Viruses aren’t always harmful. 6 ways they’re used in health care and pest control
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
We tend to just think of viruses in terms of their damaging impacts on human health and lives. The 1918 flu pandemic killed around 50 million people. Smallpox claimed 30% of those who caught it, and survivors were often scarred and blinded. More recently, we’re all too familiar with the health and economic impacts of COVID.
But viruses can also be used to benefit human health, agriculture and the environment.
Viruses are comparatively simple in structure, consisting of a piece of genetic material (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat (the capsid). Some also have an outer envelope.
Viruses get into your cells and use your cell machinery to copy themselves.
Here are six ways we’ve harnessed this for health care and pest control.
1. To correct genes
Viruses are used in some gene therapies to correct malfunctioning genes. Genes are DNA sequences that code for a particular protein required for cell function.
If we remove viral genetic material from the capsid (protein coat) we can use the space to transport a “cargo” into cells. These modified viruses are called “viral vectors”.
DEXi
Viral vectors can deliver a functional gene into someone with a genetic disorder whose own gene is not working properly.
Some genetic diseases treated this way include haemophilia, sickle cell disease and beta thalassaemia.
2. Treat cancer
Viral vectors can be used to treat cancer.
Healthy people have p53, a tumour-suppressor gene. About half of cancers are associated with the loss of p53.
Replacing the damaged p53 gene using a viral vector stops the cancerous cell from replicating and tells it to suicide (apoptosis).
Viral vectors can also be used to deliver an inactive drug to a tumour, where it is then activated to kill the tumour cell.
This targeted therapy reduces the side effects otherwise seen with cytotoxic (cell-killing) drugs.
We can also use oncolytic (cancer cell-destroying) viruses to treat some types of cancer.
Tumour cells have often lost their antiviral defences. In the case of melanoma, a modified herpes simplex virus can kill rapidly dividing melanoma cells while largely leaving non-tumour cells alone.
3. Create immune responses
Viral vectors can create a protective immune response to a particular viral antigen.
One COVID vaccine uses a modified chimp adenovirus (adenoviruses cause the common cold in humans) to transport RNA coding for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein into human cells.
The RNA is then used to make spike protein copies, which stimulate our immune cells to replicate and “remember” the spike protein.
Then, when you are exposed to SARS-CoV-2 for real, your immune system can churn out lots of antibodies and virus-killing cells very quickly to prevent or reduce the severity of infection.
4. Act as vaccines
Viruses can be modified to act directly as vaccines themselves in several ways.
We can weaken a virus (for an attenuated virus vaccine) so it doesn’t cause infection in a healthy host but can still replicate to stimulate the immune response. The chickenpox vaccine works like this.
The Salk vaccine for polio uses a whole virus that has been inactivated (so it can’t cause disease).
Others use a small part of the virus such as a capsid protein to stimulate an immune response (subunit vaccines).
An mRNA vaccine packages up viral RNA for a specific protein that will stimulate an immune response.
5. Kill bacteria
Viruses can – in limited situations in Australia – be used to treat antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections.
Bacteriophages are viruses that kill bacteria. Each type of phage usually infects a particular species of bacteria.
Unlike antibiotics – which often kill “good” bacteria along with the disease-causing ones – phage therapy leaves your normal flora (useful microbes) intact.
Shutterstock
6. Target plant, fungal or animal pests
Viruses can be species-specific (infecting one species only) and even cell-specific (infecting one type of cell only).
This occurs because the proteins viruses use to attach to cells have a shape that binds to a specific type of cell receptor or molecule, like a specific key fits a lock.
The virus can enter the cells of all species with this receptor/molecule. For example, rabies virus can infect all mammals because we share the right receptor, and mammals have other characteristics that allow infection to occur whereas other non-mammal species don’t.
When the receptor is only found on one cell type, then the virus will infect that cell type, which may only be found in one or a limited number of species. Hepatitis B virus successfully infects liver cells primarily in humans and chimps.
We can use that property of specificity to target invasive plant species (reducing the need for chemical herbicides) and pest insects (reducing the need for chemical insecticides). Baculoviruses, for example, are used to control caterpillars.
Similarly, bacteriophages can be used to control bacterial tomato and grapevine diseases.
