A devastating thread in which one of my medical communication heroes is exposed for some of the worst messaging about public health ever. For whatever reason, I will no longer trust her opinions.
If you are ever in a position of power or influence, OR PUBLIC HEALTH, and you say public health must "do the greatest good for the most people" (literally: benefit the majority), you have fallen far astray.
/2
Of course, we want broad benefit from public health policy. It is a good thing to want to benefit the most you can. But, in fact, in public health often our goal is to prevent harm to vulnerable people.
/3
benefit the majority = ignore rare outcomes, ignore minoritized people, ignore all forms of systemic oppression which keep the majority in power.
The WHO says public health's goals are:
/4
I really hope Dr. Wen recognizes parodical this series of tweets is, it reminds me of a Daily Show "politician argues with themselves" segment.
In the mean time, can we please remember that there are those among us who need protection.
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
▶️ school stress a major issue for ~30% of mental health crises
▶️ kids rate of suicide 🔼40% on school days vs nonschool days
▶️ kids routinely sharing school stressors in my practice
/2
▶️ my commonest prescription is time/pressure off school
▶️ Kids are telling me during this pandemic a variety of things, but rarely is it "I'm glad to be back in person because it's reduced my stress", and unlike some in this space I clinically work with and listen to kids
/3
After this week, I will no longer be commenting on the #UrgencyOfNormal document. I feel I've said all I have to say. It's most telling that they used suicides when convenient and now don't mention them when not. ("we've updated our slides!!!!!")
I've talked to members on the phone. Emailed them. Corresponded with journalists and institutions. It's overwhelming, trying to correct the mis-cited, one-sided, and biased MH picture they painted.
I have other things I want to do, personally and professionally.
I've sent the lead author data that SHOULD be included in his review of mental health, but because it goes against the narrative, I fear he will be unsuccessful in adding it because his ideologue partners more than happy to continue to "hide refuting, show supporting."
RE: #UrgencyOfNormal (sorry for drama, have to get this off my brain & move on)
@drscottbalsitis and I had an excellent chat, & I meant every word I said in my tweet about him. I'm glad he edited some slides, but it's still woefully one-sided. The grade went from F to INC
/1
Genuinely, I liked him and we got along. This fellow is, like me, ultimately a geek about science. You'll note I occasionally tweet, advocate, and even make fancy slides/graphs about areas outside of my expertise too!
I've sent him good data and trust he will process.
/2
But there is a turn, and my issue is less with him. And trust me, it may sound this way but this isn't an insult to his abilities.
He's not uni-affiliated or an appointed academic.
I hold the academics to a different standard. I don't care to mention their names anymore.
/3
"we also incorrectly stated that youth were the only group to have an increase when in fact they did not increase and another age group did."
"Final mortality shows that there was no significant change in youth suicide statistics between 2019 to 2020."
But now, for whatever reason, suicides are so unimportant to you. When "suicides increased" they were a main point on your summary slides as well as in your mental health slides.
Now that we know that suicides did not increase, they have simply disappeared as important.