Tag Archives: anxiety

DSM Steering Committee Proposal

The DSM Steering Committee is recommending changes to the severity specifier levels of anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge eating disorder. The changes are intended to emphasize the importance of symptom severity, functional impairment, and illness-related medical complications rather than relying on a range of BMI levels (anorexia nervosa), episodes of inappropriate compensatory behaviors (bulimia nervosa), and episodes of binge eating (binge-eating disorder). The updated severity levels will also be more comparable to the severity of other disorders in the DSM.

The recommended changes can be found here:

https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/proposed-changes#:~:text=Description%20of%20Proposed%20Change:,other%20disorders%20in%20the%20DSM

So, what does this actually mean?

First, the American Psychiatric Association has not yet agreed to change the DSM severity criteria for anorexia, bulimia, and binge eating disorder. This is a proposal, not an adoption.

Let’s review what the APA adoption process looks like.

Proposals are submitted: Changes to diagnostic criteria, additions, deletions, etc., are submitted by clinicians and researchers through the APA’s DSM proposal portal.

Next comes the Steering Committee Review. The DSM Steering Committee and specialized Review Committees assess the proposals for scientific evidence, clinical utility, and reliability. If the Steering Committee finds a proposal promising, it is posted for public comment.

The next step is the Final Steering Committee Recommendation. The Steering Committee issues a formal recommendation (either for approval or rejection/modification).

Finally, Steering Committee recommendations must then be approved by the APA Board of Trustees and Assembly before changes are incorporated into the DSM or DSM-5-TR.

With this review procedure in place, let us now look at how often proposals are rejected.

First, I could not locate any websites which show a published rate of rejection. But empirical examples from analyses of the initial iterative revision experience following DSM-5 publication exist.

In a report on the first 3 years of the iterative revision process twenty-nine (29) proposals were received.

These proposals resulted in a few successful changes: addition of prolonged grief disorder, modifications to existing criteria (e.g., ARFID), and inclusion of new codes.

One proposal was explicitly rejected by the APA Board.

17 proposals were returned to the submitters with requests for additional supporting data but not adopted as submitted.

Two proposals were rejected without further review due to conceptual issues.

Others were deferred or still under review.

Therefore, of the 29 proposals in the first three (3) years, it appears as if at least twenty (20) were not approved for inclusion in the DSM-5 or DSM-5-TR. While not a formal percentage, a substantial proportion of proposals (in this case, more than half of those submitted) did not directly result in adopted changes in that period — either rejected outright, deferred for more evidence, or modified significantly before acceptance.

Key points to understand from this process are approval is multistage. Even if the Steering Committee recommends a change, it still must pass approval by the APA Board of Trustees and Assembly. Importantly and statistically, the greatest impediment appears to be lack of data. The majority of proposals are returned for additional evidence rather than adopted, showing how stringent the criteria are on empirical support. Finally, the iterative process means ongoing evaluation: The APA’s current model for DSM revision is deliberately iterative and evidence-driven, which tends to minimize adoption of weakly supported proposals.

Also, the DSM is just a general guideline tool. APA’s practice guideline includes a “Statement of Intent” “… that the guideline should not be considered a statement of the standard of care and does not mandate any particular course of medical care and is not a substitute for independent clinical judgment.”

The DSM guidelines are NOT a generally accepted standard of care. In fact, there is no generally accepted standard of care (“GASC”) for eating disorders. This is a huge negative factor which has been haunting the eating disorder community for years.

That factor was decisive in the Wit v. UBH case.

In Wit v. United Behavioral Health, the district court held (and the Ninth Circuit largely left intact for this purpose) that:

An insurer’s internal guidelines are enforceable if they do not conflict with generally accepted standards of care.

Crucially, Wit did not require insurers to mirror professional association guidance, nor did it require guidelines to be optimal or patient-favorable … only that they not contradict the GASC.

This creates a binary inquiry:

If GASC exists and the insurance guideline contradicts it → unenforceable

If GASC is absent, unsettled, or heterogeneous → insurer discretion survives

That premise is decisive for eating-disorder claims. Unlike many medical conditions, eating disorders suffer from persistent standard of care fragmentation. There is no universally accepted level-of-care criteria. There are competing frameworks (APA, AACAP, SAHM, insurer-developed tools, proprietary LOC criteria). There is variation in reliance on: BMI; % expected body weight; Vital sign instability; Functional impairment; Psychiatric risk; Trajectory vs. snapshot severity.

Because no unified GASC exists, insurers can plausibly argue, “Our guideline does not contradict generally accepted standards—because no single standard exists to contradict.”

That argument has been repeatedly successful in eating-disorder denial litigation.

On a positive note, the Steering Committee proposal would reframe DSM severity specifiers for AN, BN, and BED. It would emphasize: Functional impairment; Symptom severity; Medical complications; Explicitly de-emphasize single-metric severity determinations (BMI/frequency counts).

However, and importantly:

It does not eliminate BMI for insurance company consideration;

It does not establish level-of-care rules;

It does not declare BMI-based criteria invalid;

It does not override APA’s SOC disclaimers.

So even if adopted, it would be diagnostic and descriptive, not prescriptive advisory nor normative.

Under Wit v. UBH, the DSM Steering Committee’s proposal, while clinically significant, would not materially constrain insurer claim handling absent a broader, enforceable consensus standard of care for eating disorders, which still does not exist.

Regarding the Steering Committee Proposal, there is a one-month public comment window [Until January 9, 2026]. It is critical that the APA hears from intelligent voices. Voices which supply objective data, medical evidence and information, independent authoritative research studies.

Undoubtedly, activists will also be submitting their lived experience stories claiming they are dispositive. And whereas they are certainly a part of the equation, collaborative messaging which shows unity and a collective strong voice is more important than ever before.

If you are struggling with the substance of the comments you wish to make, The International Federation of Eating Disorder Dietitians on its website has suggested comments. This page also has extensive background on the evolution of this initiative. (And yes, thanks to Jessica Setnick should definitely go out!):

IFEDD Advocacy Initiatives

That is the only way in which true evolution and change are possible.

Board Certification Chaos: How Disunity and Private Equity Diluted the Community

Few areas of mental health care illustrate dysfunction as clearly as the eating disorder board certification industry.

What began decades ago as a grassroots movement of passionate clinicians, dietitians, and advocates has metastasized into a labyrinth of overlapping credentials, proprietary “certifications,” and glossy corporate training programs.

Today, the United States alone boasts well over one hundred distinct eating disorder related certifications. This is more than that which exist for all other major psychiatric conditions … combined. For schizophrenia, there are fewer than a dozen. For depression, arguably the world’s most common mental illness, maybe two dozen. For autism, a total of ten programs. For eating disorders?

This is a table listing eating disorder related certifications:

The eating-disorder field, serving a far smaller patient population, is drowning in certificates, credentials, and branded “specialist” designations. And more are seemingly arriving every month.

This glut is not a sign of progress. To the contrary. It is the predictable outcome of a profession with no unified standards, no central accrediting authority, no ethical oversight, and an increasingly privatized treatment economy driven less by patient outcomes than by returns on investment and profiteering perpetrated by individuals and their egos.

The Great Credential Free-for-All

Unlike psychiatry or psychology fields with centralized boards and accreditation bodies, the eating disorder community has no single regulatory anchor. Instead, numerous competing organizations (IAEDP, AED, NEDA, ANAD, APT, and others) define “competence” differently and seldom recognize each other’s credentials.