Other viruses reduce plant damage from fungal pests.
Myxoma virus and calicivirus reduce rabbit populations and their environmental impacts and improve agricultural production.
Just like humans can be protected against by vaccination, plants can be “immunised” against a disease-causing virus by being exposed to a milder version.
Thea van de Mortel, Professor, Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Ayurveda’s Contributions To Science
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Ayurveda’s Contributions To Science (Without Being Itself Rooted in Scientific Method)
Yesterday, we asked you for your opinions on ayurveda, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses. Of those who responded…
- A little over 41% said “I don’t know what ayurveda is without looking it up”
- A little over 37% said “It is a fine branch of health science with millennia of evidence”
- A little over 16% said “It gets some things right, but not by actual science”
- A little over 4% said “It is a potentially dangerous pseudoscience”
So, what does the science say?
Ayurveda is scientific: True or False?
False, simply. Let’s just rip the band-aid off in this case. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily without merit, though!
Let’s put it this way:
- If you drink coffee to feel more awake because scientific method has discerned that caffeine has vasoconstrictive and adenosine-blocking effects while also promoting dopaminergic activity, then your consumption of coffee is evidence-based and scientific. Great!
- If you drink coffee to feel more awake because somebody told you that that somebody told them that it energizes you by balancing the elements fire (the heat of the coffee), air (the little bubbles on top), earth (the coffee grinds), water (the water), and ether (steam), then that is neither evidence-based nor scientific, but it will still work exactly the same.
Ayurveda is a little like that. It’s an ancient traditional Indian medicine, based on a combination of anecdotal evidence and supposition.
- The anecdotal evidence from ayurveda has often resulted in herbal remedies that, in modern scientific trials, have been found to have merit.
- Ayurvedic meditative practices also have a large overlap with modern mindfulness practices, and have also been found to have merit
- Ayurveda also promotes the practice of yoga, which is indeed a very healthful activity
- The supposition from ayurveda is based largely in those five elements we mentioned above, as well as a “balancing of humors” comparable to medieval European medicine, and from a scientific perspective, is simply a hypothesis with no evidence to support it.
Note: while ayurveda is commonly described as a science by its practitioners in the modern age, it did not originally claim to be scientific, but rather, wisdom handed down directly by the god Dhanvantari.
Ayurveda gets some things right: True or False?
True! Indeed, we covered some before in 10almonds; you may remember:
Bacopa Monnieri: A Well-Evidenced Cognitive Enhancer
(Bacopa monnieri is also known by its name in ayurveda, brahmi)
There are many other herbs that have made their way from ayurveda into modern science, but the above is a stand-out example. Others include:
- Ashwagandha: The Root of All Even-Mindedness?
- Boswellia serrata (Frankincense) Against Pain and Depression/Anxiety
Yoga and meditation are also great, and not only that, but great by science, for example:
- NCCIH | Yoga for Health: Clinical Guidelines, Scientific Literature, Info for Patients
- The Neuroscience of Mindfulness: How Mindfulness Alters the Brain and Facilitates Emotion Regulation
Ayurveda is a potentially dangerous pseudoscience: True or False?
Also True! We covered why it’s a pseudoscience above, but that doesn’t make it potentially dangerous, per se (you’ll remember our coffee example).
What does, however, make it potentially dangerous (dose-dependent) is its use of heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic:
Heavy Metal Content of Ayurvedic Herbal Medicine Products
Some final thoughts…
Want to learn more about the sometimes beneficial, sometimes uneasy relationship between ayurveda and modern science?
A lot of scholarly articles trying to bridge (or further separate) the two were very biased one way or the other.
Instead, here’s one that’s reasonably optimistic with regard to ayurveda’s potential for good, while being realistic about how it currently stands:
Development of Ayurveda—Tradition to trend
Take care!
Share This Post
-
What are heart rate zones, and how can you incorporate them into your exercise routine?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
If you spend a lot of time exploring fitness content online, you might have come across the concept of heart rate zones. Heart rate zone training has become more popular in recent years partly because of the boom in wearable technology which, among other functions, allows people to easily track their heart rates.
Heart rate zones reflect different levels of intensity during aerobic exercise. They’re most often based on a percentage of your maximum heart rate, which is the highest number of beats your heart can achieve per minute.
