Archive for the ‘Treatment’ Category

Injection of Diabetic Drug Into Joints of Bb-Infected Mice Decreased Ankle Swelling & Immune Cell Recruitment

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30700583/

Treatment of Borrelia burgdorferi-Infected Mice with Apoptotic Cells Attenuates Lyme Arthritis via PPAR-γ.

Hilliard KA, et al. J Immunol. 2019.

Abstract

Infection of mice with Borrelia burgdorferi causes an inflammatory arthritis that peaks 3-4 wk postinfection and then spontaneously resolves. Although the recruitment of neutrophils is known to drive the development of arthritis, mechanisms of disease resolution remain unclear. Efficient clearance of apoptotic cells (AC) is likely an important component of arthritis resolution. In this article, we show the number of AC increases in the joints of B. burgdorferi-infected mice around day 21 postinfection and peaks around day 28. Injection of AC directly into the ankles of B. burgdorferi-infected mice limited ankle swelling but had no effect on spirochete clearance or arthritis severity scores. In vitro, addition of AC to bone marrow macrophage cultures decreased B. burgdorferi-induced TNF-α and KC and increased IL-10. In addition, phagocytosis of B. burgdorferi and neutrophil migration to LTB4 were inhibited by AC. Exogenous AC caused an increase in peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ (PPAR-γ) expression both in vitro and in vivo during B. burgdorferi infection. The PPAR-γ agonist rosiglitazone elicited similar changes in macrophage cytokine production and neutrophil migration as exogenous AC. Addition of the PPAR-γ antagonist GW 9662 abrogated the effects of AC in vitro. Injection of rosiglitazone directly into the tibiotarsal joints of B. burgdorferi-infected mice decreased ankle swelling and immune cell recruitment, similar to the injection of AC.

These results suggest that clearance of AC plays a role in the resolution of inflammation during experimental Lyme arthritis through the activation of PPAR-γ. PPAR-γ agonists, such as rosiglitazone, may therefore be effective treatments for inducing arthritis resolution.

________________

**Comment**

Apoptosis is programmed cell death without causing damage to other cells.  https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/apoptosis.htm

apoptosis-diagram

When cells recognize viruses and gene mutations, they may induce death to prevent the damage from spreading.  In apoptosis the cell shrinks and sends out distress signals, which are answered by vacuum cleaners known as macrophages. The macrophages clean away the shrunken cells, leaving no trace.

Scientists are trying to learn how to modulate apoptosis, so that they can control which cells live and which undergo programmed cell death.  Many diseases and disorders are linked with the life and death of cells such as AIDS & Parkinson’s.  Decreased apoptosis can be a signal for lupus or cancer.

In the study above, they state that injecting the diabetic drug rosiglitazone (reduces blood glucose) into Bb infected mouse joints reduced swelling & immune cell recruitment similarly to injecting of apoptic cells.

Most interesting; however, is the admission that the injection of AC had no effect on spirochete clearance or arthritis severity scores.  

So the question becomes once again, is getting rid of inflammation/swelling the sole issue for those of us “chronically/persistently” infected or is spirochete clearance important?

I predict that while rosigliazone might help with inflammation and pain (like so many other substances), spirochete clearance is still important.  

This study begs the answer to what is causing persistent symptoms.  I think it also important to suggest it may be a number of factors and it may vary from patient to patient.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about Lyme/MSIDS, it’s that it is highly variable & complex.

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/06/27/autophagy-finally-considered-for-disease-treatment/

What are the Similarities Between Autophagy and Apoptosis?  https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-autophagy-and-vs-apoptosis/#Autophagy%20vs%20Apoptosis%20in%20Tabular%20Form

  • Both result in programmed cell death.
  • Both are natural phenomena.
  • Both processes do not cause damage to other cells or cellular components.
  • Both are important in development and normal physiology.
  • Both are important in understanding the cellular basis of different pathological conditions including cancer and immune system related disorders.

 

Which Herbs For Inflammation?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324368.php?

Which herbs help reduce inflammation?

Many herbal remedies could have anti-inflammatory properties. However, the evidence to support the majority of these claims is lacking. Inflammation is the body’s primary defense mechanism against infections, wounds, and other forms of harm.

However, inflammation itself can be harmful in some cases. For example, many conditions can cause inflammation to remain elevated, resulting in tissue damage.

A range of anti-inflammatory drugs exist to help control inflammation in the body. However, they often have side effects and may not always be effective.

