Once again we find the progressive socialist democrats colluding with their cadre of leftist supporters and the mainstream media to diminish, degrade, and destroy Donald Trump and the Trump Administration …
We see Alinsky-type terms being used, like the omnipresent “Trump Effect.”
And, starting from the proposition that unwanted and unneeded stress from any source is not good for one’s health, it is just a small leap to claim that the ascendancy of Donald Trump to the Presidency is a significant health risk. As if the ascendency of an anti-America, anti-Semitic, pro-Islam, apologist did not cause considerable anguish on the other side of the political spectrum? According to this hypothesis, nearly one-half of the adult population is going to suffer health issues if Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck are elected to the presidency.
But instead of condemning the President, why don’t we place the blame where it belongs, on the crazy-makers in the media whose stories are endless loops of hyper-partisan agitprop featuring the worst possible spin that can be assigned to the story. Much of it demonstrably false and bizarre such as reporting the Donald Trump watched a hooker pee on a bed in Moscow where Obama slept. Especially in front of witnesses. Of course, reputable publications were quick to print the allegations in third-party terms describing what was reported by others.
Trump Received Unsubstantiated Report That Russia Had Damaging Information About Him
Mr. Steele, who gathered the material about Mr. Trump, is considered a competent and reliable operative with extensive experience in Russia, American officials said. But he passed on what he heard from Russian informants and others, and what they told him has not yet been vetted by American intelligence.
The memos describe sex videos involving prostitutes with Mr. Trump in a 2013 visit to a Moscow hotel. The videos were supposedly prepared as “kompromat,” or compromising material, with the possible goal of blackmailing Mr. Trump in the future. <Source>
Notice how the New York Times positioned the source as being credible while pointing out that the so-called “news” was unvetted hearsay. Why would one of the premier news organizations disparage the President based on information that could not be vetted and is prima facie partisan and false? What about the stress induced in Trump supporters and, in general, the GOP?
Now the progressives turn to science to reiterate their progressive talking points …
David R. Williams, Ph.D., M.P.H., and Morgan M. Medlock, M.D., M.Div., the authors of a new paper published in the well-respected New England Journal of Medicine titled “Health Effects of Dramatic Societal Events — Ramifications of the Recent Presidential Election,” assert that “A small but growing body of evidence suggests that election campaigns can have both positive and negative effects on health.”
[OCS: Small but growing is hardly the criteria for widespread public policy decisions. Findings, yes – but evidence, not really. Suggests is an academic weasel word that fails to quantify the probabilities and potential error rates in the statement being described. The assertion allows for all possibilities: it may affect one’s health, or not; it can influence one’s health negatively, or not, or it may affect one’s health positively, or not. This is tantamount to saying: living in your environment can affect your health.]
At the same time, events linked to the recent presidential campaign and election have given rise to fear and anxiety in many Americans. Research suggests that these events can have negative health effects on people who have been direct targets of what they perceive as hostility or discrimination and on individuals and communities who feel vulnerable because they belong to a stigmatized, marginalized, or targeted group.
It is worth exploring the scientific research in this area and considering its implications for health care providers.
Although their ecologic designs limit making inferences about causality, several recent studies have consistently found that living in communities with high levels of racial prejudice is associated with an elevated risk of disease and death. One study found an elevated risk of death among adults residing in communities where levels of racial prejudice were high. The highest mortality risk was observed among people who themselves scored low on survey measures of self-reported racial prejudice but who resided in highly prejudiced communities.
[OCS: If you cannot make inferences about causality, what is this paper about: political hypotheses? About those communities with high levels of racial prejudice, I am confused. The communities with the highest levels of racial prejudice are the inner cities with large minority populations – many of whom are racially prejudiced against anyone outside of their race. Considering that these areas are likely to present with horrible environmental conditions (blame the progressives who govern), and substandard medical response (ambulance drivers afraid of being caught in the crossfire), one might expect to see poorer medical outcomes. Especially among victims of criminal and drug activity. Self-reported scales are often biased and contaminated by political correctness.]
Research also suggests that anti-immigrant policies and initiatives can trigger hostility toward immigrants that can lead to perceptions of vulnerability, threat, and psychological distress among both immigrants who are personally targeted and other members of the group who are not direct targets.
[OCS: It is intellectually dishonest to refer to those targeted, illegal aliens who have no legal right to be in the United States, as immigrants. Like all criminals, there is background fear and stress of being apprehended and suffering the punishment specified in long-existing rules and regulations. It should also be noted that this same cohort is most responsible for bringing disease into the community, especially diseases which may have been non-existent or minimally present before a sick illegal alien crossed the border.]
