Hysteria And Group Think by The Leaders of Medicine

 The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has brought out the worst from our medical leadership, press, social media sites and politicians.  Differing viewpoints were ignored. Major medical publications were politicized (Ref.1,2).  For about a year there persisted a combination of hysteria, group think and an inability to separate an intense dislike for President Trump and his antics from the realities on the ground. Surprisedly, when the Covid-19 threat initially appeared three simple questions were not asked by medical leadership.  
    One, are there demographics more at risk than others and if so, should we concentrate on protecting the vulnerable and allow those with the least risk go about their daily lives? Early on we learned that the elderly and those with preconditions were most at risk for serious complications and that concentrating on protecting them might have lessened deaths and the exaggerated death rate (Ref.3). Instead, we wasted resources on a futile effort of following the virus.
    Two, did the virus already have a significant presence in our population and was it undetected for months? The virus probably was already in our population spreading from Wuhan China in October and certainly by November 2019, making attempts to stop its spread by March 2020 virtually impossible (Ref.4). 
    Three, If the virus was already established in the population, the only solution would be a vaccine. Fortunately, we had vaccines in record time.  
    Answering these three simple questions would have dramatically changed our approach to the pandemic, but our medical leadership was already swept away by the hysteria.
    Undisclosed at the onset of the epidemic was that for years the National Institutes of Health had funded “gain-of-function” viral research, an accidental leak of which could have been the source of the pandemic. In March 2020 it was unknown that this small group of researchers and funders had a vested interest to deflect any speculation of the possibility of a lab leak source of this virus. 
     Adding to the worldwide hysteria, prestigious medical journals published unusual articles. The Lancet published a letter in March 2020 commending China for its openness and efficacy in dealing with the virus and that those suggesting a possible lab leak were destructive conspiracy theorists, thereby impeding global collaboration in fighting the pandemic (Ref.5). Unknown at the time, the letter was organized by Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance who had a severe conflict of interest. For the first time in over a century two prestigious scientific journals left their field of expertise and published political editorials: one in the New England Journal of Medicine, the other in Scientific American endorsing a candidate for president (Ref.6).  Group think has been promoted by the AMA which recently endorsed silencing members on social media who have differing opinions. (Ref.7).
    We expect our medical scientific community and societies to be reasoned, thoughtful, patient, open and truthful. However, during this pandemic they were close minded, hid serious conflicts of interest and could not put aside political activism in favor of trying to factually assess a very difficult situation. Trying to stop the spread of the virus was futile, not concentrating on protecting the vulnerable was deadly, a gross misuse of the word “science” was rampart. All this was in a caustic political environment. The early arrival of vaccines has ended this nightmare.     

  1. Great Barrington Declaration, available at: https://gbdeclaration.org/ (Accessed March 15, 2021)
  2. Lydia O’Connor, Leading Medical Journal Calls For End to Trump Administration,  huffingtonpost, October 8, 2020,  available at: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/new-england-journal-medicine-trump-coronavirus_n_5f7e30e3c5b6e48b1682f0f0 (Accessed June 22, 2021)
  3. Nina Schwalbe, We could be vastly overestimating the death rate for covid-19. Here’s why, World Economic Forum, April 4, 2020, available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/we-could-be-vastly-overestimating-the-death-rate-for-covid-19-heres-why/ (Accessed June 25, 2021)
  4. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, The Fight against Covid-19: An update from Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, You Tube, April 18, 2020, available at: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Dr.+Jay+Bhattacharya%2c&docid=607987118054799342&mid=A0D6DC3D97AAAA93A7CCA0D6DC3D97AAAA93A7CC&view=detail&FORM=VIRE (Accessed May 12, 2020)
  5. The Lancet, Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19, February 19, 2020, available at: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext#:~:text=In%20February%2C%202020%2C%2027%20public%20health%20experts%20co-authored,this%20letter%2C%20the%20authors%20declared%20no%20competing%20interests. (Accessed March 20, 2020)
  6. The Editors, Dying in a Leadership Vacuum, New England Journal of Medicine, October 8, 2020, available at: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2029812 (Accessed October 10, 2020)
  7. The Editorial Board, Doctors for Progressive Conformity, The AMA wants to police the speech of dissenting members, The Wall Street Journal, June 18, 2021, available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/doctors-for-progressive-conformity-11624055333 (Accessed June 20, 2021)