Natural compounds that are present in certain herbal remedies also have the potential to be anti-inflammatory. However, there is much less research in this area.

This article will list herbal remedies with the most evidence for their anti-inflammatory properties.

Turmeric

Anti inflammatory herbs

 

Turmeric typically comes in the form of a yellow powder from the root of the turmeric plant.

It contains a chemical called curcumin, which may have anti-inflammatory properties.

Several studies have shown that turmeric can help reduce inflammation and discomfort in people with arthritis.

It works by limiting the production of molecules called cytokines, which cause inflammation.

Researchers continue to investigate how curcumin affects inflammation in a range of other conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease. Curcumin has the most substantial evidence base for its anti-inflammatory effects compared with other herbal remedies.

Turmeric is available in the form of capsules, tablets, teas, pastes, and extracts. Methods of taking turmeric will vary, depending on the intended use.

Ginger

Ginger, or Zingiber officinale, is a tropical plant that has long had a place in traditional medicines.

Ginger may have anti-inflammatory properties. There is evidence showing that many of ginger’s constituents can limit the production of cytokines and the activity of cyclooxygenase enzymes, which promote inflammation.

Research has found that the anti-inflammatory properties of ginger could be useful in treating several conditions, including arthritis and pain.

Ginger can be fresh or a dried root. It can also come in the form of tablets, capsules, and teas.

Green tea

Anti inflammatory herbs green tea

Green tea comes from Camellia sinensis leaves. Research has linked it to a variety of health benefits, such as aiding weight loss.

Green tea has anti-inflammatory properties that could underlie some of these specific health benefits.

For example, there is evidence to suggest that a component of green tea could disrupt processes that cause inflammation in the arthritis.

Other studies have found that green tea can have a positive effect on inflammation in people with metabolic disorders. Researchers suggest that it may drive these anti-inflammatory effects.

Green tea typically comes as a hot or cold drink. It is also possible to buy capsules, tablets, and creams that contain green tea.

Many other herbal remedies may also have anti-inflammatory properties. Examples include:

  • thyme
  • white willow bark
  • frankincense
  • resveratrol

However, there is not much research available on these remedies. Without this research, it is not possible to say with certainty whether these anti-inflammatory effects exist, or if they are effective treatment options for people with inflammatory conditions.

While a greater evidence base exists for the remedies in this article, the research in this area is still in the early stages.

For example, scientists have conducted many studies into the anti-inflammatory benefits of turmeric. However, the quality of these studies is not high enough to support the claim that turmeric can effectively reduce inflammation in humans.

It is also important to remember that studies in this area tend to use highly concentrated forms of these herbal remedies.

In some cases, certain compounds are isolated. One example of this is curcumin from turmeric. This means that the effects may differ when taking different forms of the remedy.

Risks

Anti inflammatory herbs doctor

  • gastrointestinal problems
  • liver problems
  • abdominal discomfort
  • heartburn
  • diarrhea
  • gas
  • sleep problems

It is also possible for these herbal remedies to interact with certain medications. For example, green tea can interact with certain beta-blockers such as nadolol.

It is important to discuss any herbal remedies with a doctor, who can advise further on drug interactions that may occur.

Summary

There is some evidence to support the claim that turmeric, green tea, and ginger have anti-inflammatory properties.

For people with inflammatory health conditions, consuming these herbal remedies could be useful for reducing inflammation.

However, more high-quality research will be necessary to confirm these effects. These herbal remedies are generally safe, but it is important to consult a doctor before taking them in conjunction with other types of medication.

_________________
Both DMSO & MSM are anti-inflammatory.  This in depth article explains their many uses – with recipes as well.
Both LDN and CBD are anti-inflammatory.

Podcast: Lyme Disease, Tick-borne Disease Working Group & IDSA

https://globallymealliance.org/podcast-outbreak-news-interview-lyme-disease-tbdwg-idsa/?

outbreak-news_podcast_lyme-disease

ROBERT HERRIMAN WITH OUTBREAK NEWS INTERVIEWS GLA’S CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER TIMOTHY SELLATI, PH.D. TO DISCUSS LYME DISEASE, THE TICK-BORNE DISEASE WORKING GROUP, AND THE IDSA

Read the complete transcript below or listen to the podcast:

 Approx. 15 Min.