But what are the different heart rate zones, and how can you use these zones to optimise your workout?
The three-zone model
While there are several models used to describe heart rate zones, the most common model in the scientific literature is the three-zone model, where the zones may be categorised as follows:
- zone 1: 55%–82% of maximum heart rate
- zone 2: 82%–87% of maximum heart rate
- zone 3: 87%–97% of maximum heart rate.
If you’re not sure what your maximum heart rate is, it can be calculated using this equation: 208 – (0.7 × age in years). For example, I’m 32 years old. 208 – (0.7 x 32) = 185.6, so my predicted maximum heart rate is around 186 beats per minute.
There are also other models used to describe heart rate zones, such as the five-zone model (as its name implies, this one has five distinct zones). These models largely describe the same thing and can mostly be used interchangeably.
What do the different zones involve?
The three zones are based around a person’s lactate threshold, which describes the point at which exercise intensity moves from being predominantly aerobic, to predominantly anaerobic.
Aerobic exercise uses oxygen to help our muscles keep going, ensuring we can continue for a long time without fatiguing. Anaerobic exercise, however, uses stored energy to fuel exercise. Anaerobic exercise also accrues metabolic byproducts (such as lactate) that increase fatigue, meaning we can only produce energy anaerobically for a short time.
On average your lactate threshold tends to sit around 85% of your maximum heart rate, although this varies from person to person, and can be higher in athletes.
Wearable technology has taken off in recent years. Ketut Subiyanto/Pexels In the three-zone model, each zone loosely describes one of three types of training.
Zone 1 represents high-volume, low-intensity exercise, usually performed for long periods and at an easy pace, well below lactate threshold. Examples include jogging or cycling at a gentle pace.
Zone 2 is threshold training, also known as tempo training, a moderate intensity training method performed for moderate durations, at (or around) lactate threshold. This could be running, rowing or cycling at a speed where it’s difficult to speak full sentences.
Zone 3 mostly describes methods of high-intensity interval training, which are performed for shorter durations and at intensities above lactate threshold. For example, any circuit style workout that has you exercising hard for 30 seconds then resting for 30 seconds would be zone 3.
Striking a balance
To maximise endurance performance, you need to strike a balance between doing enough training to elicit positive changes, while avoiding over-training, injury and burnout.
While zone 3 is thought to produce the largest improvements in maximal oxygen uptake – one of the best predictors of endurance performance and overall health – it’s also the most tiring. This means you can only perform so much of it before it becomes too much.
Training in different heart rate zones improves slightly different physiological qualities, and so by spending time in each zone, you ensure a variety of benefits for performance and health.
So how much time should you spend in each zone?
Most elite endurance athletes, including runners, rowers, and even cross-country skiers, tend to spend most of their training (around 80%) in zone 1, with the rest split between zones 2 and 3.
Because elite endurance athletes train a lot, most of it needs to be in zone 1, otherwise they risk injury and burnout. For example, some runners accumulate more than 250 kilometres per week, which would be impossible to recover from if it was all performed in zone 2 or 3.
Of course, most people are not professional athletes. The World Health Organization recommends adults aim for 150–300 minutes of moderate intensity exercise per week, or 75–150 minutes of vigorous exercise per week.
If you look at this in the context of heart rate zones, you could consider zone 1 training as moderate intensity, and zones 2 and 3 as vigorous. Then, you can use heart rate zones to make sure you’re exercising to meet these guidelines.
What if I don’t have a heart rate monitor?
If you don’t have access to a heart rate tracker, that doesn’t mean you can’t use heart rate zones to guide your training.
The three heart rate zones discussed in this article can also be prescribed based on feel using a simple 10-point scale, where 0 indicates no effort, and 10 indicates the maximum amount of effort you can produce.
With this system, zone 1 aligns with a 4 or less out of 10, zone 2 with 4.5 to 6.5 out of 10, and zone 3 as a 7 or higher out of 10.
Heart rate zones are not a perfect measure of exercise intensity, but can be a useful tool. And if you don’t want to worry about heart rate zones at all, that’s also fine. The most important thing is to simply get moving.
