks and benefits. Of course they should have a voice in treatment decisions.

    But informed consent should not become fear-based messaging. And reform should not become another way of shaming people with serious psychiatric illness.

    Better Medicine Means Holding Two Truths

    The future of psychiatry depends on our ability to hold two truths at the same time.

    First, psychiatric illness is real and can be devastating.

    Second, psychiatry must be careful not to overdiagnose, overprescribe, or turn normal human suffering into lifelong pathology.

    Both truths matter.

    If we only emphasize the first, we risk medicalizing everything.

    If we only emphasize the second, we risk abandoning people with serious illness.

    Real psychiatric care lives in the tension between those truths.

    It requires humility. It requires careful diagnosis. It requires honest conversations about uncertainty. It requires medication when appropriate, psychotherapy when appropriate, lifestyle intervention when appropriate, social support when appropriate, neuromodulation when appropriate, and deprescribing when appropriate.

    It also requires us to say clearly that some people need medication, and that needing medication is not a moral failure.

    The Goal Is Better Medicine

    The goal is not to prescribe more.

    The goal is not to prescribe less.

    The goal is to prescribe better.

    Better diagnosis.
    Better informed consent.
    Better follow-up.
    Better access to psychotherapy.
    Better use of lifestyle interventions.
    Better systems of care.
    Better deprescribing when medications are no longer needed.
    Better protection for people whose medications are the reason they are alive, stable, working, parenting, studying, and functioning.

    We do not fix psychiatry by pretending psychiatric medications are always the answer.

    But we also do not fix psychiatry by pretending they are the enemy.

    Psych meds are not the enemy.

    Bad medicine is.

  • Reject dogma—embrace nuance in Psychiatry

    🔹 Psychoanalysis should not be treated as sacred doctrine. Freud was a clever and influential thinker, but not a prophet.


    🔹 Biological psychiatry is equally vulnerable to dogma. Not every symptom signals a disease, and not every distress warrants medication.


    🔹 That said, evidence-based pharmacology has its place—especially when medications show clear, replicable benefits in defined clinical conditions.

    The future of psychiatry lies in balanced thinking, not blind allegiance—to Freud, to biology, or to any single model of mind.

  • Female Physicians at Higher Risk for Suicide: Key Findings

    Female Physicians at Higher Risk for Suicide: Key Findings

    A February 26, 2025 study in JAMA Psychiatry reveals alarming trends in physician suicide rates:

    📊 Key Findings

    🔹 Female physicians face a significantly higher suicide risk compared to the general U.S. population.
    🔹 Male physicians have a lower suicide risk than their nonphysician counterparts.

    💡 Why This Matters

    These statistics underscore a deeper systemic issue within healthcare
    ➡️ “Physicians face immense pressure, long hours, and high-stakes decisions, which contribute to burnout and mental health struggles.”

    Failure to address these issues can lead to increased physician turnover, lower quality of care, and worsening healthcare outcomes for patients.

    ✅ What Can Be Done

    ✔️ Reduce stigma around mental health in medical culture.
    ✔️ Implement confidential mental health resources specifically for physicians.
    ✔️ Encourage work-life balance through adjusted schedules and peer support programs.
    ✔️ Offer routine mental health check-ins as part of employee wellness programs.

    📞 Where to Get Help

    🆘 If you or someone you know is struggling, help is available:
    ➡️ Call or text 988 for free, confidential support 24/7.
    ➡️ Visit the Physician Support Line at www.physiciansupportline.com — available 7 days a week with support from licensed psychiatrists.

    💙 It’s time to support those who care for us.

  • Challenges of Antidepressant Management in Primary Care

    Challenges of Antidepressant Management in Primary Care

    Discussions about the potential overprescribing of antidepressants must begin with an understanding of who is doing most of the prescribing. In the U.S., primary care physicians (PCPs) write the majority of antidepressant prescriptions, with estimates suggesting that 60–80% originate from primary care rather than psychiatry (Mojtabai & Olfson, 2011; Mark et al., 2014). This prescribing pattern reflects broader trends in mental health treatment, where primary care has become the frontline for managing depression and other mood disorders.