 

Robert Herriman: Well hey everybody, this is Robert, and welcome to Outbreak News Interviews. Now the Federal Tick-Borne Disease Working Group recently released their first report to Congress about one year after the panel first convened. The Infectious Disease Society of America, or the IDSA, responded to the report in a letter that contained some criticisms of the report. So what is the Federal Tick-Borne Disease Working Group, what’s in the report, and what did the IDSA have to say? Well joining me to discuss these issues is Chief Scientific Officer for the Global Lyme Alliance, Timothy Sellati, Ph.D. Dr. Sellati, welcome to the show, sir.

Timothy Sellati: Thank you for having me.

Robert Herriman: You bet. So Dr. Sellati, let’s go ahead and start out with some basics ’cause some people may not be aware of this. What is the Federal Tick-Borne Disease Working Group, what’s their mission, and what’s the personnel composition of this group?

Timothy Sellati: So the Working Group was established as part of the Congress’s passage of the 21st Centuries Act, back in December 2016. The intent of that Act was to promote new healthcare initiatives for addressing array of public health issues, and one in particular was the advancement of research on tick-borne diseases. So with that as a backdrop, the US Department of Health and Human Services established the Federal Advisory Committee, the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group. So the Working Group is comprised of 14 voting members, there were seven public members and seven Federal members, and the composition of the Working Group was really drawn from a diverse group of professions. We had individuals that are world renounced research scientists, and physicians from top tier academic institutions and hospitals, subject matter experts from government agencies, as well as key stakeholders from the public sector including patients, and their advocates from several Lyme and other tick-borne disease nonprofit organizations.

Robert Herriman: Okay. So they recently released their first report, it’s a pretty hefty 108-page document. Dr. Sellati, what did you find good and important in the report?

Timothy Sellati: So I think some of the most important or key recommendations out of the report really related to epidemiology, and ecology, that was one of the subcommittees of the Working Group. And there, it was really driven home, the idea that Lyme disease surveillance criteria, which is a criteria that the CDC the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, use for calculating the number of Lyme disease cases that occur annually. Those really should be used for surveillance purposes alone, and not for diagnostic purposes. The other important take home message from the prevention subcommittee was a focus on development of anti tick feeding vaccines, and really trying to work with key stakeholders to build trust via transparent mechanism to help examine and discuss the past Lyme disease vaccine activities, what some of the issues were with it, and the potential for adverse events so that that information coming from a number of different sources could help inform future vaccine development in Lyme disease. In terms of diagnosis, the real take home message was the importance of evaluating new technologies or approaches for the diagnosis of Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases because of the inherent limitations with the current two-tier testing method. And the importance of including children in the process of diagnostic test validation as well, because children are particularly prone to the devastating consequences of dealing with Lyme disease, or other tick-borne diseases.

Timothy Sellati: In terms of treatment, I think conduct of additional clinical trials using appropriate target populations where gaps may exist. And there really, the glaring gap is with respect to patients, that experience, persistent symptoms and disability and diminished quality of life following the current standard of care, which is 10 to 28 days of antibiotics. So it’s really important to understand, this really came through as the overall gestalt of the report, that Lyme disease can be treated with antibiotics, but as many as 10% to 20% of infected individuals do not respond favorably to those antibiotics, so they go on to develop what we call Post Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome, or in some circles, chronic Lyme disease. And so it’s really important to really address that gap in our understanding of how best to treat that patient population.

Timothy Sellati: And then the one last thing, and this was really a common theme that came out of all of the subcommittees’ reports, was the need to allocate increased funding for tick-borne diseases in the areas of research, treatment, and prevention, and have it really pegged to the burden of illness. So proportionally, there is much less federal funding to tackle tick-borne diseases than there are funding for other infectious diseases where the number of cases per year are considerably smaller.

Robert Herriman: Yeah. Now, were you 100% on board with everything in the report, or were there any issues that you had a problem with?

Timothy Sellati: I didn’t have any issues per se, with the report, as much as a concern about one of the recommendations. And this related to the protection of the rights of license and qualified clinicians to use individual clinical judgment to diagnose and treat patients in accordance with the needs and goals of each individual patient. I’m sort of reading that, verbatim almost, and while I don’t have any concerns about allowing licensed and qualified clinicians to care for their patients as they see fit, I also recognize that as a result of desperation on the part of some patients that have dealt with Lyme and other tick-borne diseases for years, if not decades, they are driven to seek out medical care from clinicians using treatment options that have not been carefully vetted by the scientific research establishment, or the medical research establishment. And so there’s a concern that there are some treatment options out there that really have not been proven to effectively treat the symptoms or the diseases that these desperate patients are dealing with.