The result is a credential arms race. Clinicians seeking legitimacy often accumulate multiple certifications, not because each adds new expertise, but because no one can agree which ones actually matter. Every theoretical school, CBT-E, DBT, FBT, ACT, somatic, trauma-informed, HAES®, intuitive eating, and more has spawned its own “certifying institute.”

With no governing framework, anyone can create a credential. And many have. Do you want to include social justice and political issues? Blame White Supremacy Culture? Blame the white man for all mental health issues? Create a certification program which does not include any information on ethics, or state-of-the-art medical and biological treatment? No involvement of diverse persons in creating a certification program? Extensively utilize information that is well known and has been in the community for many years? Sure! Why not? Who is going to say you cannot?

When Certification Becomes a Branding Exercise

This fragmentation might have remained a benign inconvenience if not for a second, more corrosive force: monetizing eating disorder certification through the rise of private equity.

Over the last decade, investment firms have used their monopoly power to control the narrative and then, consolidated the treatment landscape. In doing so, they squeezed the very life out of the field one dollar at a time. Large PE-backed treatment centers now own a majority of residential and intensive outpatient programs in the United States. And yet, at least one CEO of private equity owned treatment center testified in a sworn affidavit that the private equity owners prioritized profit over patient care. And patient care was compromised.

Private equity’s influence reshaped everything, from staffing ratios to program philosophy, but nowhere is the shift more visible than in education and credentialing. Under investor ownership, training is no longer an act of professional stewardship; it’s a marketing opportunity. Corporate chains launch internal “training academies” that sell branded certifications to staff and outside clinicians. Certification has become the new advertising … a low-cost, high-margin product that projects authority and generates revenue.

The loans to the investors are not simply going to pay themselves. Additional streams of revenue must be found to meet the financial demands.

Disunity as a Business Model

Eating Disorder organizations have failed to coordinate standards because fragmentation serves their financial interests. Each group has its own alleged proprietary curriculum, fees, and renewal dues. Collaboration would mean shared intelligence, information, revenue and control. Research and data would be collaboratively shared. For the first time the term, “evidence-based” would have substantive merit instead of simply being a vacuous catch phrase without any real meaning, without definition and without regulation.

Private equity masterfully exploits this vacuum. Without a single regulating body to enforce quality benchmarks, PE-backed centers can market themselves as the “gold standard” simply by aligning with whichever certification best fits their brand narrative. Or better yet, simply create your own standard of demonstrating expertise. No matter how many patients are abused, groped, or treated as if they were mere grist ground down by the mill of greed and incompetence, any treatment center can claim they are the “gold standard.”

Since they are privately owned, they can operate in the shadow of secrecy with information, which at best may be shared with their fellow PE owned overlords at quarterly meetings. Meetings which are conducted clandestinely, never to be disclosed to the families which need the highest level of care.

The Human Cost of Credential Inflation

For patients and families, the consequences are not academic, they’re life-altering. A parent searching for specialized care for a child with anorexia may encounter a clinician advertising six or more “certifications,” yet none of those credentials guarantee the provider has completed supervised ED training, worked within a multidisciplinary team, or met any validated competency benchmarks.

This blurring of standards enables underqualified practitioners to enter the field under the guise of expertise. Genuine experts are forced to buy legitimacy through redundant credentials simply to remain competitive in a marketplace driven by SEO and optics rather than outcomes.

The Wellness Economy and the Collapse of Accountability

The eating disorder arena overlaps with the $5 trillion wellness industry, which thrives on micro-credentialing. Nonclinical players, nutrition coaches, yoga instructors, and social media influencers alike obtain “eating disorder informed” certifications online, sometimes in less than a weekend.

Education has been replaced by branding. Evidence based care is replaced by radical social justice brain washing. If a person is offended by society, they need only slap an inflammatory label on the issue and not worry about its nuances. Congratulations! You have just become certified as an “Inclusive” board certified expert. The result is a field saturated with worthless credentials but starved for accountability.

Questions which should be asked are not being asked. For example, what new information does your certification program provide that was not already public knowledge in the community? Did, and does, your certification program include research professionals, medical doctors, dietitians, mental health experts, or even any men on its advisory board? Did you collaborate with any organizations or treatment centers when you were creating your program? What specialized knowledge does your organization have which other organizations do not possess? Do you have any agendas outside of providing necessary care for families suffering from eating disorders? How is your certification program going to lower the appalling mortality rate of eating disorders? Objectively speaking, how and why is your certification program an improvement over that which is already in the public domain?

Without substantive answers to these questions, professionals are left with a meaningless diploma … and simply more innocuous initials to put after your preferred pronouns.

A Perfect Storm of Profit and Disunity

Disunity and privatization feed each other. Lack of collaboration creates a vacuum; private equity monetizes it. The proliferation of proprietary programs generates revenue and brand differentiation but erodes professional credibility. Without regulation, there is no penalty for low standards, only rewards for market dominance.

The tragedy is that eating-disorder professionals entered this field to help patients including those most often marginalized by healthcare systems and diet culture. Yet through disunity and commodification, the field has allowed itself to become a marketplace rather than a discipline. Every new certification minted without oversight or accountability is another crack in the foundation of public trust.

Until collaboration replaces competition, and professionalism and the priority of patients triumph over profit, the eating disorder treatment industry will remain a cautionary tale: proof that when market logic outruns moral logic, vapid expertise becomes just another product for sale.

Nine Years Beyond the Darkest Night: Grief, Truth, and Hope for Greater Tomorrows

On October 30, 2016, my beloved daughter Morgan died after battling eating disorders for seven (7) long years. She was 23 years old when she was taken. At the moment of her death, when a daddy hears those dark words, “She’s gone” though he may not know it at the time, the better part of him is also ripped away.

Morgan was brilliant, kind, and fiercely determined to get well. She thought of others, often before her own needs. Her own words, “I can seem to help everyone else … I just can’t help myself” is her legacy. And yet, those very words still haunt her daddy every day.

When those words and the reality of a loss no parent should ever have to suffer are combined with the state of the eating disorder community today, you realize that there will be many more of our loved ones condemned to share the same fate which took my daughter… unless a seismic change is forthcoming.

A System Without a Compass

Even at that time, the system that claimed to know how to help Morgan had no map, no unity, and tragically, no accountability. Nearly a decade later, the eating disorder community is in even greater disarray. There are still no generally accepted treatment guidelines … no consensus on what works, no uniform standards for care, no consistency from one program to another and no accountability nor consequences. If you send your child for treatment, what happens next depends less on science and more on which center you happen to find, and what ideology dominates that space.

The Vanishing of Science and the Rise of Ideology

The dire crisis in the community has worsened as grant funding for research dries up. Federal and private funders have largely turned their attention to other mental health priorities, leaving eating disorder research chronically underfunded. Few new studies are being published, and the next generation of researchers is dwindling. Research professionals and medical clinicians on the front lines rarely collaborate. In this vacuum, ideological movements have filled the void … often louder, more absolutist, more absurd and less accountable to data or outcomes.

Militant factions within the “body liberation” movement now control far too much of the public conversation in the community. They label professionals, clinicians and even families in a gross, inflammatory manner. Anyone who speaks about weight restoration or malnutrition is labeled as “fatphobic.” White Supremacy Culture. Invasive species. Utilizing every “ism” word possible. Complex medical and psychiatric illnesses are reframed as political identity issues. The result? A silencing of nuance and a dangerous confusion between eating disorder treatment and radical social activism. Inflammatory labeling has become the substitute for reasoned professional, collaborative communication. And our loved ones suffer.