    Several factors contribute to this dynamic:

    • Limited access to psychiatrists: Many patients, especially in rural or underserved areas, face long wait times or geographic barriers to seeing a psychiatrist.
    • Overlap with medical conditions: PCPs frequently manage conditions like chronic pain, insomnia, and fatigue, for which antidepressants may be considered as part of the treatment plan.
    • Continuity of care: Patients often have longstanding relationships with their primary care providers, making them more comfortable discussing mood symptoms in this setting.
    • Psychiatric referral limitations: Many psychiatrists focus on complex or treatment-resistant cases, meaning initial treatment often falls under primary care.

    Challenges and Considerations

    While primary care plays a crucial role in mental health treatment, concerns exist regarding the effectiveness of antidepressant management in this setting:

    • Suboptimal dosing and medication selection: Studies suggest that antidepressants prescribed in primary care settings may be dosed too low or not adequately adjusted, potentially leading to partial response or treatment failure (Carrasco & Sandner, 2005). Additionally, there is a higher likelihood of using older antidepressants, which may have a less favorable side effect profile.
    • Lack of therapy integration: Guidelines recommend a combination of medication and psychotherapy for moderate-to-severe depression (APA, 2010), yet PCPs may have limited time, training, or referral resources to ensure therapy is included.
    • Potential misdiagnosis: Depressive symptoms can overlap with other psychiatric and medical conditions, leading to misdiagnosis or inappropriate treatment. For example, bipolar disorder is often misdiagnosed as major depressive disorder in primary care, which can result in inadequate treatment and risk of mood destabilization (Hirschfeld et al., 2003).

    Addressing These Challenges

    Several strategies can improve antidepressant management within primary care settings:

    • Collaborative care models: Studies show that integrating mental health professionals within primary care teams leads to improved outcomes, including higher remission rates and better adherence (Archer et al., 2012).
    • Standardized screening and follow-up: Implementing tools like the PHQ-9 for monitoring depression severity can help guide treatment decisions and ensure timely adjustments.
    • Education and decision support: Providing PCPs with continuing education on psychiatric prescribing and decision-support tools can enhance treatment precision.
    • Improved access to therapy: Expanding tele-therapy options and embedding behavioral health providers in primary care clinics can help bridge the gap between medication and psychotherapy.

    Conclusion

    Given the high volume of antidepressant prescriptions originating from primary care, ensuring optimal management is critical to improving patient outcomes. Strengthening collaboration between PCPs and mental health specialists, enhancing diagnostic accuracy, and integrating therapy referrals can help address current limitations.

    Call to Action: If you are a healthcare professional involved in prescribing antidepressants, what strategies have you found effective in improving patient outcomes? Share your insights and experiences below.

  • 📌 CANMAT Guidelines for Depression: 2023 Update

    📌 CANMAT Guidelines for Depression: 2023 Update

    The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) released updated guidelines in 2023 for the management of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), reflecting recent advancements in the field.

    Key Updates in the 2023 CANMAT Guidelines:

    1. Personalized Care Approach:
      • Emphasis on shared decision-making, considering patient values, preferences, and treatment history to tailor individualized treatment plans.
    2. Updated Treatment Recommendations:
      • Psychological Therapies: Continued endorsement of therapies like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Interpersonal Therapy (IPT) for mild to moderate depression.
      • Pharmacological Treatments: Introduction of newer antidepressants and updated recommendations based on recent evidence.
      • Neuromodulation: Expanded guidance on treatments such as Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)and Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT), especially for treatment-resistant cases.
    3. Lifestyle and Complementary Interventions:
      • Recognition of the role of exercise, nutrition, and sleep in managing depression.
      • Evaluation of complementary and alternative medicine approaches, providing guidance on their efficacy and safety.
    4. Digital Health:
      • Assessment of digital interventions, including online therapy platforms and mobile applications, as supplementary tools in treatment plans.
    5. Management of Inadequate Response:
      • Strategies for addressing partial or non-response to initial treatments, including augmentation and combination therapies.