Robert Herriman: Not too long after the release of the Working Group’s report, the IDSA sent a letter to DHHS Secretary Alex Azar, and it contained some criticisms of the report. You responded to the letter in a post on the Global Lyme Alliance website. Can you spend some time talking about that?

Timothy Sellati: Sure.

Some of the criticisms leveled by the IDSA that really caught my attention was that they had significant concerns with the Working Group’s lack of transparency, and minimal opportunities for meaningful public input. And I just didn’t understand the basis for that criticism, given that the Working Group was really comprised of so many different subject matter experts, and physicians that are treating patients, and the patients themselves, that I think the greater concern on the part of IDSA is that perhaps they didn’t have as much input into the report, or the content of the report, that came out of the Working Group’s extensive efforts.

Timothy Sellati: The IDSA also suggested that some of the recommendations of the working group would “cause significant harm to patients in public health,” and they really urged Alex Azar to ensure that the Federal government response to tick-borne disease’s fallacy rooted in the best available scientific evidence. And you know, part of the problem is in the controversy surrounding Lyme disease, is that the IDSA takes a strict parochial approach to considering Lyme disease, and the consequences of infection with bacteria that causes Lyme disease. From their perspective, they think Lyme disease, or promulgates this idea that Lyme disease is easily treated, and it’s easily diagnosed, and only very rarely does it result in lasting consequences of infection. But there is more and more well established scientific evidence in the main stream literature that argues against that very narrow understanding or narrative that IDSA wants to push forward.

Robert Herriman: Now, going to your first point, on the Working Group, is there any former or current IDSA members on that Working Group? I mean, do you know that?

Timothy SellatiYes, I believe there are.

Robert Herriman:  Okay.

Timothy Sellati: I believe there are. But on the flip side, there are also, from what I understand, members of the ILADS organization as well. The composition of the subcommittees also was careful to include research scientists and physicians that really span the spectrum from IDSA on one of the end of the spectrum, to ILADS on the other. So I really do think that within the limited, within the capabilities of the Working Group, they were as intent as possible, in terms of hearing the voices of a wide variety of individuals. And again, to some extent, maybe IDSA would like to have had a larger bullhorn in terms of influencing the Working Group’s final report to the Congress.

Robert Herriman: So I just take it from your previous answer, that you don’t think most of the IDSA criticisms really hold a lot of water?

Timothy Sellati: No. No, I really don’t. And that’s what really spurred me to write this rebuttal in the first place. Again, I believe many of IDSA’s criticisms stem from the fact that the overall content of the report doesn’t necessarily fit into their mantra that Lyme disease is easy to diagnose, it’s easy to treat, and only very rarely results in lasting consequences of infection. So when you come into trying to solve a problem with that mindset, it limits how you approach trying to solve that problem.

Robert Herriman: Okay. Well, for the audience if you haven’t seen any of this, I will put up a link to Dr. Sellati’s rebuttal on the website when I publish the podcast, and I’ll also put up a link to the IDSA letter, and you can read it, and you can judge for yourselves. Dr. Sellati, any final thoughts on any of these issues?

Timothy Sellati: Yes, I’m glad you asked. So there is one final thought. As far as the report is concerned, I think there was a very important section in the report titled, “Looking Forward,” and in my opinion, I think one of the most important take home messages from that section was the need to develop and disseminate more comprehensive clinical education that highlights the diversity of symptoms that Lyme and other tick-borne disease patients might present with, expand the geography of infecting tics, and also the limitations of the current testing procedures. So I think if we do a better job of communicating to clinicians, and maybe even at the level of medical school students, the complexity of Lyme disease, and what some of the true limitations are in terms of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment, they will be better prepared to take care of the diversity of patients that they see during their practice.

Robert Herriman: Well very good. Well, I wanted to thank you Dr. Timothy Sellati for joining me to discuss these very important issues, I appreciate it, sir.

Timothy Sellati: Thank you very much.

__________________

For Sellati’s IDSA rebuttal:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/12/18/gla-counters-idsa-criticisms-of-tbdwg-report/

 

Russian Study Shows Lyme Can Cause Blood Clots. Treatment = Antibiotics and Blood Thinners

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30701820

2018 Nov 22;90(11):79-89. doi: 10.26442/terarkh2018901179-89.

Case of thrombosis of the portal vein and its branches in a patient seropositive for Borrelia antigens.