Private Equity and the Hollowing Out of Care

At the same time, private equity–owned treatment centers, once the great hope for scaling access, are collapsing under the weight of their own failed business models. Many have failed outright or are surviving only by slashing costs: laying off medical doctors who served as full time employees, replacing them with part time independent contractors and inexperienced working staff. Running skeletal programs that cannot provide the continuous, multidisciplinary care our loved ones require. The result is a race to the bottom: more marketing, fewer doctors, more “coaches,” less medicine. No accountability nor consequences.

Families are left navigating glossy websites and sales teams instead of evidence-based programs. If a family wishes to speak with the medical director of a program before entrusting their child to that program … good luck. Insurance denials come faster than ever. Inpatient stays are shorter. Step-down programs are often nonexistent.

When Morgan was fighting for her life, I wondered whether the lack of care was a failure of coordination. I no longer wonder. It has never been clearer that it was and continues to be, a failure of values.

A Community in Financial and Moral Crisis

The largest eating disorder nonprofit organizations, long believed to be the moral anchors of the community, are collapsing financially some losing more than $200,000 per year. Echo chamber thinking and associated conduct have replaced outreach to professionals who respectfully disagree with their view. Where at one time, these organizations were led by persons of vision, true giants of the community, now with very few exceptions, they are led by boards who shrink away from transparency, oversight and responsibility. These organizations host conferences and awareness campaigns, but their impact is negligible at best and failing at worst.

Their messaging has grown vacuous and timid, shaped more by the politics of social media than the needs of our loved ones. Once they were advocates for treatment access and medical rigor; now too often, they stand meekly on the sidelines … mere bystanders to the on-going carnage.

The Human Cost

The price paid for the wholesale failure of the community is measured by the dearest blood possible … the lives of our loved ones. The mortality rate for eating disorders, already the highest among psychiatric illnesses [apart from opioid addiction] has worsened. Suicide and medical complications are climbing. The promise that “recovery is possible” rings increasingly hollow to families who can’t even get a proper diagnosis, let alone a full course of the highest quality medical and mental health care. Which results in:

Behind every number is a person, a victim. Behind every person is a family like mine, standing outside a treatment center, a hospital, a counselor’s office, desperately holding on to the only thing they can … that is, the fading hope that this time will be different.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Families are entitled to transparency. Accountability. Honesty. From our doctors, clinicians, and counselors. Families should demand nothing less. But, to accomplish this reality, we not only need an evolution of thought and wisdom … we require a bold reckoning. The eating disorder community must reclaim science, ethics, and accountability. The community can only provide those necessary qualities by demanding:

  • The adoption of national treatment guidelines grounded in evidence, not ideology.
  • Federal, state and philanthropic investment in clinical research and longitudinal outcomes.
  • Oversight of private treatment companies that market medical care that is not forthcoming as it  sheds experienced medical practitioners and licensed staff.
  • Strong, bold, new leadership in nonprofit organizations that prioritize patients over politics.
  • Measured inclusion of all reasonable, rational, intelligent viewpoints and persons.

But these steps require a courage of conviction… conviction which is sorely lacking.

Not just Morgan, but all those who have died from eating disorders cannot die in vain. But until we admit that this system and community are broken, until we expose the silence, the failures, the charlatans, thed fraud and the fear … we will keep losing more daughters, more sons, more loved ones, more years of life.

The eating disorder community once promised healing. Today, it must fight simply to survive. For survive it must. But in an evolved, intelligent, collaborative manner.

The very lives of our loved ones depend upon it.

EQUITABLE MENTAL HEALTH CARE AWAITS

Two of the more troubling topics confronting mental health communities are: (1). Lack of Minority Representation in the Mental Health Workforce and (2). Limited Accessibility of Mental Health Care in Minority Communities.

We will be focusing on exploring real world, workable solutions instead of using inflammatory labels, pointing fingers and embracing the litany of “isms” being cavalierly thrown around.

Any solution necessarily begins with starting and having open, collaborative conversations. While recognizing that a start is just that … a start and not a solution. And yet, from that start perhaps seeds are planted from which bold, forward-thinking initiatives grow which could ultimately result in a better world.

Increasing Minority Representation in the Mental Health Workforce

No one disputes that minority representation in the mental health workforce is grossly lacking. So, let’s address some of the issues which produced this inequity and explore possible solutions.

1. Financial Pathway Support

Problem: The cost and duration of training (graduate degrees, licensure) are major barriers for minority students.

Possible Solutions:

  • Targeted scholarships and loan repayment programs for minority students in psychology, psychiatry, counseling, and social work (e.g., HRSA’s Behavioral Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program could be expanded or localized).
  • Paid internships and residencies in community-based organizations serving minority populations.
  • Employer-based tuition reimbursement tied to post-graduation service commitments in underserved areas.

2. Pipeline Programs (High School → Graduate School)

Problem: Minority students are underrepresented early in the pipeline.

Possible Solutions:

  • Create “Grow Your Own” mental health workforce programs in high schools and community colleges — exposure to mental health careers, mentorship, and clinical shadowing.
  • Partner with HBCUs, HSIs, and Tribal Colleges to create joint degree or accelerated pathways into counseling, psychology, and psychiatric nursing.
  • Establish bridge programs for paraprofessionals (e.g., caseworkers or peer specialists) to obtain advanced clinical credentials.

3. Licensure and Training Reform

Problem: Licensure barriers disproportionately impact minority and bilingual professionals.

Possible Solutions:

  • Reciprocity agreements among states to ease cross-state licensing for clinicians serving telehealth clients.
  • Allow supervised hours to include culturally competent community-based or telehealth work, not just traditional clinical settings.
  • Bilingual competency credits or pathways for professionals providing care in multiple languages.

4. Mentorship and Professional Networks

Problem: Isolation and lack of role models lead to attrition.

Possible Solutions:

  • Fund minority mentorship programs through professional associations (e.g., APA, NASW, NBCC).
  • Develop online professional communities for peer support and continuing education focused on serving minority communities.

There are no “zero sum game” arguments. No white people must step aside. No looking backward as to what was previously done wrong. No obsessing on the past.

Simply a possible roadmap to start discussions to increase minority mental health providers.

This is going to become even more important in the future as research scientists increasingly discover additional biological links between the brain and mental health issues. We could be at the genesis of a bold new frontier regarding how mental health issues are studied, researched and treated. We need all persons to be involved in this process.

With this reality facing us, how do we increase accessibility of mental health care?

Increasing Accessibility of Mental Health Care to Minority Communities

Mental health care providers, resources and treatment centers must become more available and accessible in minority communities. Let’s explore how we can start to address this issue.

1. Community-Based and Culturally Anchored Services

Problem: Mainstream clinical settings in minority communities are few and far between and when they do exist, can feel unwelcoming or irrelevant.

Possible Solutions:

  • Fund community-based organizations, churches, and cultural centers to offer embedded mental health services (e.g., co-located clinics).
  • Recruit faith leaders, barbers, and cultural ambassadors as mental health liaisons trained in Mental Health First Aid or peer support.
  • Support mobile crisis units staffed with culturally and linguistically matched professionals.

2. Telehealth Expansion and Equity

Problem: Digital divides and lack of culturally competent telehealth platforms persist.