Hunter Bennett, Lecturer in Exercise Science, University of South Australia
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Behaving During the Holidays
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small
❝It’s hard to “behave” when it comes to holiday indulging…I’m on a low sodium, sugar restricted regimen from my doctor. Trying to get interested in bell peppers as a snack…wish me luck!❞
Good luck! Other low sodium, low sugar snacks include:
- Nuts! Unsalted, of course. We’re biased towards almonds 😉
- Mixed nuts are an especially healthy way to snack, though (assuming you don’t have an allergy, obviously)
- Air-popped popcorn (you can season it, just not with salt/sugar!)
- Fruit (but not fruit juice; it has to be in solid form)
- Peas (not a classic snack food, we know, but they can be enjoyed many ways)
- Seriously, try them frozen or raw! Frozen/raw peas are a great sweet snack.
- Chickpeas are great dried/roasted, by the way, and give much of the same pleasure as a salty snack without being salty! Obviously, this means cooking them without salt, but that’s fine, or if using tinned, choose “in water” rather than “in brine”
- Hummus is also a great healthy snack (check the ingredients for salt if not making it yourself, though) and can be enjoyed as a dip using raw vegetables (celery, carrot sticks, cruciferous vegetables, whatever you prefer)
Enjoy!
Share This Post
- Nuts! Unsalted, of course. We’re biased towards almonds 😉
-
Can I take antihistamines everyday? More than the recommended dose? What if I’m pregnant? Here’s what the research says
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Allergies happen when your immune system overreacts to a normally harmless substance like dust or pollen. Hay fever, hives and anaphylaxis are all types of allergic reactions.
Many of those affected reach quickly for antihistamines to treat mild to moderate allergies (though adrenaline, not antihistamines, should always be used to treat anaphylaxis).
If you’re using oral antihistamines very often, you might have wondered if it’s OK to keep relying on antihistamines to control symptoms of allergies. The good news is there’s no research evidence to suggest regular, long-term use of modern antihistamines is a problem.
But while they’re good at targeting the early symptoms of a mild to moderate allergic reaction (sneezing, for example), oral antihistamines aren’t as effective as steroid nose sprays for managing hay fever. This is because nasal steroid sprays target the underlying inflammation of hay fever, not just the symptoms.
Here are the top six antihistamines myths – busted.
Andrea Piacquadio/Pexels Myth 1. Oral antihistamines are the best way to control hay fever symptoms
Wrong. In fact, the recommended first line medical treatment for most patients with moderate to severe hay fever is intranasal steroids. This might include steroid nose sprays (ask your doctor or pharmacist if you’d like to know more).
Studies have shown intranasal steroids relieve hay fever symptoms better than antihistamine tablets or syrups.
To be effective, nasal steroids need to be used regularly, and importantly, with the correct technique.
In Australia, you can buy intranasal steroids without a doctor’s script at your pharmacy. They work well to relieve a blocked nose and itchy, watery eyes, as well as improve chronic nasal blockage (however, antihistamine tablets or syrups do not improve chronic nasal blockage).
Some newer nose sprays contain both steroids and antihistamines. These can provide more rapid and comprehensive relief from hay fever symptoms than just oral antihistamines or intranasal steroids alone. But patients need to keep using them regularly for between two and four weeks to yield the maximum effect.
For people with seasonal allergic rhinitis (hayfever), it may be best to start using intranasal steroids a few weeks before the pollen season in your regions hits. Taking an antihistamine tablet as well can help.
Antihistamine eye drops work better than oral antihistamines to relieve acutely itchy eyes (allergic conjunctivitis).
Myth 2. My body will ‘get used to’ antihistamines
Some believe this myth so strongly they may switch antihistamines. But there’s no scientific reason to swap antihistamines if the one you’re using is working for you. Studies show antihistamines continue to work even after six months of sustained use.
Myth 3. Long-term antihistamine use is dangerous
There are two main types of antihistamines – first-generation and second-generation.
First-generation antihistamines, such as chlorphenamine or promethazine, are short-acting. Side effects include drowsiness, dry mouth and blurred vision. You shouldn’t drive or operate machinery if you are taking them, or mix them with alcohol or other medications.
Most doctors no longer recommend first-generation antihistamines. The risks outweigh the benefits.