The threatened repeal of the Affordable Care Act and other cuts in social services have members of economically marginalized groups, who are likely to be disproportionately affected, very concerned. History has taught us that such cuts in health and social service programs can have pervasive negative effects on health.
[OCS: Are these people delusional? The Affordable Care Act took the 80% who believed that their health insurance was acceptable, and turned it into a nightmare of collapsing exchanges, monopolistic insurers, high premiums, and impossible deductibles. Most of the expansion of the ACA was on the welfare side, Medicaid, which is causing severe financial stress to the states that expanded Medicaid in the belief that the federal government was going to pick up a significant share of the tab. Even the most simple-minded agree: less medical care often produces a population with poorer outcomes. There is no man, woman, or child that is without healthcare today as anyone can walk into an emergency room and receive care.]
“How Health Care Providers Can Respond”
At a minimum, it’s important that health care providers actively work to create safe spaces, where patients’ fears and concerns are listened to and met with compassion and support.
[OCS: One would like to believe that everybody is entitled to a safe space and that there need not be the time, trouble, and expense of designating specific zones as “safe spaces.”]
Second, clinicians and health care organizations can take a strong stance against hate crimes, discriminatory political rhetoric, and incivility.
[OCS: As a constitutional conservative, everyone should be treated equally under the law. That there are criminal penalty enhancements for shouting racial epithets while committing assault or worse should be an anathema. You are just as wounded or dead as if the assailant remained quiet during the attack. As for political rhetoric and incivility, it appears that the Progressives are the most intolerant of diverse viewpoints to the point of erasing any pretense of civility.]
Fifth, as members of their communities, clinicians can also consider more active engagement in advocacy and policymaking. They can begin within their own institutions to generate greater awareness of the challenges faced by stigmatized populations and to foster a culture of inclusion with a greater emphasis on promoting health equity. Approaches could include requiring antiracism and bias training, as well as cultural competency training, for all staff. Clinicians can also participate in relevant community meetings and conversations to discuss the health impact of social policies and raise awareness of their impact on marginalized groups. In addition, community-based interventions can be designed and implemented. For example, given the prevalence of explicit prejudice and discrimination in K–12 settings, pediatricians could work with local schools and school boards to raise awareness, provide training for teachers, and assist in the development of school-based interventions to build a culture of respect and tolerance and reduce the anxieties and fears of stigmatized young people.
[OCS: With the busy schedules of most physicians, including keeping up with advances is their field of expertise, one wonders when they might have the time to become progressive political activists? And, considering the overwhelming progressive indoctrination in our schools today, one more liberal will not make a difference.]
Finally, the health care community can advocate for research and initiate studies that systematically assess the health effects of the societal climate and policies. Future research could delineate the psychosocial and biologic pathways
by which these effects occur and identify the factors that facilitate effective coping and resilience. Relatedly, studies are urgently needed that can inform effective community interventions for mitigating the potential negative effects of social
hostility on health.
[OCS: Like most papers today, the research is never finished, and there is an urgent need for additional research and studies. Hopefully, papers will be more than political screeds and be useful to the medical community in performing their assigned task. I have always found it surprising that the progressives can so quickly enlist those whom they wish to systemically enslave and continually cut their reimbursement rates for legitimate medical care.]
I couldn’t help but wonder why these two authors would write a political screed that was more about progressive political talking points than actual advice to clinicians. Of course, I did not have to wonder why the progressive New England Journal of Medicine would publish this prescriptive over someone who wanted to present useful medical findings.
David R. Williams is the Florence Sprague Norman and Laura Smart Norman Professor of Public Health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Professor of African and African American Studies and Sociology at Harvard University. Previously, he served six years on the faculty of Yale University and 14 at the University of Michigan. He holds an MPH from Loma Linda University and a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Michigan.
Dr. Williams is an internationally recognized social scientist focused on social influences on health. He has been invited to keynote scientific conferences in Europe, Africa, Australia, the Middle East, South America and across the United States. His research has enhanced our understanding of the complex ways in which socioeconomic status, race, stress, racism, health behavior and religious involvement can affect health. He is the author of more than 400 scientific papers and he has served on the editorial board of 12 scientific journals and as a reviewer for over 60 others. The Everyday Discrimination Scale that he developed is one of the most widely used measures of discrimination in health studies. <Source>
Dr. Medlock is currently a Research Fellow in Global Health and Social Medicine Department of the Harvard Medical School. <Source> She is a psychiatrist whose Master of Divinity provides a background for her work with religion-based communities.
Bottom line …
This is the type of pseudo-scientific paper that blurs the line from medical scholarship and original research into areas of social commentary and political advocacy. Add +1 to Dr.Williams list of publications in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. I also wonder if the author’s personal political and racial experiences informed the selection, character, and nature of this study.
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius