We live in a society of rules. Rules for seemingly everything. In 1925, Texas passed a law stating it was illegal to milk another person’s cow. In 1937, Minnesota passed a law prohibiting women from dressing up on public streets as Santa Claus. In 1961, Gainesville, Georgia passed an ordinance stating it was illegal to eat fried chicken with a fork. In Oklahoma, it is technically illegal to cuss in public places, in the presence of a female, or around children under the age of 10. [Which if enforced, would result in a reduction of the average Oklahoman’s verbal communications by 65%.]
Therefore, it should come as no surprise that various international, national, state and local laws exist regulating the spreading of a loved one’s ashes. It should also come as no surprise that there is a cottage industry of corporations who for a shiny dime, will plan, assist and guide you through the spreading of your loved one’s ashes.
I can only imagine Little Johnny, the Ash Scatterer in first grade. When his teacher asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up, Little Johnny enthusiastically responded, “I wanna grow up and help spread my Grandpa’s ashes around the Back 40!”
In the United States, traditional burials are slowly being replaced by cremation and alternative burial or ash-scattering services. According to the2020 NFDA Cremation & Burial Report, the cremation rate was 56%, surpassing the burial rate of only 37.5%. Cost is certainly one factor. The freedom to release the remnants of your loved one in special places, places of meaning, of meditation, of places which bring peace and comfort are certainly other reasons.
Scattering your loved one’s ashes can elicit deep emotions. In the best of circumstances this act can renew your spirit, strengthen your resolve, be a bold, ever-growing bond and a reminder of your loved one. Ashes are the last, tangible vestige of their physical presence. To leave them in places where your loved one wanted to go, or talked about, or where you had incredible shared experiences, more closely binds your souls together.
For those who know me even in passing, it should come as no surprise that I did not look up nor even consider any laws passed by international, national, state or local governments which would prohibit me from spreading the ashes of my beloved daughter, Morgan.
Morgan is now offshore near Tahiti. She became one with the Grand Canal in Venice, Italy. She is in Washington, D.C. She is a part of a peaceful brook in Kyoto, Japan. She is in the end zone of the Cotton Bowl where she and I enjoyed a number of Texas – ou rivalry games together. Off the coast of Cabo San Lucas. Joined with a shipwreck off Barbados.
And now, part of San Francisco Bay having become one with the water in Sausalito.
Morgan being Morgan of course had to have the last laugh. As I was remembering her, her laughter, her intelligence and yes, her pain, I slowly opened the small container. As she was becoming one with the water, a sudden burst of wind came up and part of her was blown back toward me! Really Morgan? Really? What the actual blue hell?
Well, that was unexpected! The solemnity of the moment being interrupted by the absurdity of wanting perfection.
Afterwards, we slowly walked down the rocky shoreline. About 10 minutes later a local fisherman hooked what appeared to be a large fish. We watched with fascination the on-going struggle. His helper grabbed a large net and when the catch materialized, it was a Stingray! About a 4-foot-wide Stingray! It wasn’t until I returned home that the timing and symbolism of this event was made clear.
Some people believe Stingrays, with their graceful underwater movements represent adaptability and inspire people to navigate life’s difficult currents. They stand for emotional harmony and the significance of preserving inner peace even in choppy waters.
Stingrays are perceptive animals that exhort us to believe in our gut feelings and inner wisdom. They teach us how to approach life’s challenges with poise as they move with grace and finesse. Aren’t those lessons universal? Certainly, I have attempted to learn some of them through Morgan, reading her journals and remembering her strength and struggles.
Poise. Grace. Finesse. Inner peace. Harmony. So easy to write. So difficult to find and embrace. So elusive. We all desire peace and harmony.
And yet, a harsh reality which frightens so many is that sometimes going to war is the only way to find and obtain those elusive qualities of peace and serenity.
But those qualities are present. Surrounding us. Within our grasp. Sometimes, it takes an Ai generated song to remind us of that which gives us strength. And hope. And resolve.
Do you believe in the concept of the “circle of life”?
On this plain of existence, we come into the world on a definite day. Our birthday or name day. We leave this world on a definite day. From that perspective, life seems linear. We celebrate the first day. We mourn the last day.
Artificial intelligence software programs tell us the concept of the “circle of life” generally refers to the continuous cycle of birth, growth, death, and renewal that exists in nature. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of all living things and the idea that change is a constant and necessary part of existence. This concept is often symbolized by a circle, representing the cyclical and unending nature of life.
And so, are we destined to learn about birth, life and death from a software program? A machine? Some black figures and letters on a white background generated by an unfeeling device of our own creation. Ironically, a device which cannot fathom nor understand the depth of the love, the depth of feelings a parent has for their child.
Those programs are designed to imitate us. They are but spectators looking in from the sidelines as we fragile, flawed creatures play the game of life. A game ironically, we cannot win. Those artificial programs cannot feel. They cannot love. They are not sentient. Those artificial programs are but hazy images reflected in our mirror of life.
They cannot understand the reality that birthdays and remembrances of the day a beloved child takes their last breath are often inextricably intertwined.
Sunday, August 10, 2025 would have been Morgan’s 32nd birthday. A day which should have brought great joy. Instead, it is a solemn reminder of she who has been taken. Only parents who have had a child taken can fathom the grief which comes from that tragedy.
Grief is like a river. It ebbs and flows. Sometimes gently bubbling, calm, peaceful. Other times cascading out of control resulting in death and destruction. Rivers change course and carve new pathways. As does grief. Grief is always there impacting parents like us. And yet, grief also effects those people around us. It is eternal.
Whether we give in to our grief, become inundated and swept away by the flood of our anguish, or whether we are able to stand strong and resolute depends not just on our individual gifts and attributes, but by the support given by our loved ones. Those in whose loving arms we find strength and hope.
Regardless, grief becomes part of our identity. It constantly shapes us into whatever result we are destined to become. And unless a person has been subjected to and endured that type of grief, one cannot possibly understand the life altering experience which results from having a child taken from you.
Often, people will look upon you as if you had not suffered that tragedy. It is easier for them that way. In looking at you, they may be feeling to a greater extent, their own destiny. All of our destinies. They cannot possibly understand the all-encompassing way it changes your identity, your very existence. Your outlook on life. Your outlook on societal and political issues. Your outlook on all issues. Who you are.
Especially since culturally we seem to be devolving into tribes defined by our feckless political parties, demanding that you remain in your own echo chamber; to close your eyes and ears to those who do not agree with you. Combine that reality with the manner in which grief has manifested itself within me and the result is daunting. And for many, frightening.
In life, Morgan was direct. She pushed boundaries. She was intelligent and creative. And she could be manipulative. She did not suffer fools gladly. She would argue with you, turn your own points against you and she knew how to exploit people’s weaknesses. Her foibles and flaws were obvious.