The newer second-generation antihistamines, such as cetirizine, fexofenadine, or loratadine, have been extensively studied in clinical trials. They are generally non-sedating and have very few side effects. Interactions with other medications appear to be uncommon and they don’t interact badly with alcohol. They are longer acting, so can be taken once a day.
Although rare, some side effects (such as photosensitivity or stomach upset) can happen. At higher doses, cetirizine can make some people feel drowsy. However, research conducted over a period of six months showed taking second-generation antihistamines is safe and effective. Talk to your doctor or pharmacist if you’re concerned.
Allergies can make it hard to focus. Pexels/Edward Jenner Myth 4. Antihistamines aren’t safe for children or pregnant people
As long as it’s the second-generation antihistamine, it’s fine. You can buy child versions of second-generation antihistamines as syrups for kids under 12.
Though still used, some studies have shown certain first-generation antihistamines can impair childrens’ ability to learn and retain information.
Studies on second-generation antihistamines for children have found them to be safer and better than the first-generation drugs. They may even improve academic performance (perhaps by allowing kids who would otherwise be distracted by their allergy symptoms to focus). There’s no good evidence they stop working in children, even after long-term use.
For all these reasons, doctors say it’s better for children to use second-generation than first-generation antihistimines.
What about using antihistimines while you’re pregnant? One meta analysis of combined study data including over 200,000 women found no increase in fetal abnormalities.
Many doctors recommend the second-generation antihistamines loratadine or cetirizine for pregnant people. They have not been associated with any adverse pregnancy outcomes. Both can be used during breastfeeding, too.
Myth 5. It is unsafe to use higher than the recommended dose of antihistamines
Higher than standard doses of antihistamines can be safely used over extended periods of time for adults, if required.
But speak to your doctor first. These higher doses are generally recommended for a skin condition called chronic urticaria (a kind of chronic hives).
Myth 6. You can use antihistamines instead of adrenaline for anaphylaxis
No. Adrenaline (delivered via an epipen, for example) is always the first choice. Antihistamines don’t work fast enough, nor address all the problems caused by anaphylaxis.
Antihistamines may be used later on to calm any hives and itching, once the very serious and acute phase of anaphylaxis has been resolved.
In general, oral antihistamines are not the best treatment to control hay fever – you’re better off with steroid nose sprays. That said, second-generation oral antihistamines can be used to treat mild to moderate allergy symptoms safely on a regular basis over the long term.
Janet Davies, Respiratory Allergy Stream Co-chair, National Allergy Centre of Excellence; Professor and Head, Allergy Research Group, Queensland University of Technology; Connie Katelaris, Professor of Immunology and Allergy, Western Sydney University, and Joy Lee, Respiratory Allergy Stream member, National Allergy Centre of Excellence; Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Castor Oil: All-Purpose Life-Changer, Or Snake Oil?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
As “trending” health products go, castor oil is enjoying a lot of popularity presently, lauded as a life-changing miracle-worker, and social media is abuzz with advice to put it everywhere from your eyes to your vagina.
But:
- what things does science actually say it’s good for,
- what things lack evidence, and
- what things go into the category of “wow definitely do not do that”?
We don’t have the space to go into all of its proposed uses (there are simply far too many), but we’ll examine some common ones:
To heal/improve the skin barrier
Like most oils, it’s functional as a moisturizer. In particular, its high (90%!) ricinoleic fatty acid content does indeed make it good at that, and furthermore, has properties that can help reduce skin inflammation and promote wound healing:
Bioactive polymeric formulations for wound healing ← there isn’t a conveniently quotable summary we can just grab here, but you can see the data and results, from which we can conclude:
- formulations with ricinoleic acid (such as with castor oil) performed very well for topical anti-inflammatory purposes
- they avoided the unwanted side effects associated with some other contenders
- they consistently beat other preparations in the category of wound-healing
To support hair growth and scalp health
There is no evidence that it helps. We’d love to provide a citation for this, but it’s simply not there. There’s also no evidence that it doesn’t help. For whatever reason, despite its popularity, peer-reviewed science has simply not been done for this, or if it has, it wasn’t anywhere publicly accessible.
It’s possible that if a person is suffering hair loss specifically as a result of prostaglandin D2 levels, that ricinoleic acid will inhibit the PGD2, reversing the hair loss, but even this is hypothetical so far, as the science is currently only at the step before that:
However, due to some interesting chemistry, the combination of castor oil and warm water can result in acute (and irreversible) hair felting, in other words, the strands of hair suddenly glue together to become one mass which then has to be cut off:
“Castor Oil” – The Culprit of Acute Hair Felting
👆 this is a case study, which is generally considered a low standard of evidence (compared to high-quality Randomized Controlled Trials as the highest standard of evidence), but let’s just say, this writer (hi, it’s me) isn’t risking her butt-length hair on the off-chance, and doesn’t advise you to, either. There are other hair-oils out there; argan oil is great, coconut oil is totally fine too.
As a laxative
This time, there’s a lot of evidence, and it’s even approved for this purpose by the FDA, but it can be a bit too good, insofar as taking too much can result in diarrhea and uncomfortable cramping (the cramps are a feature not a bug; the mechanism of action is stimulatory, i.e. it gets the intestines squeezing, but again, it can result in doing that too much for comfort):
Castor Oil: FDA-Approved Indications
To soothe dry eyes
While putting oil in your eyes may seem dubious, this is another one where it actually works:
❝Castor oil is deemed safe and tolerable, with strong anti-microbial, anti-inflammatory, anti-nociceptive, analgesic, antioxidant, wound healing and vasoconstrictive properties.
These can supplement deficient physiological tear film lipids, enabling enhanced lipid spreading characteristics and reducing aqueous tear evaporation.
Studies reveal that castor oil applied topically to the ocular surface has a prolonged residence time, facilitating increased tear film lipid layer thickness, stability, improved ocular surface staining and symptoms.❞
Source: Therapeutic potential of castor oil in managing blepharitis, meibomian gland dysfunction and dry eye
Against candidiasis (thrush)
We couldn’t find science for (or against) castor oil’s use against vaginal candidiasis, but here’s a study that investigated its use against oral candidiasis:
…in which castor oil was the only preparation that didn’t work against the yeast.
Summary
We left a lot unsaid today (so many proposed uses, it feels like a shame to skip them), but in few words: it’s good for skin (including wound healing) and eyes; but we’d give it a miss for hair, candidiasis, and digestive disorders.
Want to try some?
We don’t sell it, but here for your convenience is an example product on Amazon 😎
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Is ADHD Being Over-Diagnosed For Cash?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Is ADHD Being Systematically Overdiagnosed?
The BBC’s investigative “Panorama” program all so recently did a documentary in which one of their journalists—who does not have ADHD—went to three private clinics and got an ADHD diagnosis from each of them:
- The BBC documentary: Private ADHD Clinics Exposed (28 mins)
- Their “5 Minutes” version: ADHD Undercover: How I Was Misdiagnosed (6 mins)
So… Is it really a case of show up, pay up, and get a shiny new diagnosis?
The BBC Panorama producers cherry-picked 3 private providers, and during those clinical assessments, their journalist provided answers that would certainly lead to a diagnosis.
This was contrasted against a three-hour assessment with an NHS psychiatrist—something that rarely happens in the NHS. Which prompts the question…
How did he walk into a 3-hour psychiatrist assessment, when most people have to wait in long waiting lists for a much more cursory appointment first with assorted gatekeepers, before going on another long waiting list, for an also-much-shorter appointment with a psychiatrist?
That would be because the NHS psychiatrist was given advance notification that this was part of an investigation and would be filmed (the private clinics were not gifted the same transparency)
So, maybe just a tad unequal treatment!
In case you’re wondering, here’s what that very NHS psychiatrist had to say on the topic:
Is it really too easy to be diagnosed with ADHD?
(we’ll give you a hint—remember Betteridge’s Law!)
❝Since the documentary aired, I have heard from people concerned that GPs could now be more likely to question legitimate diagnoses.
But as an NHS psychiatrist it is clear to me that the root of this issue is not overdiagnosis.
Instead, we are facing the combined challenges of remedying decades of underdiagnosis and NHS services that were set up when there was little awareness of ADHD.❞
~ Dr. Mike Smith, Psychiatrist
The ADHD foundation, meanwhile, has issued its own response, saying:
❝We are disappointed that BBC Panorama has opted to broadcast a poorly researched, sensationalist piece of television journalism.❞
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