Abstract

Borreliosis after sucking ticks is an acute problem in the world. People do not go to doctors after that often, which leads to the development of various complications. Thrombosis of veins of various localization can be one of them. Thrombosis of the portal vein represents a significant problem too with high morbidity and mortality. The risk factors for splanchnic vein thrombosis include infections, but its relationship with borreliosis has not been studied.

А 34-year-old man with chronic helicobacter-associated gastritis and gallstones was hospitalized due to development during the last 11 days of epigastric pain and fever to 38.7 °C after a picnic at the forest without a registered tick bite. The blood leukocytes were increased to 11.2*109/l, lymphocytes 70%, C-reactive protein 34.6 mg/l, procalcitonin 0.195 ng/ml. The multispiral computed tomography of the abdominal cavity revealed thrombosis of portal, lienalis and superior mesenteric veins. D-dimer was 1.98 mcg/ml, antithrombin III 75%. JACK2V617F, oncological, rheumatic, thrombophilia markers, blood and urine cultures were negative. A high concentration of anti-Borrelia burgdorferi IgM 62.2 U/ml and its increasing to 190 U/ml in dynamics was revealed at the immunofluorescence assay. Anti-Borrelia IgM to OspA, p31 and OspC, p25 were detected at the immunoblotting assay.

Anticoagulation, doxycycline, detoxification therapy reduced pain and normalized temperature and inflammation markers. Vein thrombosis was not detected at the control tomography after 2 weeks. Despite that the combination of thrombosis and borreliosis is rare, it is necessary to screen for Borrelia antigens in patients with splanchnic vein thrombosis and fever.

_______________

**Comment**

https://www.healthline.com/health/portal-vein-thrombosis#treatment  Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a blood clot in a vein that allows blood to flow from the intestines to the liver.

For PVT, doctors recommend anticoagulant drugsblood thinners such as heparin.  If PVT, as in this case, is caused by an infection, antibiotics will also be prescribed to cure the source of the problem.

Interestingly, heparin helps many MSIDS patients:  

http://aac.asm.org/content/48/1/236.full.pdf
Similarly with Bartonella, some respond miraculously to Heparin, which is a blood thinner. In the above link, heparin was found to inhibit Babesia growth. Horowitz also found it helps clear the parasites from the body.

Heparin helped my husband immensely.  His blood looked like snot and continually clotted in catheters.

Interestingly, the authors state that vein thrombosis caused by borreliosis has not been studied, yet emphatically state that the combination of thrombosis and borreliosis is rare.

This is the bizarre disconnect patients live through.
Absence of proof, is not proof of absence

Marijuana, Mental Illness, & Violence

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/marijuana-mental-illness-violence/?

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 15, 2019, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C.

By Alex Berenson
Author, Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence

Seventy miles northwest of New York City is a hospital that looks like a prison, its drab brick buildings wrapped in layers of fencing and barbed wire. This grim facility is called the Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Institute. It’s one of three places the state of New York sends the criminally mentally ill—defendants judged not guilty by reason of insanity.

Until recently, my wife Jackie —Dr. Jacqueline Berenson—was a senior psychiatrist there. Many of Mid-Hudson’s 300 patients are killers and arsonists. At least one is a cannibal. Most have been diagnosed with psychotic disorders like schizophrenia that provoked them to violence against family members or strangers.

A couple of years ago, Jackie was telling me about a patient. In passing, she said something like, Of course he’d been smoking pot his whole life.

Of course? I said.

Yes, they all smoke.

So marijuana causes schizophrenia?

I was surprised, to say the least. I tended to be a libertarian on drugs. Years before, I’d covered the pharmaceutical industry for The New York Times. I was aware of the claims about marijuana as medicine, and I’d watched the slow spread of legalized cannabis without much interest.

Jackie would have been within her rights to say, I know what I’m talking about, unlike you. Instead she offered something neutral like, I think that’s what the big studies say. You should read them.

So I did. The big studies, the little ones, and all the rest. I read everything I could find. I talked to every psychiatrist and brain scientist who would talk to me. And I soon realized that in all my years as a journalist I had never seen a story where the gap between insider and outsider knowledge was so great, or the stakes so high.

I began to wonder why—with the stocks of cannabis companies soaring and politicians promoting legalization as a low-risk way to raise tax revenue and reduce crime—I had never heard the truth about marijuana, mental illness, and violence.