Should it be a surprise from whom she inherited those traits? Should it also be a surprise when those same traits in me are magnified because of the grief I suffer daily? Through memories and reminders of Morgan.
Morgan, I will not say Happy Birthday. Instead, I will say … You are a warrior. You have the heart of a lioness! Keep exploring. Keep expanding your existence.
This past month marked a number of notable events. The tragic loss of life in Kerrville, Texas. Followed by the expected finger pointing by room temperature IQ politicians and their minions. The deaths of Hulk Hogan and Ozzie Ozborne. And of course, the Coldplay Kiss Cam scandal.
It is rare indeed in our history when one mistake, one moment, one stupid word, one selfish deed or bad choice has the power to tear apart lives and to devastate peoples’ worlds. To err is human – but for someone to film that erring and share it and have it so noxiously trend is decidedly 2025.
The Coldplay scandal brought forth the combined dangers of society embracing schadenfreude with the ubiquity of cell phones and the terrifying swiftness of the algorithm.
Millions of people laughed at the internet memes:
But behind the laughter tragic stories await. The children who will surely be subjected to bullying classmates when school resumes this fall. Broken hearts. Lost friends. Families torn asunder.
And yet, from these ashes rise lessons learned by turning lemons into lemon lavender mojitos.
Previously, if you asked 100 random people if they had ever heard of Astronomer, perhaps 99 would say, “Oh yes. They are a bunch of gray haired, tweed wearing, pipe smoking, creepy old men looking at the stars.”
In fact, Astronomer, Inc. is a private data infrastructure company valued at $1.3 billion and is considered a unicorn. While not a household name in the broader public sphere, it’s a significant player in the data orchestration space, particularly with its Astro platform built on Apache Airflow. The company has achieved this valuation through private funding rounds, the most recent being a $93 million Series D round in May 2025.
But now, Astronomer’s public name was on a path associated with a sexual scandal which if not handled swiftly and intelligently, could result in the company’s demise. Imagine, the first time the general public knows of your existence is because of a scandal involving the CEO and Chief People’s Officer. (“CPO”). “Oh! I’ve heard of you guys. You’re the icky, gropey CEO, Coldplay company!”
However, the Board of Directors for Astronomer acted wisely and started an immediate investigation. The CEO was placed on administrative leave and negotiations for his exit were expedited. So too the CPO. The CEO resigned with the terms of his departure remaining confidential. So too the CPO.
But the problem remained. The company was now publicly known for this scandal. Astronomer had to find a way to regain the narrative. To quickly and decisively illustrate the substance and value of Astronomer and its employees.
They employed (on a very temporary basis), Gwyneth Paltrow as a spokesperson. And then released a one minute PR video. Found here:
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
It was revealed that a PR firm, Maximum Effort, was the driving force behind this pivot. Maximum Effort was founded by actor, Ryan Reynolds.
The genius behind having Ms. Paltrow involved was that she was formerly married to the lead singer for Coldplay. Her tongue-in-cheek, humorous statement was perfect. Ms. Paltrow used the platform to promote Astronomer’s products. “Thank you for your interest in Astronomer,” Ms. Paltrow said at the video’s end.
Ms. Paltrow’s one minute statement put the substance of Astronomer on the map. Her statement has over 40 million views. Through vision, foresight and genius, Astronomer took a toxic situation, got rid of the offending executives, pivoted and made its brand and name recognition stronger than it had ever been. And that in a manner of days.
That is because they had experienced, smart executives on their Board who obviously conducted a professional investigation resulting in decisive action, not distraction.
There have been other companies and organizations who have experienced scandal and through an intelligent investigation, made corrective changes and continued their operations.
In 2021, allegations surfaced that Bill Gates at Microsoft had an inappropriate relationship with an employee while serving as a company executive. Microsoft’s board hired an external law firm to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. Gates stepped down from the board in 2020, reportedly during the probe. And Microsoft publicly acknowledged the inquiry and communicated that they took the complaint seriously.
In 2019, allegations arose that McDonald’s CEO Steve Easterbrook had a consensual relationship with a subordinate, violating company policies. McDonald’s board retained independent outside counsel to investigate. Easterbrook was terminated “without cause” at first, but after uncovering that he lied and destroyed evidence, McDonald’s sued him and clawed back his severance (worth over $100 million). The company publicly disclosed the suit and emphasized ethical standards.
In 2016, Wounded Warrior Project (WWP), a veterans’ charity, was accused by whistleblowers and media of excessive executive spending and misrepresenting programmatic expenditures on its IRS Form 990. It was accused of misrepresenting how donor funds were allocated (e.g., inflating program expenses); IRS Form 990 filings were allegedly misleading, suggesting more was spent on veterans than occurred. Their board of directors hired the law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and forensic accountants to conduct an independent review. The CEO and COO were terminated following the investigation. A reorganization followed, and WWP revamped its governance, spending policies, and financial transparency. No criminal charges were filed, but major reforms were implemented to avoid future tax-law violations.
These investigations and responses share certain similarities. An outside, credible law firm was retained. Independence was preserved (investigators did not report to implicated individuals). The implicated individuals were placed on administrative leave. A Board of Directors acted quickly, wisely and expeditiously. Transparency was paramount … investigation findings were summarized publicly.
That is absolutely the best way to proceed when scandal, unethical conduct and/or questionable behavior are brought to the attention of and plague an organization.
Naturally, allegations of inappropriate or questionable behavior have arisen in eating disorder organizations. When made aware of alarming allegations, the response differed greatly.
Five years ago, questionable conduct of certain officers was brought to NEDA’s attention. NEDA’s Board acted decisively. They utilized a reputable, outside law firm to investigate. The officers in question were quickly dispatched. They brought in a respected, interim CEO. NEDA agreed to early mediation before litigation spun out of their control. They entered into a settlement, made changes and are on a path of trying to remain relevant. That was due in no small measure because NEDA had experienced business persons on their Board. NEDA’s Board should be commended. Because another chose not to follow that path.
When serious issues involving tax fraud, whether that organization even was in good standing, when conflicts of interest and violations of numerous federal statutes were brought to the attention of iaedp, its response was very different.
In essence iaedp stated thank you for bringing these issues to our attention. But there is nothing to see here… move along. Its managing director was not placed on administrative leave and was allowed to rule the roost with an iron fist for at least another 18 months. The law firm iaedp brought in did not isolate the managing director. iaedp chose to not be transparent with its chapters nor the public.
To date, this lack of transparency has not changed.
Do the chapters, do eating disorder professionals, does the public know about the extent of the alleged wrongdoing or how tenuous the existence of iaedp may be? How long must the lack of transparency continue?
