2/ The op-ed author cites a new @CochraneLibrary meta-analysis of 78 randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—describing it as a "massive mega-study"—to claim that masks don't stop the spread of COVID-19.
But the analysis only included 6 RCTs that involved COVID-19! Not massive!
3/ The analysis looked at several interventions other than masks... leaving only 12 studies that looked at surgical masks (w/ only 2/12 involving COVID) and 5 looked at N95s (none of which involved COVID)!
Now, it's true that the effect of surgical masks vs. no masks was weak...
4/ ...and that N95 masks did not improve outcomes compared to surgical masks, but there were NO studies—ZERO—that compared N95 masks to no masks.
So, there were NO RCTs that found that N95 masks do not prevent the spread of COVID!
5/ Meanwhile, since the Cochrane review only included RCTs, the many non-RCT studies that do provide evidence that masks are effective in preventing spread of COVID were NOT INCLUDED!
8/ Here's a brand new health policy study of mask mandates that found that "total infections in the US on November 15, 2020 would have been 23.7 to 30.4 percent lower if a national mask mandate had been enacted on May 15, 2020."
10/ Now, to be fair, masks aren't a magic bullet and—not unlike condoms and seatbelts—are only as effective as they are worn properly.
Indeed, the @CochraneLibrary review makes clear that the evidence for masks was compromised by poor adherence.
11/ It's also probably true that the effectiveness of cloth masks is limited.
In the hospital, the standard is for healthcare workers to use N95 masks with FIT testing that helps to ensure they're worn properly.
12/ Despite treating COVID (+) patients in the hospital this past winter, I did not catch COVID thanks to an N95 mask with full PPE.
It was only after my child caught it at school, where kids have long since stopped masking, that I got COVID for the first time in 3 years.
13/ So, the bottom line is that contrary to this new headline, there is in fact plenty of evidence that masks prevent transmission of COVID despite the limited RCT data.
And aside from inconvenience, the downside is pretty minimal.
14/ P.S. Someone pointed me to the fact that one of the Cochrane review authors has strong anti-mask opinions, including denying that COVID is airborne and seemingly being more concerned about acne as a side effect than any protective effect of masking.
1/ I'm a firm believer in the heterogeneity of "mental disorders." While DSM constructs have clinical utility, most DSM disorders are not "one thing" and don't claim to be.
2/ Like Bleuler's "group of schizophrenias," mental disorders are wastebasket categories that likely represent many different biopsychosocial pathways to a given constellation of symptoms.
2/ Note that some of the oldest & most commonly used meds (e.g. divalproex) don't have FDA approval for maintenance Rx much less BP depression.
That doesn't always mean they aren't effective; sometimes it means they weren't extensively studied prior to (or after) going generic.
3/ When it comes to maintenance, several medications have approvals based on specific formulations (e.g. RIS LAI or QTP XR for BP maintenance) which probably doesn't matter while others are only approved for adjunctive treatment (i.e. added to lithium or divalproex) which does.
1/ Like many stories in medicine, antidepressant effects were first discovered inadvertently. When people suffering from major depression improved after taking them, scientists then tried to figure out why.
2/ And so, the monoamine theory was born out of the observed efficacy of MAOIs and TCAs. Prozac was developed more deliberately as a serotonergic drug, but this was done more to reduce the side effect burden of ADs than based on any premise of a serotonergic theory of depression.
3/ The lower side effects of SSRIs (similar to the 2nd generation antipsychotics) drastically changed the landscape of how antidepressants are prescribed, lowering the threshold to prescribe them and broadening the range of patients who are on them.
2/ For at least the past few years, the Right has been trying to shift the mass shooting conversation away from guns and on to psychiatric medications.
3/ After I wrote the above piece following the Charleston church mass shooting in 2015, I was invited to "On Point with Tomi Lahren" to talk about gun violence and psychiatric meds.
1/ In 1911, Eugen Bleuler, the German psychiatrist that coined the term "schizophrenia," referred to the "group of schizophrenias," believing it to be an umbrella term for a variety of different disease processes giving rise to a similar phenotype.
2/ Now a new @Slate article rehashes the tired claim that because it's a dimensional construct, "schizophrenia doesn't exist," an argument that can be made about almost any categorical definition of a continuous phenomenon.
3/ "To say that schizophrenia isn’t any one thing or that its definitional boundaries are fuzzy doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, anymore than we could credibly claim that “green” doesn’t exist. The same could be said of 'planets,' 'cars,' or 'pain.'"
As I head to San Francisco for the second half of my career, I'm curious to learn more about what's going on with mental health, drug addiction, & homelessness in the city.
This piece by @NellieBowles seems like a good starting point for discussion:
It seems to echo this similar, but more finger-pointing provocation that blames progressive policies offered in the book SanFransicko by @ShellenbergerMD:
In this @nytimes review of SanFransicko, @wesenzinna offers an important counterpoint that not all homeless are mentally ill and that homelessness can lead to mental illness/addiction as much as the other way round.