***

Over the last 30 years, psychiatrists and epidemiologists have turned speculation about marijuana’s dangers into science. Yet over the same period, a shrewd and expensive lobbying campaign has pushed public attitudes about marijuana the other way. And the effects are now becoming apparent.

Almost everything you think you know about the health effects of cannabis, almost everything advocates and the media have told you for a generation, is wrong.

They’ve told you marijuana has many different medical uses. In reality marijuana and THC, its active ingredient, have been shown to work only in a few narrow conditions. They are most commonly prescribed for pain relief. But they are rarely tested against other pain relief drugs like ibuprofen—and in July, a large four-year study of patients with chronic pain in Australia showed cannabis use was associated with greater pain over time.

They’ve told you cannabis can stem opioid use—“Two new studies show how marijuana can help fight the opioid epidemic,” according to Wonkblog, a Washington Post website, in April 2018— and that marijuana’s effects as a painkiller make it a potential substitute for opiates. In reality, like alcohol, marijuana is too weak as a painkiller to work for most people who truly need opiates, such as terminal cancer patients. Even cannabis advocates, like Rob Kampia, the co-founder of the Marijuana Policy Project, acknowledge that they have always viewed medical marijuana laws primarily as a way to protect recreational users.

As for the marijuana-reduces-opiate-use theory, it is based largely on a single paper comparing overdose deaths by state before 2010 to the spread of medical marijuana laws— and the paper’s finding is probably a result of simple geographic coincidence. The opiate epidemic began in Appalachia, while the first states to legalize medical marijuana were in the West. Since 2010, as both the epidemic and medical marijuana laws have spread nationally, the finding has vanished. And the United States, the Western country with the most cannabis use, also has by far the worst problem with opioids.

Research on individual users—a better way to trace cause and effect than looking at aggregate state-level data—consistently shows that marijuana use leads to other drug use. For example, a January 2018 paper in the American Journal of Psychiatry showed that people who used cannabis in 2001 were almost three times as likely to use opiates three years later, even after adjusting for other potential risks.

Most of all, advocates have told you that marijuana is not just safe for people with psychiatric problems like depression, but that it is a potential treatment for those patients. On its website, the cannabis delivery service Eaze offers the “Best Marijuana Strains and Products for Treating Anxiety.” “How Does Cannabis Help Depression?” is the topic of an article on Leafly, the largest cannabis website. But a mountain of peer-reviewed research in top medical journals shows that marijuana can cause or worsen severe mental illness, especially psychosis, the medical term for a break from reality. Teenagers who smoke marijuana regularly are about three times as likely to develop schizophrenia, the most devastating psychotic disorder.

After an exhaustive review, the National Academy of Medicine found in 2017 that “cannabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia and other psychoses; the higher the use, the greater the risk.” Also that “regular cannabis use is likely to increase the risk for developing social anxiety disorder.”

***

Over the past decade, as legalization has spread, patterns of marijuana use—and the drug itself—have changed in dangerous ways.

Legalization has not led to a huge increase in people using the drug casually. About 15 percent of Americans used cannabis at least once in 2017, up from ten percent in 2006, according to a large federal study called the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. (By contrast, about 65 percent of Americans had a drink in the last year.) But the number of Americans who use cannabis heavily is soaring. In 2006, about three million Americans reported using cannabis at least 300 times a year, the standard for daily use. By 2017, that number had nearly tripled, to eight million, approaching the twelve million Americans who drank alcohol every day. Put another way, one in 15 drinkers consumed alcohol daily; about one in five marijuana users used cannabis that often.

Cannabis users today are also consuming a drug that is far more potent than ever before, as measured by the amount of THC—delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the chemical in cannabis responsible for its psychoactive effects—it contains. In the 1970s, the last time this many Americans used cannabis, most marijuana contained less than two percent THC. Today, marijuana routinely contains 20 to 25 percent THC, thanks to sophisticated farming and cloning techniques—as well as to a demand by users for cannabis that produces a stronger high more quickly. In states where cannabis is legal, many users prefer extracts that are nearly pure THC. Think of the difference between near-beer and a martini, or even grain alcohol, to understand the difference.

These new patterns of use have caused problems with the drug to soar. In 2014, people who had diagnosable cannabis use disorder, the medical term for marijuana abuse or addiction, made up about 1.5 percent of Americans. But they accounted for eleven percent of all the psychosis cases in emergency rooms—90,000 cases, 250 a day, triple the number in 2006. In states like Colorado, emergency room physicians have become experts on dealing with cannabis-induced psychosis.