If an organization chooses to not trust you with how it addresses troubling issues which threaten its very existence, why should you trust it with your time, your money, your energy … your certification?
Perhaps it is time to call Ryan Reynolds to the rescue.
In the early morning hours of July 4, 2025, a gut wrenching catastrophe struck Central Texas. An unimaginable event which would take the lives of so many little girls. Girls, daughters whose future lay before them. Unlimited possibilities. Young, innocent, naïve, full of life souls. They knew not political parties nor the divisiveness which is tearing apart the Republic. They are our best hope for greater tomorrows. And yet, you exacerbated the agony their parents would experience. The darkest of days which will forever haunt them.
In your ignorance, you felt the need to look past compassion, grace and understanding. And you posted this on your social media page:
May they get what they voted for? Bless their hearts? [In this context, it is a term of derision.]
This from a trained, so-called professional pediatrician. A medical doctor.
As parents were experiencing the worse pain possible, the public outcry against this doctor was swift and sure. Social media disseminated her words and the backlash went viral. Consequences were immediate. The doctor was fired from her position at Blue Fish Pediatrics, an independent partner of internationally renowned Memorial Hospital. Complaints are being filed with the Texas Board of Medicine.
The good doctor saw her world crumbling, albeit in a manner which pales in comparison with a parent burying his child. In all reasonable likelihood, panic began to set in. And then, the doctor did what many people under similar circumstances often do … she tried to rectify her damaging words through an apology. An apology which rang as hollow as her initial words had been horrific.
As part of her “apology,” the doctor said that politics have never impacted her judgment or actions as a medical provider. But that’s not really true. After Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued a ban on school masking mandates, Dr. Propst stated the Governor was a direct threat to the health and well-being of the children of Texas. This despite the fact that children under 12 years of age were least susceptible to Covid19.
In 2020, the good doctor organized a letter which in essence blamed Congressman Dan Crenshaw for Houston’s COVID surge. This was based on Dr. Propst’s belief that Congressman Crenshaw unfairly pushed back on lockdown hysteria stating, “Dan Crenshaw, on the other hand, has spewed lies for the past four months – minimizing the threat we face and spreading dangerous disinformation for self-indulgent headlines.”
Both politicians are Republican. Dr. Propst is a Democrat. But there were no politics in play? This is what happens when blind allegiance to your political party predominates over the needs of the Republic … or the needs of the family. My dear doctor … do not insult our intelligence.
In her attempted apology, the good doctor also stated, “… her post came from a “place of frustration” over the need for “more and better support and funding to help prevent and respond to tragedies such as this.” This language could have come directly from the DCCC. If ever there was a political statement, this would qualify.
Dr. Propst then wrote, “Perhaps my biggest regret is that my words are now serving as a distraction from our shared responsibility to heal the pain and suffering of those whose lives have been forever changed by unspeakable loss, and to take every step to ensure such a disaster never occurs again.”
Her biggest regret is that her words are a mere distraction? Not the pain they caused. Not exacerbating the grief which rips the hearts from parents who suffer such an unthinkable tragedy? Instead, her words are a mere distraction. That is her biggest regret?
Let us now take a look at another part of the good doctor’s attempted apology which also rings hollow.
In her attempted apology, she stated, “I take full responsibility for a social media comment I made before we knew that so many precious lives were lost to the terrible tragedy in Central Texas.” So, my good doctor, can we presume you believe your words would have been acceptable had fewer lives been taken assuming those lives were all MAGA persons? For discussions sake, what is the minimum number of MAGA people dying which would have been acceptable and excuse your hate filled messaging? What is your choice, Sophie?
There is another fact which calls into question the authenticity of the good doctor’s so-called apology. Now, I am not privy to the exact time the good doctor published her social media post. But, as for the timeline of the tragedy, we know:
On July 4, 2025:
5:57 a.m.:The Coast Guard was asked for help and started sending resources to the scene.
7 a.m.: Kerr County begins to evacuate people near the Guadalupe River in Hunt amid major flooding caused by 6 to 7 inches of rainfall.
10 a.m.: The Kerr County Sheriff’s Office confirms there have been “multiple fatalities” from “catastrophic flooding.”
So, we know that evacuations were in place as early as 7:00 a.m. And multiple fatalities were announced as early as 10:00 a.m. The scenes broadcast on social and legacy media were horrifying. So, despite the fact that the world knew of the tragic events and death which had visited Central Texas, this doctor did not know prior to her ill-advised statement? How is that remotely possible since she had actual knowledge of the flood and hoped that everyone, except MAGA voters stay safe and dry?
It is important to note that Dr. Propst did NOT say she was not concerned about children. To the contrary. She hoped they stayed safe and dry. That is, perhaps unless they were children of MAGA voters whose lives may have been taken by the flood. So, are we to presume wishing harm on MAGA voters, which harm would directly devastate their children, perhaps even turning them into orphans, is acceptable?
Her former employer, Blue Fish Pediatrics issued its own press release stating in material part, “That post does not reflect the values, standards, or mission of Blue Fish Pediatrics,” Blue Fish Pediatrics wrote. “We do not support or condone any statement that politicizes tragedy, diminishes human dignity, or fails to clearly uphold compassion for every child and family. We continue to extend our full support to the families and the surrounding communities who are grieving, recovering, and searching for hope.”
Dr. Propst’s social media post was atrocious. She was fired and her former employer distanced itself from her. Her apology was vapid.
So, what can the good doctor do to attempt to rebuild her life? That is a difficult question with nuanced complexities. Were I advising the good doctor, I would recommend the following: A public statement that in order to gain a much deeper understanding of our humanity, she would announce she is taking at least a one-year leave of absence from the medical profession. During this time, she commits to undergoing many hours of therapeutic intervention with an emphasis on compassion, a parent’s grief, and how politics is undermining our soul.
Then, I would advise the good doctor to attend as many funerals as possible for the victims of the tragedy. Sit in the back of the church and see in person, the pain permanently etched on the faces of parents. Take in the tears of family and friends and neighbors. Look into the eyes of a parent who believes that the very best part of them has been forever taken. Not just one funeral, nor 5, nor 10 … but as many as possible.
All Dr. Propst did was mumble out vacuous words with no meaningful action supporting them. She did not show the courage of her convictions, assuming she has any. Nor a commitment to taking action. Just words. Vapid, empty words.
And vapid, empty words will be all that remain of Dr. Propst.
The forces that descended upon the Guadalupe River in Texas’ Hill Country in the very early hours of Friday, July 4, 2025, were a generational, worst-case scenario.
Four months’ worth of rain fell in just a few hours. Water-laden thunderstorms stalled in place. When combined, this “perfect storm” gave rise to a wall of water that surged down the river in the darkness of the night. This in itself limited the number of people who could get warnings and move to higher ground.