Possible Solutions:

  • Subsidize broadband and devices for patients in rural or low-income minority areas.
  • Require telehealth platforms to support multilingual access and easy interfaces.
  • Train clinicians in telehealth cultural competence (e.g., cross-cultural communication online).

3. Insurance and Reimbursement Reform

Problem: Minority-serving clinics often cannot sustain services due to poor reimbursement rates.

Possible Solutions:

  • Equal reimbursement for behavioral health and physical health under parity laws (and enforce it). [This requirement is already provided by federal law. Insurance companies have found ways to avoid or get around this requirement.  These loopholes must be closed by legislative bodies.]
  • Expand Medicaid coverage for peer support specialists and community health workers.
  • Incentivize integrated care models (behavioral + primary care) in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and minority-owned practices.

4. Public Awareness and Trust-Building

Problem: Stigma and mistrust are major deterrents.

Possible Solutions:

  • Fund anti-stigma campaigns featuring diverse community voices and lived experiences.
  • Partner with trusted local messengers (e.g., influencers, pastors, tribal elders).
  • Offer mental health literacy programs in schools and workplaces, especially in minority-majority areas.

Of course, all of this is not probable unless there is greater policy, corporate, institutional and legislative support. This support could resemble the following:

Policy and Institutional Support

  • Data collection and accountability: Require reporting of workforce demographics, service access, and outcomes disaggregated by race/ethnicity.
  • Federal and state grants: Prioritize funding for programs demonstrably improving minority recruitment and retention.
  • Cross-sector collaboration: Involve education, housing, and criminal justice systems in joint mental health equity initiatives.

An “Integrated Implementation Model” could be structured as follows:

Minority Mental Health Workforce Accelerator (state-level example):

  • Provides full scholarships and living stipends to minority students pursuing behavioral health degrees.
  • Requires 3–5 years of post-graduation service in designated shortage areas.
  • Operates mentorship and continuing education programs led by culturally competent practitioners.
  • Partners with community-based agencies that receive reimbursement incentives for hosting trainees.

The mental health field, particularly the eating disorder community, talks of the need to increase minority mental health providers and the necessity of having greater access to mental health care for minorities. The community is absolutely correct. But that is as far as rational discussions go.

More often than not, discussions take place in an echo chamber. The community points fingers at the patriarchy, white supremacy culture, the diet culture and apply many other inflammatory labels … and nothing is accomplished. The community is defined by the past. A failed past. Instead of embracing a bold future.

Solutions to provide mental health care for our minority population can only be found by looking to the future. A future filled with hope and unlimited possibilities.

Inflammatory Labeling = No Progress

The mental health system in the United States is inundated with inequities and is hindered by limited access to care. Universal complaints about mental health include gross underfunding of services, provider shortages, fragmented care between mental and physical health, inadequate insurance coverage and widespread stigma that creates policy and opportunity barriers for people with mental illness. No one disputes that reality.

When significant cultural issues confront us and change is demanded, generally there are two types of people.

There are those people who lead, who are people of vision. They recognize and identify the problems and then commit to explore workable, rational, obtainable, collaborative solutions. These people who will negotiate with Satan himself if it leads to more people receiving the help they so desperately need.

Then there are “the ROYS.” In Texas, that acronym stands for “Rest of Y’alls.” This constitutes the vast majority of people. Those who are content with only complaining about the problems without being willing to invest in finding a rational, reasoned, collaborative solutions. When facing those issues, they immerse themselves deeper in their tribes safely ensconced in the comfort of their echo chamber. They are satisfied with whining and applying inflammatory labels to the issues. Their egos and fears drive their lack of vision. They refuse to interact with anyone who does not agree with them.

With that backdrop, how may we presume the eating disorder advocacy/therapist community responds to the daunting issues confronting mental health in general, and eating disorders specifically?

In the past few years, I have spoken with research professionals, medical doctors, therapists and advocates about the state of the eating disorder community. All seem to be unanimous in their view that things have never been worse in the eating disorder industry and communities.

As such, it should come as no surprise that the community seems largely content to address daunting, societal mental health issues by fostering divisiveness through utilizing inflammatory labels on their websites, publications and even a purported certification program. In general, inflammatory labels are cavalierly directed toward other people in the community, but only from a person’s keyboard.

So, what is inflammatory labeling? Inflammatory labeling is just as it sounds. It is when we assign highly negative or even cruel labels to people or organizations.

Focusing on inflammatory labels instead of solutions in social justice movements, or for that matter in any context, hinders progress by reducing complex issues to oversimplified caricatures. This practice intensifies social divides, alienates potential allies, and prioritizes outrage over tangible reforms. While rhetoric is central to advocacy, the way it is framed can either drive constructive dialogue or deteriorate into unproductive polarization.

Studies on social movements have found that extreme or inflammatory rhetoric, including labeling, tends to decrease public support for a cause. This is because such tactics reduce the average person’s sense of identification with the movement, making it difficult to find common ground. Inflammatory labels simplify people into negative stereotypes, making it harder to recognize their full humanity.

This reflects the sociological concept of “labeling theory,” which posits that assigning a negative label can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy and further entrench deviance. Labeling opponents with charged terms can create a binary “us vs. them” mentality, making it difficult to challenge ideas through reasoned debate. Instead of addressing the complexities of an issue, discourse devolves into a culture war of labels, name calling, and finger pointing all of which obscures real policy solutions.

By way of example, radical eating disorder activists casually throw out inflammatory labels like:

There are so many others: White Privilege, Whitestream Research, toxic masculinity. These inflammatory terms of derision are directed at anyone who does not agree with their viewpoints as well as the mainstream medical and mental health communities. In addition, the term “invasive species” is even being used to define or refer to the same White Supremacy Culture and people and organizations which fall under that umbrella. And that is supposed to be productive?

As for any proposed practical, realistic collaborative solutions to address the inequities in mental health care? They propose none.

A few years ago, a small group of people published a letter directed at eating disorder organizations and treatment centers. Amongst the demands made in the letter included: providing reparations to Black People, Indigenous people and People of Color, (“BIPOC”) especially queer and transgender BIPOC; hiring a transgender consultant to revise your marketing material; establishing sliding fee scales for BIPOC, transgender and gender diverse clients; redistributing wealth from the for-profit ED treatment world; providing access to Hormone Replacement Therapy.

Other radical activists equate mental health research and treatment as a zero sum game. That BiPOC, LGBTQ+, fat therapists and professionals must be centered and that there is no space for white, straight and thin people to jump in. Or that white, liberal female therapists should focus more of their attention on social justice issues and political reform in all they do.

Of course, in the unlikely event the latter ever happened, those therapists would then be labeled as White Saviors and would be publicly eviscerated in the town square ala Lindo Bacon.

There must be a way. Other than inflammatory labeling, whining and complaining, what possible solutions exist which could be explored to address some of the inequities in mental health care systems?

Inequities which include far too few medical doctors, therapists, counselors and other medical and mental health professionals who are BIPOC. Minority and BIPOC communities are far underserved. Medical school training largely ignores eating disorders and BIPOC issues. Far too few BIPOC persons receive mental health care. Access to meaningful mental health care is severely limited for BIPOC persons. Research has not included significant BIPOC participation. Mental health care can be prohibitively expensive.