    These updates underscore the importance of a collaborative and individualized approach in managing MDD, integrating the latest evidence to optimize patient outcomes.

    For a comprehensive overview, refer to the full publication: 

    pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

  • The U.S. Withdrawal from the WHO: What It Means for Global Health 🌍

    The U.S. Withdrawal from the WHO: What It Means for Global Health 🌍

    The U.S. is officially withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO)—a move with far-reaching consequences for global health, research, and disease prevention. Here’s why this matters:

    🔹 Pandemic Preparedness 🦠: The WHO coordinates global responses to pandemics. Without U.S. support, funding gaps could slow future outbreak responses.

    🔹 Vaccine & Drug Research 💉: The U.S. plays a key role in funding and collaborating on medical breakthroughs. Withdrawing could disrupt research efforts in areas like HIV, TB, and malaria.

    🔹 Health Security Risks 🚨: Global health threats don’t respect borders. A weaker WHO means less surveillance and slower containment of emerging diseases.

    🔹 Loss of Influence 🇺🇸: The U.S. has historically shaped global health policies. Leaving the WHO could reduce its ability to set standards and priorities.

    The long-term impact of this decision remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: global health is interconnected, and a fractured response benefits no one.

    What do you think about this move? Drop your thoughts below. ⬇️ #GlobalHealth #WHO #PublicHealth

  • The Erosion of Mutual Respect in Mental Health: A Growing Crisis

    The Erosion of Mutual Respect in Mental Health: A Growing Crisis

    An increasing trend I’ve noticed among patients is a lack of respect for mental health professionals who dedicate their lives to helping them. This erosion of mutual respect has become a significant contributor to burnout and emotional exhaustion for those of us working in the field.

    When you choose a career in medicine—especially in mental health—you do so with a desire to help others and make a meaningful difference in their lives. However, what you don’t expect is to face constant verbal abuse, threats, or dismissal of your expertise while you’re doing the best job possible within the constraints of an underfunded and overstretched system.

    Community mental health, in particular, operates under a scarcity of resources—limited staffing, excessive caseloads, inadequate funding, and a never-ending demand for services. These challenges are often compounded by systemic barriers, such as fragmented care, social stigma, and patients’ personal frustrations, which too often are directed at the very people trying to help them.

    It’s important to remember that mental health professionals are human, too. We experience the same range of emotions as anyone else, including pain when our work and intentions are unfairly maligned. The cumulative toll of being met with hostility instead of collaboration can lead to compassion fatigue, a diminished sense of efficacy, and even questioning the value of staying in the profession. This is particularly disheartening in a field where the work is already emotionally taxing by nature.

    We need to address this trend collectively, not just for the sake of providers but also for the patients we serve. Fostering an environment of mutual respect and understanding—on both sides—is crucial. Patients have every right to advocate for their needs and express dissatisfaction when appropriate, but it’s equally essential to recognize the humanity, dedication, and effort of those striving to help them, often in conditions far from ideal.

    For my colleagues who feel disheartened, remember that you’re not alone. Your work matters, and for every challenging interaction, there are also lives you’ve undoubtedly changed for the better—even if it isn’t acknowledged in the moment. And for the system at large, it’s imperative that we address both the external barriers to quality care and the internal culture that makes this kind of disrespect seem increasingly acceptable. If we want mental health care to thrive, we must take care of its providers just as much as its patients.

  • Breaking the Anxiety Barrier: LSD a Game-Changer for GAD?

    Breaking the Anxiety Barrier: LSD a Game-Changer for GAD?

    Should LSD be considered a treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD)? The results from MindMed’s Phase 2b study suggest it just might be. While this is only one study, and the FDA’s cautious stance on psychedelic-based treatments like MDMA raises questions about future approval, the findings are worth exploring. So, let’s dive in.