Sunrise revealed the devastation and horror inflicted upon Texas. Summer camps along the Guadalupe River were buried under a choking tsunami of flood water. And yet, we still did not understand the extent of the tragedy to be revealed. Reports began to trickle in of people whose lives had been taken by this tragedy. Search and rescue operations conducted by numerous first responder units were shown on television and on social media. The grisly numbers began to be disclosed.
11 dead and many missing. 20 dead. 30 dead. The number kept rising just as surely as the flood waters had. The confirmed death toll reached 70 on Sunday afternoon. 90 or more on Monday morning, over 100 Monday night. Many of those found dead had not yet been identified, including children.
For the parents of the children who are still missing or have not been identified, they are existing in the worst hell imaginable. Sleep will not come to them. Their hunger is gone. A terror which can only be experienced by a parent who has had a child taken, grips their every moment. For some, it even snaps their will to live.
If ever there was a time for our nation to come together as the search continues, as hearts are broken, as souls are taken, that time would surely be now. Families are far greater and more important than any political party. The pain caused by the death of innocent children is universal. This would be the time and event which could start the path of healing. One could think that. And yet, one would be wrong.
Even as first responders and volunteers were placing their own lives in harm’s way, as a parent’s worst nightmare played out before their eyes, the social injustice, keyboard warriors, including some in the eating disorder community, began to spew forth their hate filled narrative. A narrative which gave new life to a quote widely attributed to Josef Stalin, “One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.” Perhaps we have a tendency to feel more deeply individual losses rather than full scale tragedies. Regardless, the tsunami of political venom flowed with incredible force.
At this point, it would have been so easy to wrap oneself in righteous indignation, to call out the callous and unfeeling. To point out how people, lost in their own self-importance and identification politics, have exacerbated the pain for those families whose loss cannot be imagined.
Numerous people use social media as the vehicle to parade their ignorance. They believe that an entire segment of our society, literally millions of people are fundamentally bad because of whom they supported in the last election. As a society, we cannot allow ourselves to degenerate into this madness.
I choose to believe that people have the ability to rise above a crisis and to embrace the very best in humanity. That we can see the best in people. That when confronted with seemingly overwhelming strife, we have the ability to care the most for our fellow human beings. We hug parents who have experienced the most horrific loss possible. We honor those brave warriors who saved so many lives.
We remember. We mourn. We cry. We support those who must bear the most horrific loss possible. We feel and must remember our humanity.
In this article, I had intended to go off on those who had used this tragedy as a platform upon which to build their own destructive narrative. But then, loved ones (all 2 of them) and friends (all 3 of them) in essence stated, “Dunn, you are a f*cking loon if you do that! You will be no better than them if you do!”
They were and are … right. And I would have been so wrong. Wrong to pontificate. Wrong to inflate my views above all others. I cannot and will not, castigate others while my character flaws and faults are so prevalent and are a work in progress.
My heart goes out to those parents whose beloved children have been so cruelly taken. I know what it is like to experience that type of pain. The agonizing, soul crushing pain. But it would be so wrong to impose my own narrow views upon others. We are all unique, singular souls. And so, I mourn with you. And should any parent reach out, I will cry with you, I will hold you … you have a safe place.
And maybe, just maybe for the briefest period of time, we can escape our pain, our sorrow, our anger, our fear, through grace. And perhaps through humor. For me, Robin Williams provided that respite from heartache at least for a little while. I hope everyone can find their own goodness and love of life somewhere. Somehow.
As many know, iaedp is facing an existential crisis brought about by its own lack of transparency, past irresponsible management decisions, litigation, and administrative complaints filed with the IRS, Department of Labor and the California Franchise Tax Board.
It has been almost a year since I last wrote on iaedp. This article is meant to give an update on various issues. As before, these updates will be coming from a person who is in an adversarial relationship with iaedp.
On behalf of aggrieved eating disorder certified professionals and a potential class, I filed the lawsuit in federal court in Dallas, Texas. Iaedp, Dena Cabrera, Dr. Joel Jahraus and Dr. Ralph Carson were named as defendants. They are represented by a law firm based in Chicago. Ms. Harken is represented by a different law firm. All attorneys are from reputable firms and have strong reputations.
The case was moved to the Central District of Illinois, a district in which Ms. Harken resides. Despite the passage of time, the case is in its infancy and none of the substantive merits have been decided. iaedp, its named board members and Ms. Harken have all filed motions to dismiss the case. In essence, the defendants are saying that the plaintiffs have not properly plead the case, do not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit and did not allege sufficient facts supporting their claims. These types of motions to dismiss are standard practice in most cases filed in federal court.
Naturally, the Plaintiffs disagree with the Defendants’ position, are requesting that the motions be denied and the case be allowed to proceed. The Court has not yet ruled on those motions.
In the unlikely event the motions are granted and the case is dismissed, an appeal will be filed in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, Illinois. When the motions are denied, the case will proceed to the next stage. This involves engaging in extensive discovery, depositions and document production.
Regardless, the lawsuit will not be decided any time soon as settlement is unlikely. In the past almost two years, including before filing suit, the plaintiffs made at least three (3) settlement offers with the hope of expeditiously resolving this matter.
iaedp chose to not make any substantive response.
Before filing suit, we sent a letter with information and evidence showing improprieties and concerns about iaedp. We requested that we sit down and talk as professionals. We even suggested bringing in a neutral mediator to assist. No monetary demands. No demands that any iaedp officer be fired. iaedp and Ms. Harken decided to “lawyer up” and refused to talk. This necessitated filing the lawsuit. Had Ms. Harken and iaedp agreed to meet, perhaps the lawsuit would not have been necessary. And iaedp would not be on the edge of collapse.
In the past few months, we again made a settlement offer to Drs. Carson, Jarhaus and Ms. Cabrera. We requested that with their attorneys present, they sit down and have a professional, frank discussion about any knowledge or information they had of iaedp. In exchange, they would be dismissed from the lawsuit. No monetary demands. No public statements demanded. Just a request to talk. Again, our efforts were rejected.
As such, the parties are now set in their positions. No further settlement discussions are anticipated. No settlement is anticipated. When all efforts to salvage what is left of iaedp have been refused, what is there to discuss? Every attempt we made to resolve all issues so that past sins could be addressed leading to a more hopeful future were rejected.
There are times in a lawsuit, if one side is pushing settlement discussions, the other side looks upon that as a sign of weakness. The opposing attorney thinks, “They recognize the holes in their own case! We can exploit this.” At times, that is accurate.