These complex, daunting issues require collaborative wisdom. And when progress is made on these issues, as they surely must be, this necessarily will result in a more enlightened society. So, the question must be asked again … how are name calling, tribal mentality and inflammatory labeling going to be remotely effective in addressing these serious issues? Answer … they aren’t.

A roadmap does exist for systemic mental health reform in the U.S., prioritizing enforceable, high-impact interventions first while building toward longer-term initiatives. The roadmap assumes some federal and state collaboration, leveraging funding, licensing, audits, and measurable metrics. But it is possible. It will not be easy. It will require participation, wisdom and sacrifice from society as a whole. It will require us looking past our human frailties and being bold and forward thinking. But it is possible.

And so, we will address that roadmap next.

RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION ?

Recently, after expressing my views on the eating disorder community and its many dysfunctions, I was informed by an “eating disorder advocate” that I only had “righteous indignation.” In the past, this same person also opined that I was in the eating disorder community solely to make money.

Righteous indignation? Solely to make money? Let me answer both plainly: my anger is earned, and my motives are grief-forged — not mercenary. I paid my entry fee into this dysfunctional community with the dearest blood possible: my daughter’s. I did not come here to be liked, or to join the chorus of vapid, comfortable, egomaniacal voices. I came because someone I loved was ripped from life. Silence would be complicity.

Make no mistake, there are some incredible, soulful, intelligent, compassionate souls in the eating disorder community. Unfortunately, they largely remain silent, on the sidelines. Fearful of being ostracized or cancelled by the hate filled, social justice warriors.

I wish with every fiber of my being that I was not in this decaying eating disorder community. I wish that I did not know even one person in this horrifically comical, appalling community. For that would mean my daughter, Morgan lived. But since she died, I will allow my “righteous indignation” to illuminate what having a beloved child ripped from life is like.

Sunday nights in an intensive care unit in a hospital in a large city can be very quiet.  But, not for you. You hear the ear shattering blaring of alarms, screaming out “Code Blue.”  Death is sounding for your daughter. Death has come for you!

With panic in your eyes, you look into her room and cannot even count the number of hospital employees trying to bring her back to life. For at that moment, she is dead. Her heart is not beating. And you feel nothing at that point.  The greatest fear a parent can face has you in its powerful, icy grip. Your brain has stopped working. You are not aware of anything… except the frantic efforts to bring her back to life. Finally … they detect a faint heartbeat after nine excruciating minutes.

Do you know what it’s like to have your child dead for 9 minutes while you look on helplessly? It is a lifetime. You are drenched in sweat. You are aware of nothing. Except … for the briefest of times, she is living again.

Until once again … she dies … and you again hear those horrific alarms of death. Again … her room is filled with employees doing all they can to bring her back. You are numb. Your entire world is in that room … on that incredibly dark night. And once more … they briefly bring her back.

That is when the doctors pull you aside and tell you … each time it is more difficult. You ask if she feels any pain. They cannot give you a straight answer. They tell you that in all likelihood, there is already substantial brain and organ damage. You ask them if there is truly any hope.  They cannot look you in the eyes and are mumbling non-answers. And you know. You know. You are faced with the most difficult decision any person will ever have to make.

You remember one time in the past, your beloved daughter saying … “Daddy … don’t let me die.” And you know, you know, for an absolute certainty … that your life will never be the same. You wonder if you can ever forgive yourself for betraying those sacred words.

There is nothing performative about that grief. It is not a credential.

You slowly nod your head and quietly, while tears are pouring down your cheeks, say … no more alarms. No more bells. She will go in peace.

You sit next to her, holding her hand, praying for a miracle … knowing that one will not come. Finally, you hear those words which rip the heart from any parent … “She’s gone.”

You slowly walk down the dark hospital hallways. Sunday nights can be quiet in a hospital. You go to a waiting room where your daughter’s mom is waiting with friends.  You can’t say the words… only shake your head. And you hear that heart wrenching scream of anguish. And yet, you feel nothing.

Your life as you knew it … is over.

You live in a fog. Making funeral arrangements, service arrangements. You feel nothing. Food has no taste. Your soul is numb. You wonder if you even want to wake up.

But you find a way, some way, to wake up and to keep living. Now, imagine that for most of your professional life, you had been a shallow, superficial, asshole. An attorney without a soul. But something has awakened within you. You begin to feel driven. Perhaps for the first time in your life, you are aware of something far greater than you.

In your daughter’s name, you only want to make a difference. You want to help others. But you are so broken. You make mistakes. You live in a constant state of guilt and shame. Nonetheless, you pledge to help others. And so, you try.

You then discover in the eating disorder community, children’s lives are being reduced to talking points, a and mortality is sidelined in favor of crowd-measuring. You read that this is no place for thin, white people to jump in. You realize that families are being betrayed by radical activists who only wish to parade their own ignorance and internal pain. Nonetheless, you continue to try. You try to serve.

You give two TEDx talks on eating disorders.

You organize and with a medical doctor, present a talk to Apple … and its 150,000 employees. The talk was broadcast on Apple’s North American network.

You organize and with that same medical doctor, present a talk to Raytheon … and its 75,000 employees. Also broadcast on its national network. This talk was so informative and compelling that the Raytheon office hosting it won a national corporate award for collaboration with the community.

You organize and present a 30-minute segment every week on a local radio station entitled, the Mental Health Moment. You have national experts on mental health appear on your show.

You appear on the local CBS and Warner affiliates talking about eating disorders.

The methodist church you belonged to does a video on your daughter and her struggles. With over 300,000 views, no other videos this church has done comes even close.

You speak to school district’s counselors and nurses. You organize presentations to communities. You visit young people in treatment programs. That is still not enough.

You are still living in a twilight that knows not joy, nor love, nor happiness.

Because you do not check the correct political and social boxes, because you frighten people, the eating disorder community turns on you. Have you made mistakes? Hell yes.

But it gets worse. Just five years ago, your father, your mother and your older brother all die within 14 months of each other. Your brother was the picture of health. And he only trusted you to tell the doctors to end his bodily functions. Imagine that much death in such a short period of time.

At that moment in time, your son and his wife have a baby. Imagine the very first time you hold your granddaughter in your arms, you have to tell your son you are flying to Florida the very next day to tell doctors to remove life sustaining equipment from your brother.

You know the eating disorder community doesn’t care. You frighten them because you do not play their pedantic games. You care about life and death not social justice and political statements.

And so, your mindset begins to evolve. You see the vile, on-going corruption in the community. You see the illness which claimed your daughter’s life being used as a platform to spew forth the community’s social justice and political viewpoints. And you reach a point where you say … enough!

Donors to NEDA come to you so angry that NEDA is being turned into a social justice and political side show by Chevese Turner and her social justice warriors. You have the ability and skill to take action. But first, you give NEDA almost 20 opportunities to talk before you file suit. An expeditious settlement is reached, a settlement which also financially benefits research into the genetic aspects of eating disorders. And yet, the very person who attempted to destroy NEDA’s purpose, skates by with no tangible consequences. She knows that her minions and cohorts in the community will continue to breathe life into her. Consequences and ramifications are foreign to the eating disorder community.

Undeterred, you go after more inappropriate conduct in the community. You see the specter of death appear in the words, “Terminal Anorexia.” Like many others, you are horrified. University-based professors write neatly composed articles opposing it, articles which accomplish nothing. Nothing tangible is being done.