    GAD is a fascinating and somewhat controversial diagnosis. Notably, the study excluded participants with major depressive disorder, a condition frequently comorbid with GAD, which raises interesting questions about the choice to isolate GAD. Some in the psychiatric field even challenge the validity of GAD as a distinct psychiatric disease, arguing it reflects broader distress rather than a discrete disorder.

    Psychedelics like LSD are surging to the forefront of psychiatric research, largely because the field is starved for innovation. Decades of research and sophisticated drug development have yielded limited breakthroughs in understanding or treating psychiatric conditions. Meanwhile, society often clings to the hope that complex human behavior and mental health challenges can be reduced to something as simple as a pill you take every 12 weeks. The appeal of psychedelics lies in their potential to disrupt this paradigm—but can they deliver?

    Key Findings:

    1. Dose-Dependent Response:
      • Patients receiving a higher dose (200 µg) of MM-120 showed rapid and sustained improvements in anxiety symptoms.
      • The reduction in anxiety symptoms was statistically significant compared to the placebo group.
    2. Speed of Onset:
      • Improvements were observed as early as two weeks post-dosing, suggesting a rapid therapeutic effect.
    3. Duration of Effect:
      • The anxiety-reducing effects lasted up to 12 weeks following a single administration, indicating long-lasting benefits.
    4. Safety Profile:
      • The treatment was generally well-tolerated, with mild to moderate adverse effects such as headache, nausea, and transient emotional changes. There were no reports of severe adverse events related to the study drug.
    5. Mechanistic Insights:
      • MM-120 appears to modulate serotonin 5-HT2A receptors, leading to enhanced neuroplasticity and emotional processing, which may underlie the observed clinical improvements.

    I’m always interested in the study population and if the researchers selected a group of patients with prior psychedelic use. Here is what I found 

    Participant Screening and Inclusion:

    1. Prior Psychedelic Use:
      • Some participants may have had previous experiences with psychedelics (e.g., LSD, psilocybin, MDMA), as long as such use did not interfere with the integrity of the study (e.g., recent or habitual use, which might influence tolerance or expectations).
      • Individuals with significant past psychedelic use might be excluded to minimize potential biases in response to the trial drug.
    2. Psychedelic-Naïve Participants:
      • The trial likely included a substantial proportion of participants who were psychedelic-naïve, meaning they had never used substances like LSD or psilocybin before.
      • This approach helps ensure that the observed therapeutic effects can be attributed to MM-120 rather than prior familiarity or psychological preparation for psychedelic experiences.

    Why Prior Use Matters:

    • Expectation Bias:
      • Participants with past psychedelic experiences may anticipate certain effects, influencing subjective outcomes like anxiety reduction.
    • Safety and Tolerability:
      • Previous exposure to psychedelics might affect how participants tolerate or respond to the treatment.
    • Generalizability:
      • Including both psychedelic-naïve and experienced individuals helps make the findings applicable to a broader population.

    Implications:

    This study suggests that psychedelic-assisted therapy, especially with compounds like MM-120, has significant potential as a novel treatment for GAD, offering rapid and durable relief after just one dose. These findings pave the way for further research and larger-scale trials.

  • Tragic Loss of United Healthcare CEO Shines Spotlight on Insurance Denials

    Tragic Loss of United Healthcare CEO Shines Spotlight on Insurance Denials

    I would never condone violence against anyone, and the loss of any life in such a manner is a profound tragedy. That said, this event has sparked a critical and necessary conversation about the devastating impact of insurance companies denying claims for essential healthcare.

    Far too often, people feel abandoned by these companies during their most vulnerable moments, when their lives are quite literally on the line. As a healthcare provider, I’ve had countless experiences fighting with insurance companies for additional days of coverage for acutely suicidal patients who were clearly not ready for discharge. Each time, I was left with the unshakable impression that the priority was not patient care but finding any justification to deny coverage, regardless of the circumstances.

    This systemic disregard for the value of human life in favor of profit leaves a lasting impression—one that is deeply unsettling. It’s a stark reminder of how broken the system is when patients’ lives, and the quality of care they receive, are treated as secondary to financial interests.