However, there is another reality. At times one side may wish to pursue settlement for a much greater purpose. By addressing past sins, and then moving forward, the needs of a community are often best served. It is a sign of being willing to work for the common good. Far from a weakness, it demonstrates strength. It is not a sign of an unwillingness to go to war. Instead, it is a willingness to exhaust all possible avenues of resolution before going to war. Because that may be in the best interest of a community. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
An expeditious, confidential settlement was in iaedp and Ms. Harken’s best interest. Especially when you consider the following facts, all of which have been confirmed as being accurate:
For a significant period of time, iaedp was not in good standing in the State of California, the state in which it was organized;
When a California organization is listed as not being in good standing, it does not have the authority to conduct business (including perhaps, overseeing and issuing board certifications);
For most of its existence, iaedp was not registered as a foreign (California) organization in the State of Illinois, its principal place of business;
When a foreign (California) organization is not properly registered in the State of Illinois, it does not have the authority to conduct business (including perhaps, overseeing and issuing board certifications);
The Illinois Secretary of State lists a number of iaedp chapters as being dissolved or not in good standing;
As a result of the lawsuit being filed, iaedp removed the requirements of symposium attendance and association membership in order to acquire or maintain board certification. This happened only after the lawsuit was filed and was one of the key issues in the case;
Some person, presumably Mr. Harken, forged the signatures of Dr. Jahraus and Ms. Cabrera on corporate documents submitted to the Illinois Secretary of State;
Presumably in order to attempt to avoid paying taxes not just to the State of California but the IRS, Ms. Harken classified herself, or at times, her non-existent corporation as an independent contractor;
The California Franchise Tax Board assessed and is collecting significant back taxes, penalties and interest from iaedp;
Even though there is a legion of documents, including Ms. Harken’s prior sworn declaration that Ms. Harken was an independent contractor, last month Ms. Harken filed a motion with the Court stating that she was an employee of iaedp. The significance of misleading the Court on this issue was to attempt to avoid liability under the racketeering laws;
As a result of Ms. Harken’s false statement about being an “employee,” Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions asking the Court to assess sanctions against Ms. Harken.
There are many other facts supporting Plaintiffs’ right to recovery in the lawsuit. However, perhaps the most significant issue may be that since iaedp was not in good standing in either California or Illinois for significant periods of time, did iaedp have the legal authority to oversee and issue board certifications during those times? That is, if you were issued your board certification when iaedp was not in good standing, is your certification valid? Is your certification basically a worthless piece of paper? And if not, what are the ramifications? Those will be questions for the Court to decide.
In litigation as in war, you achieve victory by engaging in a relentless, well-orchestrated and carefully designed plan to obtain victory and deprive your opponent of the initiative. You make your opponent pay a price higher than it expected for choosing the path of war. In litigation, an attorney has the power of the legal system. Issuing subpoenas for relevant documents not just from the named parties but also from third parties and witnesses. Deposing people who may have information of relevant facts. Uncovering lies. Exposing arrogance, greed and collusion. Discovering facts which support long held suppositions. Hundreds of hours spent on the process. The uncertainty. The unexpected.
If iaedp prevails in the lawsuit, it will attempt to continue its existence the best it can. Or if and when the plaintiffs prevail, and a judgment especially on a class wide basis is entered, many certified professionals will be eligible to receive some type of monetary compensation. However, iaedp may not have the financial resources or enough insurance in place to satisfy a large judgment. This will inevitably result in iaedp failing or declaring bankruptcy and the certification program either being adopted by another organization or falling altogether.
In any event, the eating disorder community is at a crossroads. We can only hope that the community finally comes together and proceeds in a direction that is designed to bring collaboration, wisdom and insight. We can only hope.
Your 18-year-old daughter, who is struggling with severe anorexia, desperately needs a higher level of care. Biologically, her organs are failing. You make a claim with your health insurance company. And you receive a denial.
You quickly research and then discover an Ai program utilized by the insurance company made the decision to deny saving your daughter’s life.
Welcome to the world in which we live. Where Ai programs may be making life and death decisions about your loved ones. That is the very harsh reality. So, let’s explore that reality.
First, what is “artificial intelligence?” The term itself is so vague as to be mystifying. What makes it artificial? The fact that human beings invented it? That it is silicone based instead of carbon based? Is the programmed intelligence, which is designed to learn at a rate far faster than humans can possibly comprehend, deemed artificial because it lacks a sentient existence?
Is Ai artificial because whereas it may “learn,” it does not experience the subtle nuances and life experiences which make us all unique? Does Ai have a soul? For that matter, do we?
Regardless, with Ai still being in an early stage of development, and with Ai’s developing interaction with humans, we must find ways to build guard rails so that Ai is not in a position where it could singularly make life and death decisions. Decisions which are often made by health insurance companies when deciding to pay, or not pay, for life saving surgeries or treatment. Or is it already too late?
Imagine if you will, an Ai program being utilized, without human interaction, to review and decide a claim or an appeal of a claim for a higher level of care, or to receive necessary treatment or to receive a life-saving procedure. An Ai program with no human experiences, no ethics, no soul, no subtlety, no morality. To leave our very existence in the hands of a machine, a machine that cannot love, cannot experience sorry, or joy, or happiness, or despair. And yet … that is happening. Today.
In 2020, UnitedHealth Group division Optum acquired naviHealth and its algorithm for predicting care, called nH Predict, which UnitedHealth uses and contracts out to other insurers, including Humana. Multiple industry sources estimate that Optum paid at least $1.1 billion dollars and when considering debt and related financial structuring—the purchase price is estimated to be as high as $2.5billion. When asked by the Guardian, a spokesperson for UnitedHealth Group denied that the algorithm is used to make coverage decisions. [Like when UBH denied it ran its guidelines through its accounting and finance departments?]
UnitedHealth, Humana and Cigna are facing class action lawsuits alleging the insurers unethically relied upon Ai generated algorithms to deny lifesaving care.
One of the lawsuits alleges that Cigna denied more than 300,000 claims in a two-month period. This equates to spending approximately 1.2 seconds for each presumably physician-reviewed claim. Such a practice is aided by algorithms, the lawsuit alleged.
The Cigna lawsuit also alleged that nH Predict had a 90% error rate, meaning nine out of 10 denials were reversed upon appeal – but that vanishingly few patients (about 0.2%) appeal their denied claims, leading them to pay bills out of pocket or forgo necessary treatment.
Appealing denied claims means big business. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that when insureds appeal initial denials administrative costs for insurance providers exceed $7.2 billion annually.
According to a United States Senate Report issued in October 2024, UnitedHealthcare, CVS and Humana – the three largest providers of Medicare Advantage, together provide almost 60% of all Medicare Advantage coverage – but reject prior authorization claims at higher rates using technology and automation. That report can be found here:
To support the implementation of Ai, health insurance companies argue that Ai programs streamline claims processing, more effectively flag fraud, and promise greater speed, efficiency and cost savings. They claim that by automating routine claims, Ai frees up human reviewers to focus on complex or borderline cases that require medical judgment and nuance. (For that matter, don’t all claims require medical judgment?)
Despite its alleged advantages in claims processing, Ai has faced fierce criticism, especially when its role extends to denying coverage or appeals for essential care. Ai is not immune to flaws, as its decisions depend on data quality and programming — both of which can perpetuate mistakes or systemic biases. Garbage in Garbage out.
Many Ai systems operate opaquely, leaving patients, providers, and even insurers unsure how specific decisions are made. This undermines trust and impedes meaningful appeals.
Numerous lawsuits allege that Ai tools prioritize cost-saving over medical necessity. In some cases, Ai has overridden physician recommendations, resulting in denials of rehabilitation, mental health services, or life-saving treatments.
There is a widespread perception—and often a harsh reality—that health insurers prioritize profits above the needs of their insureds. Ai tools, by automating denials or aggressively limiting coverage, can exacerbate this distrust, especially when decisions feel impersonal or unjust.
Critics argue that Ai systems are often deployed as “rubber stamps,” with little or no meaningful physician review—contravening legal and ethical obligations.
Meanwhile, states like California have moved to ban Ai-only coverage denials, signaling a wave of regulatory intervention.
As for those health insurance companies which utilize Ai alone to decide claims or appeals, the major issues focus on:
Risk of Profit-Driven Bias: Ai tools influenced by financial priorities may embed cost-saving incentives that override medical necessity, echoing problems revealed in the Wit v. UBH case.
Lack of Clinical Nuance: Ai lacks the ability to fully understand complex medical contexts or patient histories that human clinicians evaluate.
Transparency and Accountability: Patients have a right to clear explanations and meaningful appeals, which Ai-alone systems often fail to provide.
But that is where we are. Ai is being utilized by insurance companies to decide claims and appeals. Although the insurance companies may deny this fact, it is a reality. Especially since widespread use of Ai in denying claims and appeals will result in much greater profits for these companies.
To counter this reality, the future must be shaped by the following:
Stronger Regulatory Frameworks
States and potentially federal regulators are developing rules to ensure Ai complements—not replaces—human medical judgment. Requirements for physician involvement, transparency, and appeal rights are expected to expand.
Increased Legal Scrutiny
As lawsuits proceed, courts will clarify the legal boundaries of Ai’s role in coverage decisions, particularly under ERISA, Medicare Advantage rules, and consumer protection laws.
Pressure for Transparency and Explainability
Insurers may face mounting demands to disclose how Ai tools function, how decisions are made, and how patients can challenge automated denials.
Smarter, More Ethical Ai Development
Future Ai systems may incorporate safeguards to avoid wrongful denials, improve alignment with medical standards, and enhance explainability.
Ai’s exploding involvement, or interference in our lives will only increase. That is inevitable.
There is the potential that Ai can make health insurance claims processing faster, fairer, and more efficient—but only if deployed responsibly. It must address not only human fallibility but also the systemic distrust stemming from the reality that insurers prioritize profits over patients. Lessons from Wit v. UBH remind us that financial influence over clinical decisions can have devastating consequences, a cautionary tale for Ai implementation.
As courts, lawmakers, and the public demand accountability, the health insurance industry faces a pivotal choice: embrace Ai as a tool to support—not supplant—human expertise, or risk eroding trust and facing costly legal consequences.
The future of Ai in health insurance is not just a technological issue—it is a legal, ethical, and societal issue. Right now, the live of your loved one may very well depend on a machine. On Ai. A lifeless, soulless computer program devoid of all emotion, mercy and humanity.
That is our reality right now. Allow yourself to contemplate that reality and perhaps yes, be afraid. For our future depends on wisdom far greater than humanity has ever demonstrated. Our health depends on it. Our very lives depend on it.
June 2, 2025, was World Eating Disorders Action Day. (“WEDAD”) According to the organizers, “… over 300 organizations … stepped up—hosting events, launching social media campaigns and podcasts, conducting interviews, and working across borders and disciplines to make an impact on this one crucial day.”
Dra. Eva Trujillo, (whom I like and respect) was one of the drivers of WEDAD. Her quotes included:
“When we act together, our impact is stronger. We are looking for new voices, perspectives, and passionate professionals ready to serve.”
“Are we, as a field, ready to begin healing the divides within our own community? Or are we too overwhelmed trying to survive?”
“It’s a question that haunts many of us, and it’s time we face it with courage and honesty. We can’t build meaningful change externally if we remain fragmented internally. This is a moment for us—clinicians, educators, researchers, advocates, sufferers, and caregivers—to come together—not in perfect agreement but in shared purpose.”
“We must start connecting. Not by taking sides, but by building bridges, amplifying what unites us, listening more than speaking, and doing the hard work of healing, both within and beyond our professional circles.”
An officer from another organization stated:
“So, how do we begin to heal our community?”
“As organizations, we begin by reaching out to one another, recognizing each other’s strengths, sharing our own, and uniting our efforts to broaden services and support.”
“Together, we are stronger.”
Fine words. Grand words. But … just words. So, how do we put into action the concept behind those words and turn them into reality?
A few weeks ago, I attended ICED 2025 in San Antonio. [As an aside, ICED 2026 is scheduled for June 3 – 5 at … The Hague. And by wonderful coincidence, the Formula 1 Grand Prix in Monaco is scheduled for June 5 – 7! Can you say Bucket List? Super yachts in Monaco Bay. Black tie casino gambling. Incredible parties. But … I digress.]
Most of my time at ICED 2025 was spent darkening the Exhibit Booths, listening to a few presentations, swilling whiskey and having my tail handed to me playing chess in the hotel lobby. But, in my wanderings, I noticed the following organizations did not have a booth, or for that matter, any presence: NEDA, iaedp.
They were not listed as sponsors. They were not listed as exhibitors. Their CEOs were not there. (or if they were, they kept out of sight).
Perhaps that is where we must start. Or does it go deeper than that?
Let us pose some questions which surely must be asked:
Does the eating disorder community really need three (3) independent organizations, AED, iaedp and NEDA?
If so, why? Especially since all three appear to be flailing if not failing.
Isn’t it in the best interest of the families suffering from this illness that one unified, strong entity comprised of the best of those organizations be formed?
The problems and issues at each of the organizations are alarming.
iaedp is engulfed in a lawsuit which, if successful, will result in its demise and possibly the end of board certification. Iaedp also has a very large financial burden for past due taxes, penalties and interest. On its last F0rm 990, it showed a loss of $284,806.00. Since membership is no longer required to maintain board certification, its membership is dwindling. A number of iaedp individual chapters have dissolved. Its next symposium is being held in Baltimore … in the middle of winter. Iaedp’s “Members at Large” a/k/a Board of Directors is comprised of persons with no outside corporate or legal experience.
The issues at AED are also troubling. From 2020 through 2023, AED reported a total combined loss of -$658,156.00. The cancellation of billions of dollars in NIH grant funding resulted in many university professionals unwilling and unable to attend AED’s ICED and not renewing their membership. A contentious relationship with international chapters plagues AED.
NEDA, unlike AED and iaedp, showed a profit on its last Form 990. On its 2023 Form 990, it showed net revenue of $1,836,601. However, in the three prior years, it showed three consecutive losses in a combined amount of $1,913,492.00. NEDA sold its telephone helpline to the National Alliance. But, besides conducting its fun walks and awarding some grants, (for which it should be commended), has time eroded NEDA’s impact in the community?
Therapists are intimidated by research professionals. Research professionals do not have the wisdom gained from being on the front lines, that is, in the actual therapy rooms. Medical clinicians are frustrated waiting for research findings to be released. Uninformed and misguided fat activists are just causing chaos. And the wheel turns round and round with little, if any progress being made.
Dra. Trujillo acknowledged the divides which exist in the community. So, where does progress start?
Perhaps we begin with transparency. An element so missing in the eating disorder community. No organization or person in the community is inventing a cure for cancer or devising the next generation of Ai/Robotics technology. Certainly, private organizations and companies generally do not disclose financial information or voluntarily broadcast future expansion or retraction plans. But we are dealing with a mental health illness with a high mortality rate. Families are severely impacted every day. It seems as if eating disorder organizations and entities have lost sight of that reality.
And so, transparency and collaboration must start at the organizational leadership level. To start to accomplish this, accommodation and grace must be given.
Starting with iaedp’s next Symposium to be held in Baltimore in February 2026, iaedp must allow NEDA, AED, FEAST to have exhibit booths and have at least their three highest ranking officers to attend … at no cost. During the Symposium, the leaders from all organizations must meet to discuss all issues they have in common. Issues unique to each organization. The future is discussed. Planning is shared. Finally, at the end of the meeting, an open forum is convened both in person and via zoom. A forum that any concerned person can attend and ask questions, live or via the internet. The leaders share with everyone the topics of discussion and the plan of moving forward.
In 2027, at AED’s ICED to be held in Phoenix, Arizona, it is AED’s turn to host the other organizations utilizing the same format.
In 2028, these collaborative meetings may not be necessary. That is because by 2028, hopefully all major organizations will have realized that the tribal way they have done business in the past is not effective and does not work. In fact, the piecemeal, isolationist way each organization currently attempts to operate has failed. The six figure financial losses every year. Membership dwindling. As has been noted, people leading organizations have admitted that division exists in the community and needs to be healed. But these divisions cannot be healed singularly.
The old way of doing business has failed. The mortality rate worsens. The number of loved ones and families suffering continually increases. Each organization in their own way has failed and contributed to worsening the situation. So, how can we possibly proceed in the future?
The best way, the path which provides the greatest likelihood of success is to have these organizations merge into one entity. One large, collaborative organization. Therapists, medical doctors, research professionals, advocates all under one tent. Talking together in the spirit of professionalism and respect. Combining the greatest minds of different tracts to share knowledge, wisdom and ideas. Casting individual egos aside for the greater good. Bringing in corporate and legal experts to assist in reorganizing and providing many additional outlets for fundraising.
One large, all-encompassing yet diverse organization. An organization which would be able to lobby more effectively to address the true needs of the community. An organization which would be able to approach large corporations and foundations to engage their substantial resources for the purpose of working toward true breakthroughs in our understanding and treatment of eating disorders.
Now make no mistake. The obstacles are many and the challenges are great. There are those who will oppose this collaborative entity merely because it threatens their self-importance. There is a faction in the eating disorder community which actively fights against progress unless that progress exclusively involves their own pedantic points of view.
Nonetheless, the handwriting is on the wall. The commendable accomplishments of individual organizations in the past have been relegated to the past. The old way of doing business no longer works. It is not effective. That is shown by the deteriorating financial condition of these organizations, the deep divisions which exist in the community and most importantly, the number of our loved ones who continue to be taken.
Our loved ones who continue to die in ever increasing numbers.
That should be the first, middle, last and only concern of these organizations. The time is now. The future awaits. Collaboration beckons.
In the past eight (8) years, I have seen various psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, counselors, shrinks, shamans, witch doctors and a few exorcists. (It takes a special sentient being to understand the many flaws and quirks which exist within me.)
But finally, I located one whose advice was incredibly keen and insightful. It moved me so much that I got permission to record his advice and share it online.
Of course, the advice was centered on me, being a father whose 23 year old daughter died from anorexia after she fought it for many years. We explored the inevitable guilt and depressive feelings that any father would have under these circumstances.
The advice received from the many, past mental health professionals who attempted to meander through my psyche in an attempt to reach me on a deep level, pales in comparison to this advice. This advice was the most insightful, sound, strong and compassionate I received.
And then … things get strange … very strange.
What makes it strange is that the person in the above video is not a person at all … it is actually an Ai generated image. The advice? Word for word came from an Ai program. And not a program specially designed for mental health issues. But a generic ChatGPT program. The image at the start of this article? Ai generated.
Some undoubtedly knew that from the beginning. I am no impressario of Ai generated images. But other people are. People who design and perfect silicone based programs.
These programs are still in their infancy. Imagine what these programs will be like in 2 years … or 5 years … or 10 years.
As a society, we believe that these programs can never have human empathy or life experiences so they will never be as insightful as person-to-person interaction. But that also means these programs will never have issues with countertransference or the incompetence or inherent failings of human beings. Go back and listen to the words being used. This silicone based program used words we associate with compassion, with caring, with concern.
Human generated therapy software programs are here to stay. Generated images improve in depth and quality seemingly every day. Therapy software programs are evolving as they continue to expand and learn.
The question that our mental health professionals need to be asking themselves at this point should not be, “should I be incorporating these programs in my practice in some way …”
But rather … “how am I going to incorporate these programs in my practice?”
On February 7, 2025, in accordance with the Trump Administration’s mandate to eliminate waste in federal spending, the National Institute of Health (“NIH”) announced it was capping “indirect costs” on federal research grants at 15%. In addition, a number of research projects, both current and future were terminated.
Indirect costs are used to cover research expenses such as equipment and facilities maintenance, IT services, and administrative support. Indirect costs are itemized separately from direct research costs and are often expressed as a percentage. For example, an indirect cost rate of 50% means that for every dollar awarded as part of a research grant for eligible direct costs, the institution would receive an additional 50 cents to cover indirect costs.
But indirect costs are also used to fund another very important aspect of research.
Every university-based study has to go through a rigorous ethics process. All animal studies go through IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee). All human studies through an IRB (Institutional Review Board.)
Not only are studies submitted for a full ethics board review at the beginning of the study, but they must be renewed every year and any deviation from protocol, adverse event or other unforeseen result must be resubmitted and reviewed by the board. These committees include faculty members who receive a minimal salary for their time and include lay members from the community (who are also remunerated).
The review involves a substantial amount of work and basically ensures that animals used in research are being treated humanely and that people are (being treated like animals?). No, that people are treated ethically. The documentation and regulatory aspects are so complex that many universities now have a Regulatory and Compliance Officer to assist in the tracking of all aspects of these research grants.
Without the IRB and IACUC there can be no research. If the university administration decides to “break” the current indirect system, the ethics structures would also break, and this would be another way in which research would screech to a halt.
So, the question must be asked, how did we get here?
In 2023 the NIH invested $35 billion in research through 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers at 2,500 universities/research institutions. Of the $35 billion, $26 billion was for the ‘direct cost’ of the research and $9 billion (26%) was for indirect costs.
In its February 7, 2025, announcement, the NIH said its 15% cap on indirect cost could save $4 billion annually. On the surface, this cap may seem reasonable.
So, why is the 15% cap causing such turmoil in academia?
First, it came from the Trump Administration. Since many people in academia look upon President Trump as evil, or the anti-Christ, or a Fascist or Hitler incarnate, they look upon anything he does as bad for the Republic.
Undoubtedly part of the angst was also caused by the heavy-handed manner in which the announcement was made, and the cuts implemented. Giving universities only one weekend to absorb the news, conduct meetings and conferences, and undertake a search to locate and receive other sources of funding is patently unreasonable. Budgets had been set, scholarships and employment for university professionals had been scheduled in part based on the indirect grant costs. To presume that universities could undertake all actions necessary to continue research projects in the span of 48 hours is unrealistic.
But there are two sides to a coin and two edges to every sword.
So, why did this happen?
Some pundits speculate that DEI is the underlying culprit. And the heavy-handed manner in which DEI has been foisted upon the American public.
DEI is an incredibly nuanced, complex, multi-faceted topic. At its core, it attempts to address the manner in which we, as a just and fair society can and must stride forward into a bold future. A future filled with hope for all. When properly implemented, DEI provides greater opportunities for those who have been traditionally overlooked.
Microsoft created a neurodiversity hiring program targeting individuals with autism and other neurological differences.
Johnson & Johnson invested in a supplier diversity program to support owned by minorities, veterans and people with disabilities.
When implemented by diverse, intelligent persons from both ends of the political spectrum, DEI can be intelligently utilized to provide greater opportunities. That requires collaboration by people of differing opinions and backgrounds.
That is one of the ways where Academia fails.
Academia pushes an identity-based approach to DEI encouraging people to define themselves by race, gender and victimhood rather than by merit and responsibility. This mindset focuses on resentment instead of ambition.
Regarding DEI and equality, Academia and liberals tend to focus on equality of outcome (does everyone have the same things?).
Corporations and conservatives tend to focus on equality of opportunity (is everyone treated the same?).
The undeniable reality is that on its surface and as utilized by Academia, DEI is fundamentally discriminatory. DEI asserts that representation must be based on an end product or result evidencing broad based inclusion regardless of merit. This attempts to address the horrific scourge of past discrimination by engaging in horrific acts of future discrimination.
Under the Biden Administration, DEI and research grants flourished.
However, a society which distorts history is not advancing. It is regressing. One of the great failures of multiculturalism is its rejection of assimilation. The process by which different cultures blend into a shared identity rather than remaining separate factions. We must focus on merit and opportunity. Not grievance.
So, what must be done now?
The old system of applying for and pursuing grants is over. Quite frankly, it should be. The eating disorder research community has suffered far too long at the hands of a radical element which places their social justice and political views over families. Those people who have ignored and derided the medical community in order to showcase their own dysfunctions and inner turmoil.
Tragically, it is now the university research professionals who are paying the price for this ignorance as their research funding has been reduced or eliminated.
In the short term, there is not much the university-based research professionals can do. Except pray that the various pending lawsuits result in favorable outcomes.
Certainly, GoFundMe accounts are not the answer. Unless hundreds of thousands of dollars are contributed through GoFundMe accounts, those GoFundMe efforts approach questionable ethical boundaries. A few thousand dollars will do nothing to replace the lost funding. They are symbolic at best.
But the long term?
First universities and researchers must have a greater understanding of the possible return of investment for grants. Universities must become more like the private sector. They must have vision as to how research is applicable to the understanding and treatment of illnesses in the real world. Not social justice issues. Not radical political issues.
As such, universities must mandate that the focus of research be applied to medically based, science supported issues. A commonly cited factor for NIH allocation decisions is scientific opportunity. Universities and institutes are typically looking for the best and most innovative research.
However, an important question is whether research on the same diseases remains on the forefront of discovery for many years. It is difficult to accept, given the constancy of funding across diseases, that the relative likelihood of scientific breakthroughs varies in the same way across diseases now as it did 10 or even 20 years earlier.
Disease-specific advocacy also plays an important role in NIH funding. Although advocates’ success in garnering congressional support for research can lead to higher overall NIH budgets, most advocacy groups focus on specific diseases. Some of the extra funding that certain diseases obtain could be the result of these efforts.
This means that medical and scientific aspects of an illness must be emphasized and placed at the forefront of a study. Research which involves social justice issues or denying science not only will not get funded, but they cause harm to the community.
Private foundations and large corporations want to know exactly how your research study will improve the lives of their employees or the people their foundation supports.
University professionals must determine the manner in which emerging technologies and synthetically created intelligence platforms will become involved in the subject about which their research addresses. Ai is not just here to stay, but it is growing and learning at an alarming rate. If a researcher does not have a firm grasp on emerging creations and technologies and how that impacts his/her study … they are wasting their time.
Universities can partner with research and development liaison organizations. Those organizations can find suitable collaborative outside entities who will invest money to cover in part, those indirect costs. A failure to do will result in overall failure.
For that matter, there are a number of private equity companies and a few publicly traded companies which own hundreds of mental health treatment centers across the United States. These entities have literally billions of dollars of assets and resources at their disposal. Imagine the epic advances and increased knowledge of eating disorders, including state of the art treatment protocols which could be discovered and implemented through … collaboration. This type of collaborative effort would not only lead to breakthroughs in treatment resulting in a legion of lives being saved, but as another benefit, would result in increased profits for those companies.
There are solutions. Ready solutions. However, finding the right solution can be difficult and confusing.
In order to discover a brave new world, we must embrace strength, resolve, intelligence, collaboration and faith. Without those qualities, we will remain lost. And knowledge and advancement will be stifled.
A DAD'S JOURNEY WITH EATING DISORDERS 