So, you take action. You file a number of medical board complaints. That changed everything. You meet Dr. Jennifer Gaudiani and look her in the eyes. Much to your surprise, you do not find a monster. Instead, you find a professional. A soul. A human being. A person then in pain. You talk. And then collaborate with many others. What grew from that hard work was not triumphalism but human connection: colleagues turned collaborators, pain turned toward repair. And maybe … just maybe, you find through adversity a greater understanding about life and death. You realize that the manner in which we face death is just as important as the manner in which we face life.

Then, there is iaedp. The corruption and stupidity in that organization were and are legion. And the eating disorder community DID NOTHING. It cowered. The rot there was obvious and long tolerated. You initially do not pursue headlines and seek to meet and resolve all issues privately. That outreach is rejected. So, professionals in the community request action. The result: past due taxes, penalties and interest in the hundreds of thousands of dollars are being required to be paid. Board certification is being reformed and made more affordable. Individual chapters are gaining their independence. Thousands of therapists are now being spared needless expense. The community has improved — slightly, imperfectly — and for that action, very, very few people have said thank you. Predictable.          

You are not finished. Not nearly. You expose how Chevese Turner and others of her ilk took down the Legacy of Hope. And for their misconduct, they have been rewarded and still have a voice. The community blindly accepts those who think like they do. Contrarily, you continue to exist. Living with the greatest heartache possible.

No matter how many times textbooks say, “it’s not a parent’s fault,” or some vacuous therapist tries to convince you of that, they fail. They haven’t lived it. They don’t live with the daily pain, the heartache. The anguish.

I do. Every … single … day.

I have made mistakes, and I will make more in the future. Grief is not a moral compass. But the stubborn refusal to confront corruption, the eagerness to defend the performative rather than the practical, that is the real moral failure. When children’s lives are reduced to talking points, when mortality is sidelined in favor of crowd-measuring, the community betrays the very people it claims to serve.

So — righteous indignation? It is paid in blood and sleepless nights. It is the only honest response left when an industry cloaks politics in the language of care and ignores the medical science in front of it. If you are offended by my anger, consider why the community has earned it.

I do not wish to be part of this community. I wish — every day — that I did not know anyone in it. I wish my daughter, Morgan, were alive. I mourn her constantly. My activism is not grandstanding; it is grief turned toward accountability, toward saving the next life.

If you call that righteous indignation, so be it. I am guilty as charged. And I will keep speaking and acting until this feckless culture chooses truth over theater.

So … righteous indignation?

A brilliant light was extinguished in Dallas on October 30, 2016. That tragedy is the ledger against which I measure every day. Righteous indignation is paid with the dearest blood possible — and I will not apologize for the balance I keep.

When Maladjusted Masquerades as Activism … Weight Stigma Awareness Suffers

Weight Stigma Awareness Week should be an opportunity to confront one of the most damaging forces in healthcare: bias against people in larger bodies. This should be a week for data, clinical rigor, and constructive collaboration. Done well, it can highlight evidence-based solutions, elevate medical leadership, and foster collaboration across disciplines. And families who are suffering are the ultimate recipients of this shared wisdom.

Next week’s agenda includes sessions that could help shape our response to stigma and patient care. For example:

  • Rebecka Peebles, MD, FAAP, DABOM, & Lauren Hartman, MD — “Healing Without Harm: Ending Weight Stigma in Healthcare.” Practical, evidence-based strategies for clinicians who treat real patients in real exam rooms. The goal is not slogans but practical training rooted in science.

  • Leslie L. Williams, MD — “Navigating Eating Disorder Risks in the Age of GLP-1 Medications: A Weight-Inclusive Clinical Approach.” With GLP-1 drugs reshaping public conversations about weight and health, the need for clear, medically sound guidance has never been greater. Families deserve facts, not fearmongering.
  • Abigail Pont, MD — “Anti-Fat Bias in Medical Education Through the Eyes of a Medical Trainee.” Change must begin with training. Reforming curricula to prepare physicians to treat all patients with dignity and competence is not optional — it is essential.

These are the conversations that deserve attention, funding, and follow-through. They are the ones that have the potential to save lives.

But here lies the danger: while some leaders are advancing medicine, others are actively working to undermine it. Instead of fostering collaboration, maladjusted activists reject it. Instead of engaging with science, maladjusted activists ignore and dismiss it. Instead of building trust between patients and the medical community, maladjusted activists sow division, reject science, reject collaboration, and replace patient-centered work with grievance theater.

The weapons they use are fatuous ideology and vacuous grievances void of real substance and merit. This leaves patients and families caught in the crossfire.

This is the dark side of the ledger: militant, maladjusted, angry activists, wallowing in such internal pain, who reject collaboration, denigrate clinicians, and weaponize grievance for influence. This sadly is not theoretical.

It played out in 2021 at the Legacy of Hope Summit — a convening of some of the field’s foremost experts intended to build consensus and advance patient-centered solutions. Instead of joining that work, some radical activists not only opposed it, both before and after, but they tried to burn it down.

The most vocal critic was Chevese Underhill Turner, co-host of Weight Stigma Awareness Week, who also serves on the Board of Advisors of Within Health and is “Queen of the Ashes.”

Regarding the Legacy of Hope, Turner wrote:

“The entire ED community is getting ‘upskirted’ by certain men and we cannot put our own FOMO aside long enough to see it. Instead, we attend these men’s meetings and give them power to continue their gaslighting and lack of any willingness to see the intersections affecting our field. I’d love for other women to join me (and a few others) in being difficult when it comes to these people.”

This was not a critique grounded in evidence. It was not a call for better data or stronger collaboration. It was a deliberate attempt to sabotage a convening of experts — through crude language, ad hominem attacks, and an open invitation to disrupt and destroy.

Turner’s misguided viewpoints do not end there. On various podcasts and in social media, Turner has attacked clinicians, mocks evidence, and replaces medicine and science with grievance politics.

Her own words make it clear:

“It bothered me that all the air was taken by a white perspective.”

“My heart is in the higher weight community, whether a person has an eating disorder or not.”

“I believe bodies are political.”

“Everything is political.”

“I came out of the womb as a political beast.”

“When I hear “marketing” in the context of ED services to marginalized communities I hear white folks not learning from colonization and slavery. We need to stand down.”

“We must also be centering and supporting BiPOC, LGBTQ+, fat therapists and professionals. This is no space for white, straight and thin folks to jump in.”

“When we constantly protect the feelings of those who are oppressing then we never actually get to the work needed to undo the oppression.”

Turner, in writing stated that she supported and was working toward the following: “ … providing reparations to Black People, Indigenous people and People of Color, (“BIPOC”) especially queer and transgender BIPOC; hiring a transgender consultant to revise your marketing material; establishing sliding fee scales for BIPOC, transgender and gender diverse clients; redistributing wealth from the for-profit ED treatment world; embracing and incorporating non-western treatment practices; providing access to Hormone Replacement Therapy.”

These extremist radical views come from ignorance and distrust of the medical community. In Turner’s own words:

“The DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders], it is what it is … it’s not great.”

“Those of us who have done the work around our internalized biases no longer trust the medical establishment to actually help us.”

“That has only grown into a place where we are now. Body Positivity Movement. We don’t want to be judged on our looks and our size. The medical community said, ‘Ok. We’re going to judge you on your health.’”

“Most of the country is at a higher BMI, but when you begin to talk about people above a 35 who are visually fat, the oppression increases — plenty of data on that. People in the 50, 60 etc (superfat) range experience even more oppression. These are the folks who are publicly chastised and harmed continuously by the medical profession. Oh, the stories I could tell. Public health in this country is getting it so wrong and there is a better way, but we need to be willing to actually listen to those being harmed.”

“There may be some things with eating disorders that are brain issues … I don’t know.”

Turner’s harmful, illogical, extreme points of view do not constitute insight – they are ignorance masquerading in cartoon regalia, strutting as wisdom. They demonstrate contempt for medical science disguised as activism, reckless to the point of sabotage. And yet, somehow, they earn you the golden ticket to co-host Weight Stigma Awareness Week. Turner’s very presence doesn’t elevate the cause; it cheapens it, hollowing the message until nothing credible remains.

In the past, Turner redirected organizational platforms away from patient-centered care and toward political crusades. As a former officer of NEDA, one of the largest eating disorder organizations in the country, she proudly declared, “We won’t be deterred in our social justice work.” Under her “leadership,” donors were encouraged to contribute to the Minnesota Freedom Fund — an organization later revealed to have posted bail for accused murderers, rapists, and other violent offenders.

Ask yourself: who benefits from public disruption? Certainly not patients. Nor families. Nor clinicians attempting to balance complex risks and benefits. Disruption for its own sake only produces a cacophony of racket instead of clarity. It produces division where we need partnership and collaboration.

And yet, Turner is annually trotted out as a co-host of Weight Stigma Awareness Week even though her message never changes. She is still handed the microphone. Still made co-host. Still rewarded.

Turner’s destructive, insidious pattern is consistent and consequential. When so called leaders prioritize ideological purity tests over rigorous science, they do more than dispute ideas — they undermine care. When organizational platforms are repurposed for partisan causes, and donors are steered toward politically charged funds with questionable implications, the field’s credibility erodes. When individuals who oppose expert collaboration are nonetheless rewarded with boards, speaking invitations, and opportunity, the message is clear: rhetoric is encouraged; results are irrelevant. And yet, that is the reality in the eating disorder community.

In any other professional community, such conduct would bring harsh consequences. Suspension. Banishment. In the eating disorder world, it brings greater influence and opportunity. But it does not have to be that way.

The way forward is clear but it requires courage and resolve:

  • Elevate science-first voices. Medical experts who ground their work in data and clinical care should be at the center of not just this week, but every week and this field.
  • Insist on collaboration. Medicine is not the enemy. Progress depends on partnership between clinicians, researchers, and advocates willing to engage constructively.
  • Enforce accountability. Organizations must set standards of conduct. Those who undermine collaboration with reckless rhetoric cannot continue to hold leadership roles.
  • Protect patient-centered care. Eating disorder treatment should not be a platform for partisan politics. The focus must remain on evidence-based approaches that save lives.

Patients deserve better than empty slogans. Families deserve better than spectacle and disruption. The eating disorder community deserves leaders who are accountable, collaborative, and grounded in science.

Weight Stigma Awareness Week should not be a stage for any one person’s hate filled ideology. It should be a platform for medical and science based workable solutions.

The choices confronting us are simple.

Evidence based treatment over drama and dysfunction.

Clinicians and researchers who do the hard work of translating evidence into care over charlatans who sell social justice snake oil.

Collaboration over spectacle.

Accountability over impunity.

Lives are at stake. Families are desperate for solutions grounded in competent, humane care. Patients cannot wait for ideology to sort itself out. If we allow disruption to replace discourse, we become complicit in the harm that follows.

And the escalating mortality rate.

When Social Justice Therapists Go Too Far …

Since prolific anti-semitism directed toward Jewish therapists by non-Jewish therapists is an appalling reality, it was predictable that the assassination of Charlie Kirk would reveal the worst in humanity … including of course, eating disorder therapists and family liaisons. More’s the pity.

When a loved one has an eating disorder, families are already living in a war zone. Every meal feels like a battlefield. Every doctor’s appointment feels like judgment day. And when parents turn to therapy, they are not looking for ideology, slogans, or someone’s Twitter feed come to life. They are looking for life saving help.

Eating disorders don’t care about politics. They don’t care about hashtags. Eating disorders only care about shutting down organs, hijacking minds, and killing people. But too many therapists, treatment centers, and professional organizations are importing America’s divisiveness into treatment. The result? Families are left paralyzed, distracted, and betrayed.

More and more therapists and family liaisons are peddling something else: politics disguised as treatment. Some wave the flag of “Free Palestine” with militant zeal. And yet, most could not even remotely explain the complex nuances of Middle East politics going back thousands of years. When the phrase, “From the River to the Sea,” is spewed forth with all the hatred and horror which exists within the soul, many therapists and activists cannot even identify which river or which sea is being referred to, let alone identify the dark significance of that phrase.

These militant therapists and family liaisons sneer that the death of Charlie Kirk, a conservative commentator was deserved, and in their ignorance and room temperature IQs, slap “ism” labels on him and then rejoice that his life was tragically cut short. These providers and activists are intentionally obliterating the line between activism and care. Families should take this as the clearest possible warning sign: walk away. As fast as you possibly can. Do not trust those people or their organizations.

It is bad enough that families seeking help often find therapy rooms that sound more like activist seminars than clinical spaces. Instead of guidance on food and recovery, they get:

  • “Diet culture is colonialism.”
  • “Anorexia is a symptom of white supremacy.”
  • “Thin privilege is the real disease.”

These are not treatment strategies. They are slogans, ripped from Twitter and recycled in therapy sessions. When families should be hearing about family-based treatment (FBT), CBT-E, or medical stabilization, they’re handed culture-war scripts that do nothing but fracture trust.

Eating disorders thrive on chaos and division. They feed on families who are fractured, therapists who are distracted, and organizations that are broken. Every minute spent arguing over slogans is a minute not spent on saving a life. Every resource squandered on activism is a resource stolen from recovery.

Therapy is supposed to be a sanctuary from the chaos of the outside world. It is supposed to be a space where pain is met with compassion, not political litmus tests. Injecting social justice battles into that space doesn’t just distract — it actively harms.

Here’s how:

  1. It replaces healing with indoctrination. Patients and families arrive desperate for answers about food, weight, fear, and survival. Instead, they may be handed lectures about geopolitics, race, or privilege. The family’s suffering becomes a prop for the therapist’s personal crusade. That is gross exploitation, not care.
  • It breeds division when unity is essential. Eating disorders tear families apart. Recovery depends on pulling together. A therapist who filters everything through activism risks turning family members against each other based on political or cultural identity. That kind of manufactured division is gasoline on the fire.
  • It signals contempt for dissent. A therapist who proudly mocks the death of someone they dislike politically is broadcasting one thing: if you disagree with me, I do not respect you. How could any family trust such a provider to respect their child, their family bond, or their values? Trust collapses before therapy even begins.
  • It encourages rigidity instead of curiosity. The most effective therapists know they don’t have all the answers. They ask, they listen, they adapt. But the activist-therapist thrives on certainty: oppressors vs. oppressed, good vs. evil, us vs. them. That rigidity suffocates the flexibility patients desperately need for recovery.
  • It undermines professional ethics. The ethical codes of every counseling profession warn against imposing personal beliefs on clients. Therapists who cannot resist bringing their political militancy into the room have already failed the most basic test of professionalism.

Let’s be clear: cultural awareness and respect for diversity are good things. But respect is not the same as ideology. Sensitivity is not the same as indoctrination. Families need therapists who can meet them where they are, not therapists who drag them into battles they never signed up to fight.

Eating disorders are the second most lethal mental health illness, outpaced only by opioid addiction. This is life-or-death work. Families should demand nothing less than evidence-based treatment, humility, and compassion. When a therapist instead advertises their political rage as part of their practice, they are showing you what matters most to them — and it isn’t your child’s recovery.

The therapy room should be sacrosanct and must never be allowed to become another front line in America’s political battles. Families: if your loved one’s treatment starts to look like activism instead of medicine, get out. Your child’s survival depends on science, unity, and clarity — not the noise of a broken country bleeding into a broken field.

COLLABORATE OR PERISH

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:

  1. Does the eating disorder community really need three (3) independent organizations, AED, iaedp and NEDA?
  2. If so, why? Especially since all three appear to be flailing if not failing.
  3. 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.

MEDICALLY INDUCED COMA FOR ANOREXIA?

There are numerous quotes about being in a “coma” scattered throughout Hollywood movies.

“Paralyzes him, puts him in a coma, then keeps him alive. Now what the hell is that?

 Alien

“Her heart. Can you give her something? – She’ll go into a coma.”

Exorcist

“Unless they’re completely supplied with lysine by us, they slip into a coma and die.”

 Jurassic Park

“He’s in a coma. – Then bring him out of it. I want to talk. Now, doctor.”

 Green Hornet

“When he arrived here, he was very ill, in a coma, not likely to live. And yet in a matter of ten days, his body is fully recovered.”

 36th Chamber of Shaolin

“We don’t know what the hell to do at this point. So, let’s put her in a medically induced coma and tube feed until she gains 20 pounds. That should fix things right up!”

 The Marx Brothers in Medical School [Ok, not a real movie.]

Apparently, in the UK, a recent Telegraph investigation revealed that NHS hospitals authorized at least six young women with anorexia to be placed into comas in order to restore their weight.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14503651/Anorexic-girls-coma-NHS-hospitals-force-feed.html

Doctors attempt to argue that this hair-brained plan … err, I mean, that intervention is necessary to prevent death. However, reputable professionals and specialists caution it is a high-risk intervention with no medical precedent and that safer, evidence-based alternatives exist.

Before jumping into this fray, I should note that about three years ago when a previously untested and untried end of life option which shall not be named (thank you Harry Potter) [but, it rhymes with “Perminal Plannoplexia!]

was brought into the public consciousness, I went full blown nuclear from day one, filed ethics and board complaints and was considered (by some) very ugly in published articles.

Well, I learned my lesson. This time I am going to be more measured. More reasoned. More compassionate. Kinder, Gentler …

Before we delve into this latest Marx Brothers like Clown Show, let’s review the numerous criticisms of NHS hospitals in the UK.

A health ombudsman in the UK made the following remarks about the treatment of eating disorders in NHS facilities:

“Urgent action is needed to prevent people dying from eating disorders, the parliamentary and health service ombudsman for England has warned, as he said those affected are being “repeatedly failed”.

“The NHS needs a “complete culture change” in how it approaches the condition, while ministers must make it a “key priority.”

“Little progress has been made since the publication of a devastating report in 2017, which highlighted “serious failings” in eating disorder services.”

“Lives continue to be lost because of “the lack of parity between child and adult services”, and “poor coordination” between NHS staff involved in treating patients. There remain issues with the training of medical professionals.”

“Eating disorders are enormously complex, and those on the frontline treating people have a tremendously difficult job to do. This [is] not helped by a lack of a sense of urgency to address the scale of the problem. Clinicians need better support to do their job of protecting patients.”

“It is heartbreaking to see repeated mistakes and tragedies happening again and again. We need to see a complete culture change within the NHS, where there is a willingness to learn from mistakes.”

“The government also needs to fulfil its promise to treat eating disorders as a key priority so that we can see meaningful change in this area and make sure patients receive the quality of care they deserve.”

Tom Quinn, the director of external affairs at Beat, an eating disorders charity, said it was “appalling” that vulnerable patients were not getting the treatment that they desperately need.

NHS figures evidence the number of children being treated for eating disorders more than doubled from 5,240 in 2016-17 to 11,800 in 2022-23.

Doctors and charities warn limited access to community services means both children and adult patients are not able to access treatment quickly enough, which has led to many becoming so ill that they need urgent hospital care.

Ok, I think we got it.

A lack of urgency. Governmental ambivalence. Not learning from past mistakes.  Repeated tragedies. Lack of support. Poor coordination. Insufficient training of professionals. Little progress addressing past serious failings. Exploding number of eating disorder patients. Limited access to care.

And the NHS’ solution is … let’s put “em in a coma!” Blimey! And Bob’s your Uncle!

Cue the Benny Hill yakety sax music …

Let’s put the patients “on ice,” tube feed them until they gain 20 pounds, have Prince Charming come along to give them “love’s first kiss to wake them up,” [No wait… Prince Charming was a creepy stalker!]. Ok, A rebellious, hoody wearing bandit named Jonathon comes along, kisses Snow Woke, she wakes up from her coma and along with his bandit friends, they storm the Bastille and live happily ever after. Back to reality now.

A medically induced coma …

Being placed in a coma and hopefully waking up with no resulting physical harm is wrought with peril. There is the increased risk of lung infection. The possibility of damaged lung tissue. Blood clots could develop in the legs possibly leading to a pulmonary embolism. Muscle breakdown and nerve damage. Possible memory loss and seizures. Weakened immune system. Dangerously low blood pressure. And of course… death.

Medically induced comas are too high risk for psychiatric treatment and are reserved for brain protection in life-threatening cases.

One can’t help but wonder if the NHS doctors in the UK first attempted rTMS. Or a ketamine regiment. Or Deep brain stimulation. Or responsive neurostimulation.  The facts indicate otherwise.

In 2024, the NIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre reported that it completed its first clinical trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to the prefrontal cortex in patients with severe enduring anorexia nervosa.

Last year. The first clinical trial of rTMS… 2024.

Ketamine? Yeah… No.

On April 4, 2024, it was reported that King’s College researchers were awarded £1.45 million from the MRC Developmental Pathway Funding Scheme to run a randomised controlled feasibility trial of oral ketamine vs placebo in people with both anorexia nervosa and treatment resistant depression, marking the first time that ketamine has been used in a trial of this kind.

Last year. The first clinical trial of ketamine … 2024.

Seeing how according to the literature, rTMS and ketamine were not clinically trialed until 2024, it is very unlikely that these treatment regiments were first attempted.

And so instead, the NHS solution was to put these young women into a coma and then tube feed them.  One can’t help but wonder if they first at least tried leeches or attempted to bleed the bad humours out of their blood. Trepanation? Tobacco smoke enemas?

There is certainly enough medical literature detailing the use of forward thinking medical treatment for anorexia nervosa. Were these treatments even first considered?  Were they utilized? [from the UK literature, that would be highly unlikely.] I think we all know the answers to those questions.

Instead, we are left once again with the reality that universally we do not know nearly enough about eating disorders. Globally, medical providers have not found a way, nor the ability to collaborate, share knowledge, consult with professionals from different backgrounds and countries and to come to the realization that collective knowledge exceeds individual knowledge.

Which results in medieval type, untested and untried experimentation on guinea pigs. Except they aren’t guinea pigs. They are our loved ones.

Loved ones being treated by Groucho, Chico and Harpo.

We deserve better.