Cannabis advocates often argue that the drug can’t be as neurotoxic as studies suggest, because otherwise Western countries would have seen population-wide increases in psychosis alongside rising use. In reality, accurately tracking psychosis cases is impossible in the United States. The government carefully tracks diseases like cancer with central registries, but no such registry exists for schizophrenia or other severe mental illnesses.

On the other hand, research from Finland and Denmark, two countries that track mental illness more comprehensively, shows a significant increase in psychosis since 2000, following an increase in cannabis use. And in September of last year, a large federal survey found a rise in serious mental illness in the United States as well, especially among young adults, the heaviest users of cannabis.

According to this latter study, 7.5 percent of adults age 18-25 met the criteria for serious mental illness in 2017, double the rate in 2008. What’s especially striking is that adolescents age 12-17 don’t show these increases in cannabis use and severe mental illness.

A caveat: this federal survey doesn’t count individual cases, and it lumps psychosis with other severe mental illness. So it isn’t as accurate as the Finnish or Danish studies. Nor do any of these studies prove that rising cannabis use has caused population-wide increases in psychosis or other mental illness. The most that can be said is that they offer intriguing evidence of a link.

Advocates for people with mental illness do not like discussing the link between schizophrenia and crime. They fear it will stigmatize people with the disease. “Most people with mental illness are not violent,” the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) explains on its website. But wishing away the link can’t make it disappear. In truth, psychosis is a shockingly high risk factor for violence. The best analysis came in a 2009 paper in PLOS Medicine by Dr. Seena Fazel, an Oxford University psychiatrist and epidemiologist. Drawing on earlier studies, the paper found that people with schizophrenia are five times as likely to commit violent crimes as healthy people, and almost 20 times as likely to commit homicide.

NAMI’s statement that most people with mental illness are not violent is of course accurate, given that “most” simply means “more than half”; but it is deeply misleading. Schizophrenia is rare. But people with the disorder commit an appreciable fraction of all murders, in the range of six to nine percent.

“The best way to deal with the stigma is to reduce the violence,” says Dr. Sheilagh Hodgins, a professor at the University of Montreal who has studied mental illness and violence for more than 30 years.

The marijuana-psychosis-violence connection is even stronger than those figures suggest. People with schizophrenia are only moderately more likely to become violent than healthy people when they are taking antipsychotic medicine and avoiding recreational drugs. But when they use drugs, their risk of violence skyrockets. “You don’t just have an increased risk of one thing—these things occur in clusters,” Dr. Fazel told me.

Along with alcohol, the drug that psychotic patients use more than any other is cannabis: a 2010 review of earlier studies in Schizophrenia Bulletin found that 27 percent of people with schizophrenia had been diagnosed with cannabis use disorder in their lives. And unfortunately—despite its reputation for making users relaxed and calm—cannabis appears to provoke many of them to violence.

A Swiss study of 265 psychotic patients published in Frontiers of Forensic Psychiatry last June found that over a three-year period, young men with psychosis who used cannabis had a 50 percent chance of becoming violent. That risk was four times higher than for those with psychosis who didn’t use, even after adjusting for factors such as alcohol use. Other researchers have produced similar findings. A 2013 paper in an Italian psychiatric journal examined almost 1,600 psychiatric patients in southern Italy and found that cannabis use was associated with a ten-fold increase in violence.

The most obvious way that cannabis fuels violence in psychotic people is through its tendency to cause paranoia—something even cannabis advocates acknowledge the drug can cause. The risk is so obvious that users joke about it and dispensaries advertise certain strains as less likely to induce paranoia. And for people with psychotic disorders, paranoia can fuel extreme violence. A 2007 paper in the Medical Journal of Australia on 88 defendants who had committed homicide during psychotic episodes found that most believed they were in danger from the victim, and almost two-thirds reported misusing cannabis—more than alcohol and amphetamines combined.

Yet the link between marijuana and violence doesn’t appear limited to people with preexisting psychosis. Researchers have studied alcohol and violence for generations, proving that alcohol is a risk factor for domestic abuse, assault, and even murder. Far less work has been done on marijuana, in part because advocates have stigmatized anyone who raises the issue. But studies showing that marijuana use is a significant risk factor for violence have quietly piled up. Many of them weren’t even designed to catch the link, but they did. Dozens of such studies exist, covering everything from bullying by high school students to fighting among vacationers in Spain.

In most cases, studies find that the risk is at least as significant as with alcohol. A 2012 paper in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined a federal survey of more than 9,000 adolescents and found that marijuana use was associated with a doubling of domestic violence; a 2017 paper in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology examined drivers of violence among 6,000 British and Chinese men and found that drug use—the drug nearly always being cannabis—translated into a five-fold increase in violence.

Today that risk is translating into real-world impacts. Before states legalized recreational cannabis, advocates said that legalization would let police focus on hardened criminals rather than marijuana smokers and thus reduce violent crime. Some advocates go so far as to claim that legalization has reduced violent crime. In a 2017 speech calling for federal legalization, U.S. Senator Cory Booker said that “states [that have legalized marijuana] are seeing decreases in violent crime.” He was wrong.

The first four states to legalize marijuana for recreational use were Colorado and Washington in 2014 and Alaska and Oregon in 2015. Combined, those four states had about 450 murders and 30,300 aggravated assaults in 2013. Last year, they had almost 620 murders and 38,000 aggravated assaults—an increase of 37 percent for murders and 25 percent for aggravated assaults, far greater than the national increase, even after accounting for differences in population growth.

Knowing exactly how much of the increase is related to cannabis is impossible without researching every crime. But police reports, news stories, and arrest warrants suggest a close link in many cases. For example, last September, police in Longmont, Colorado, arrested Daniel Lopez for stabbing his brother Thomas to death as a neighbor watched. Daniel Lopez had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and was “self-medicating” with marijuana, according to an arrest affidavit.

In every state, not just those where marijuana is legal, cases like Lopez’s are far more common than either cannabis or mental illness advocates acknowledge. Cannabis is also associated with a disturbing number of child deaths from abuse and neglect—many more than alcohol, and more than cocaine, methamphetamines, and opioids combined—according to reports from Texas, one of the few states to provide detailed information on drug use by perpetrators.

These crimes rarely receive more than local attention. Psychosis-induced violence takes particularly ugly forms and is frequently directed at helpless family members. The elite national media prefers to ignore the crimes as tabloid fodder. Even police departments, which see this violence up close, have been slow to recognize the trend, in part because the epidemic of opioid overdose deaths has overwhelmed them.

So the black tide of psychosis and the red tide of violence are rising steadily, almost unnoticed, on a slow green wave.

For centuries, people worldwide have understood that cannabis causes mental illness and violence—just as they’ve known that opiates cause addiction and overdose. Hard data on the relationship between marijuana and madness dates back 150 years, to British asylum registers in India. Yet 20 years ago, the United States moved to encourage wider use of cannabis and opiates.

In both cases, we decided we could outsmart these drugs—that we could have their benefits without their costs. And in both cases we were wrong. Opiates are riskier, and the overdose deaths they cause a more imminent crisis, so we have focused on those. But soon enough the mental illness and violence that follow cannabis use will also be too widespread to ignore.

Whether to use cannabis, or any drug, is a personal decision. Whether cannabis should be legal is a political issue. But its precise legal status is far less important than making sure that anyone who uses it is aware of its risks. Most cigarette smokers don’t die of lung cancer. But we have made it widely known that cigarettes cause cancer, full stop. Most people who drink and drive don’t have fatal accidents. But we have highlighted the cases of those who do.

We need equally unambiguous and well-funded advertising campaigns on the risks of cannabis. Instead, we are now in the worst of all worlds. Marijuana is legal in some states, illegal in others, dangerously potent, and sold without warnings everywhere.

But before we can do anything, we—especially cannabis advocates and those in the elite media who have for too long credulously accepted their claims—need to come to terms with the truth about the science on marijuana. That adjustment may be painful. But the alternative is far worse, as the patients at Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Institute—and their victims—know.

Alex Berenson is a graduate of Yale University with degrees in history and economics. He began his career in journalism in 1994 as a business reporter for the Denver Post, joined the financial news website TheStreet.com in 1996, and worked as an investigative reporter for The New York Times from 1999 to 2010, during which time he also served two stints as an Iraq War correspondent. In 2006 he published The Faithful Spy, which won the 2007 Edgar Award for best first novel from the Mystery Writers of America. He has published ten additional novels and two nonfiction books, The Number: How the Drive for Quarterly Earnings Corrupted Wall Street and Corporate Americaand Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence.