google-editors-pick

RECENT POSTS

‘The Biggest Barrier’ To Preventing Suicide: Not Talking About It

First in an occasional series we’re calling “Suicide: A Crisis In The Shadows

Justine Barnes holds a photo of her brother, Luke LaCaire. “I don’t hold back anymore. My brother died by suicide. My brother struggled,” Justine says. (Jesse Costa/WBUR)

Justine Barnes holds a photo of her brother, Luke LaCaire. “I don’t hold back anymore. My brother died by suicide. My brother struggled,” Justine says. (Jesse Costa/WBUR)

BOSTON — More than two years after her son’s suicide, Susan LaCaire, of Spencer, still has a hard time opening up about it with those outside her closest circle.

“I always say we lost Luke. I never tell people how we lost Luke, unless they ask me,” LaCaire explains. “There is a stigma, and I think a lot of people look at Luke’s death as senseless. He could have lived and he chose not to.”

But the LaCaires are on a mission to bring suicide out of the shadows.

“I don’t hold back anymore. My brother died by suicide. My brother struggled,” says Justine Barnes, Luke’s sister.

“People don’t know what to say to us. They don’t know how to console us. If I told them that he had a heart attack, they’d be like, ‘Oh, I’m so sorry, that must have been so sudden.’ If you tell somebody that [your loved one] died of suicide, that wall goes up, and they don’t know how to deal with you. And then unfortunately for those of us left, that leaves you feeling even worse.”

“I don’t hold back anymore. My brother died by suicide. My brother struggled.”

– Justine Barnes

Barnes says she wishes her brother Luke, who was 35 when he died, also could have had an easier time talking with those around him about his life struggles and mental health issues. Luke was going through marital problems, and his young daughter had brain cancer. And, his sister says, when he tried to open up, some friends would tell him to toughen up.

“When my brother died, people had the nerve to come to say to me what a coward he was,” Barnes recalls. “My brother was a firefighter. My brother went to Afghanistan. My brother fought for his country. He goes into burning buildings to save people’s lives, and he’s a coward? My brother had a weak moment with a lifetime of depression.” Continue reading

Could Tsarnaev Argue, ‘My Immature, Pot-Impaired Brain Made Me Do It’?

In this courtroom sketch, Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev appears in federal court in Boston for a final hearing before his January trial. (Jane Flavell Collins/AP)

In this courtroom sketch, Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev appears in federal court in Boston for a final hearing before his January trial. (Jane Flavell Collins/AP)

By Judith G. Edersheim, JD, MD
Guest contributor

This week marked the start of what promises to be a four-month public reckoning: the trial of alleged Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. If the press reports about the evidence against him are accurate, most of the trial will not be about guilt or innocence; it will be about sentencing. Not a who-done-it, but a why-done-it.

If Tsarnaev is found guilty, the death penalty will be on the table, and the proceedings will turn to a grave question, part jurisprudence and part moral philosophy: Is this defendant the most evil and culpable of all? A human being who deserves the most severe of all punishments?

One thing, I believe, is certain: If this case proceeds to the sentencing phase, the black box everyone will be talking about will be the cranium, and how the brain drives behavior will be the central story.

In these protracted sentencing hearings, the scales of justice balance lists of aggravators and mitigators, all outlined by law.

Aggravating factors in this case might include the political motive for the bombings, the risk posed to others during the course of the Tsarnaev brothers’ dramatic attempt to flee, the “heinous”, “cruel” or “depraved” manner of the crime’s execution, and the substantial planning and premeditation that might have preceded the bombings.

In the end, behavior trumps brain scans.

Mitigating factors — factors that weigh in favor of life in prison rather than a death sentence — cast the broadest net. Any aspect of a defendant’s background, record, character or circumstance is fair game for the defense team. It could try to demonstrate that Tsarnaev had some kind of impaired capacity to appreciate that his acts were wrong or illegal, or that he was under some kind of demonstrable duress. It could also bring to light hardships during his upbringing that limited his opportunities or narrowed his ability to choose wisely.

The defense team has already given public hints as to the central themes of its mitigators. They will feature life within the Tsarnaev family, including Dzhokhar’s relationship with his parents, his brother Tamerlan, and his sisters. Will anything in these family dynamics rise to the level of psychological duress or impaired capacity? There will likely be plenty of traditional testimony from forensic psychologists and psychiatrists regarding whether or not Tsarnaev was under the sway of his radicalized and perhaps dominant older brother, particularly after the Tsarnaev parents left the country. The prosecution will likely counter with a line of evidence regarding Dzohokar’s relative independence and his network of friends and activities outside of the family structure.

Then comes the brain.

Judy Clarke, lead defense attorney and one of the nation’s premier death penalty litigators, will surely not overlook the new body of neuroscientific evidence regarding the immaturity of adolescent brains. In a recent trilogy of cases (known as Roper, Graham, and Miller ) the U.S. Supreme Court was influenced by neuroscientific evidence about the juvenile brain when making sweeping changes in how adolescents are tried and sentenced. The court concluded that adolescent brains were less mature than those of adults in ways which warranted differential treatment under our criminal laws.

Although Tsarnaev was 19 at the time of the bombings, his lawyers might argue that much of this brain research applies, as it outlines a period of relative immaturity that stretches from mid-adolescence all the way into the early 20s. Generally speaking, this research shows that adolescents are less mature, and they are more likely to make ill-considered decisions. They bow to peer influences and respond excessively to thrill seeking and immediate rewards. Think money, sex, drugs and friends.

Beginning in the teens, there are major changes in brain architecture and function that temper these qualities — among them, synaptic pruning of the prefrontal cortex, improved connectivity and changes in dopamine receptors — all of which support self control, delayed gratification and the development of a moral compass.

Here’s the rub. What the research doesn’t show makes it problematic for defense attorneys. The research does not show that adolescents are incapable of making well-considered choices. Quite the contrary. Continue reading

Related:

Rare Good News On Antibiotic Resistance: Promise Of Tougher New Drug

Northeastern researchers use an "iChip," a miniature device that can isolate and help grow single cells in their natural environment, and was instrumental in the discovery of teixobactin. (Slava Epstein/Northeastern U.)

Northeastern researchers use an “iChip,” a miniature device that can isolate and help grow single cells in their natural environment, and was instrumental in the discovery of teixobactin. (Slava Epstein/Northeastern U.)

Here’s a rare treat: potential good news about antibiotic resistance.

For years, the drumbeat of warnings has grown increasingly dire: The bugs are evolving more and more resistance to our biggest antibiotic guns. Some bacteria — strains of tuberculosis and gonorrhea among them — have even become resistant to all antibiotics. Remember the bad old days before these wonder drugs, when bacterial infections were so often death sentences? No one wants to go back there.

So today’s report in the journal Nature offers a nicely contrasting ray of antimicrobial hope: It reports the discovery in soil of a potentially powerful new antibiotic, dubbed teixobactin (pronounced takes-o-bactin), that appears to be less vulnerable to evolving resistance than other antibiotics.

“Early on, we saw that there was no resistance developed to teixobactin, and this is of course an unusual and intriguing feature of the compound,” says Northeastern professor Kim Lewis, senior author on the Nature paper. The methods used to discover and develop the compound have “a good chance of helping revive the field of antibiotic discovery,” he says.

Northeastern Prof. Kim Lewis, director of the Antimicrobial Discovery Center in the College of Science, researches novel antibiotic treatments. (Brooks Canaday/Northeastern Univ.)

Northeastern Prof. Kim Lewis, director of the Antimicrobial Discovery Center in the College of Science, researches novel antibiotic treatments. (Brooks Canaday/Northeastern Univ.)

Teixobactin worked “exceptionally well” to kill resistant bacteria in mice, Lewis says, but it will take several years and probably over $100 million to develop it into a drug that could be prescribed to human patients. It’s among two dozen other compounds that he and colleagues have turned up using a novel method to develop substances found in soil that could be useful as antibiotics.

Teixobactin works by attacking the biological building blocks of the bacteria’s cell walls, says co-author Tanja Schneider of the University of Bonn. That basic target, which is hard for the cell to modify, may help explain why the bacteria seem unable to develop resistance, she says. Continue reading

Why You Really Need A Flu Shot (Even Though The Vaccine Isn’t Great)

(WFIU Public Radio/Flickr)

(WFIU Public Radio/Flickr)

By Richard Knox

This flu season is shaping up to be a bad one. And this year’s vaccine doesn’t work very well against the most common flu virus going around. So should you even bother getting a flu shot?

Yes. Putting it a different way: My wife, my daughters and I will. And the evidence says you’d be somewhere between slightly foolish and dangerously blasé if you don’t — depending on your personal risk factors.

I know there are naysayers — the Internet is full of them. “I recommend that my patients of all ages not take these incessantly promoted immunizations, primarily because of their lack of effectiveness,” writes blogger Dr. John McDougall. He says he’s not one of those across-the-board vaccine deniers but just doesn’t think flu vaccines (of any given year) are worth taking.

To understand why I think he’s wrong — even this year, when vaccine effectiveness is expected to be even lower than usual — you need to know something about the situation we’re all in.

Several viruses circulate during any given flu season. And flu viruses are always changing — sometimes not so much from year to year; sometimes in a bunch of little ways (a phenomenon called genetic “drift”); and sometimes in a big, sudden way, called a “shift,” which touches off pandemics.

Drifts Or Shifts?

Public health researchers constantly monitor flu virus mutations. But even the smartest flu dudes can’t know in advance when they’ll happen, or whether mutations will be drifts or shifts.

This year, one of the flu viruses outwitted them. Or, since viruses can’t have intentions, it’s better to say that random genetic drift in that viral strain, called H3N2, happened in late March. That’s a bad time in the annual cycle of vaccine production.

Just a few weeks earlier, leading flu specialists gathered at the World Health Organization in Geneva and decided that this season’s vaccine (for the Northern Hemisphere) should contain the same viruses as last year’s — two type-A viruses (an H1N1 that caused the pandemic of 2009 and has stuck around since, and an H3N2 that first appeared in Texas two years ago) and two type-B flu viruses.

Late-Breaking Mutant

Making each year’s flu vaccine is a complicated business that waits on no virus. The recipe has to be decided in February to get the chosen viruses growing in hundreds of millions of special chicken eggs, the first step in vaccine production. Continue reading

Yes, Medicare Will Cover Lung Cancer Scans For Longtime Smokers, But…

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

…to finish the sentence in the headline: But it was not the simple no-brainer that you might think.

Lung cancer is the biggest cancer killer of all, causing 160,000 American deaths a year. But should we use lung scans to screen longtime smokers en masse for it? That question has been vigorously debated of late in medical circles, as Medicare has weighed whether to pay for the scans.

This week, Medicare announced that it did indeed propose to cover annual low-dose CT scans for smokers and former smokers, ages 55 to 74, with a smoking history equivalent to a 30-year pack-a-day habit. (More details here.)

People say ‘You deserve this because you brought it on yourself, and thus, suffer the consequences.’

– Laurie Fenton Ambrose

The draft decision now gathers public comment for a month and will still need to be finalized, but cancer activists and some doctors are already hailing it as a victory. Laurie Fenton Ambrose, president of the Lung Cancer Alliance, which had helped lead the push for the coverage, predicted that the scans would save tens of thousands of lives.

So why has screening for lung cancer sparked such hot debate? Why did it even recently trigger a rare point-counterpoint duel in the pages of a major medical journal, JAMA Internal Medicine?

Well, first, the pendulum has been swinging lately towards greater skepticism about routine cancer screening, from mammograms to prostate tests.

(Source: FDA)

(Source: FDA)

At issue is the pivotal question of whether some forms of cancer screening do more harm than good, given that some of the tumors they pick up would never have caused any trouble. Routine blood tests for prostate cancer have fallen out of favor, for example, and the New England Journal of Medicine just published a cautionary tale from Korea about how mass ultrasound scans for thyroid cancer saved no lives.

So that’s the broader medical context. Then there’s the money. I recently heard a Medicare official say with pained realism at a public forum, “We can’t cover everything good.” Close to 5 million people on Medicare would be eligible for the screening, NPR reports, and the scans cost an estimated $241 each.

So at a time of greater emphasis on health costs and greater doubts about cancer screening, “We just found ourselves caught in that crossfire,” said Fenton Ambrose of the Lung Cancer Alliance.

With lung cancer, there’s also the question of special stigma. People say “You deserve this because you brought it on yourself, and thus, suffer the consequences,” Fenton Ambrose said. “It has always had that type of stigma, that even carried through in some of the public comments that came forth during the Medicare consideration.”

Dr. Chrisopher Lathan, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, similarly cited stigma as a source of “hesitation” on the coverage. “This is a cancer that’s heavily linked to a behavior,” he said. “The amount of data needed to convince everyone that this was a good screening tool — that hurdle was much higher. And also, we are in a more skeptical time, academically, when we look at screening. We know that screening is good, but it’s good in certain circumstances.”

Which circumstances, when it comes to lung scans? This is the moment for the Public Service Announcement that says, “Talk with your doctor.”

“At the end of the day, this is about the relationship between doctors and patients,” Fenton Ambrose said. And in particular, there are some gray areas that require discussion, she noted. What if, for example, you’re a bit younger, or smoked a bit less than the cut-off? Research is now under way on that “second tier” of potential scan subjects, she said. Continue reading

Boston Nurse Records 'Desperately Sad' Experiences Treating Ebola Patients In Liberia

Workers are next to the body of a woman suspected of dying from Ebola, before they offload her at a gravesite near the Bomi County Ebola clinic, on the outskirts of Monrovia, Liberia. (Abbas Dulleh/AP)

Workers are next to the body of a woman suspected of dying from Ebola, before they offload her at a gravesite near the Bomi County Ebola clinic, on the outskirts of Monrovia, Liberia. (Abbas Dulleh/AP)

A growing number of doctors, nurses and public health specialists across the U.S. are putting their lives on hold and heading to Ebola-ravaged regions of West Africa. Today, and in the months to come, we bring you the story of one man who is on the ground in Liberia.

John Welch, 33, is a nurse anesthetist at Boston Children’s Hospital, and works with Partners in Health (PIH) in Haiti. At least that was his life before he opened an email from the organization in late September. It was a call for volunteers and support as PIH moved into Liberia and Sierra Leone to try and stop Ebola’s spread. Welch told a supervisor he’d be happy to help if needed.

That decision, says Welch, “was about being on the right side of history. I think I would have trouble looking back, knowing that I had an opportunity, and had not stepped up.”

Welch meets sister Heidi Christman and niece Lydia in Columbus, Ohio, to explain why he's going to Liberia. (Courtesy of John Welch)

Welch meets sister Heidi Christman and niece Lydia in Columbus, Ohio, to explain why he’s going to Liberia. (Courtesy of John Welch)

Calming worried friends and family members was not so easy.

“How does your mother feel?” asks Lindsay Waller, an old friend and fellow anesthetist, who helps Welch prepare to discuss the decision with his family.

She’s upset and worried, Welch says, but “I am who I am because she’s my mother. [My parents] taught me these feelings of altruism and taking care of the people around you and helping out.”

The next day, on a quick trip from Boston to Columbus, Ohio, Welch makes a pitch he knows will resonate with his mother, aunt and sister: 70 percent of deaths from Ebola are women, the caregivers.

He asks his family to sit with him and watch a “Frontline” episode on Ebola. Fear and pain in the faces of patients with Ebola made the point for Welch.

“At first, I wanted to just say, ‘No, don’t go, it’s too dangerous,’ ” says Heidi Christman, Welch’s sister. But then, in the video, Christman says she saw “the brothers and sisters, friends and family that have been lost because of Ebola. And it made me realize that it’s not about me or my fears. It’s about helping these people. They deserve people like my brother.”

Her brother flew to Alabama for a CDC Ebola treatment training and in mid-October, three weeks after Welch said, “I’m in,” he was on his way to Liberia.

It wasn’t an easy journey. There are very few flights in and out of Liberia these days. Welch had several cancellations, spent an extra day in Casablanca, and his luggage was lost in transit.

When he finally lands in Liberia, Welch must take his temperature and wash his hands in chlorine, something he’ll get used to doing at least a dozen times a day. On the drive into Monrovia, a building, all lit up, stands out from a distance. Welch realizes it’s the large Doctors Without Borders Ebola Treatment Unit that he’s read about and seen in pictures. Suddenly, his assignments feels real.

After a few hours sleep, Welch leaves Monrovia and heads inland to a clinic in rural Bong County run by the International Medical Core. Welch is here to learn what it will take for PIH to set up a similar Ebola Treatment Unit in another rural county with few roads, power lines and little running water.

Continue reading

The Bionic Mind: Building Brain Implants To Fight Depression, PTSD

Liss Murphy this summer, with husband Brian, son Owen and sheepdog Ned. (Courtesy)

Liss Murphy, who had surgery to implant Deep Brain Stimulation for depression in 2006 and got much better, on Cape Cod in summer, 2014, with husband Scott, son Owen and sheepdog Ned. (Courtesy)

Ten years ago, with little warning, Liss Murphy fell victim to paralyzing depression, a “complete shutdown.”

She was 31, living in Chicago and working in public relations. The morning of Aug. 13, 2004, she had gone in to the office as usual. “It was Tuesday, and I remember the day so clearly,” she says. “The sun — everything — and I walked out — it was about 11 o’clock — and I never went back. The only time I left the house was to see my psychiatrist, who I saw three times a week.

“I have a hard time believing it was depression, in a way, because it was so pervasive and powerful,” she says. “It invaded every aspect of my life. It took so much away from me. And it happened so fast, and it was so degrading — it took everything from me.”

Murphy came home to Boston, and she tried everything — medications, talk therapy, even repeated rounds of electroshock. But she was barely able to get out of bed for months — then years. Her husband and family and top-flight doctors cared for her, but she sank so low she tried twice to commit suicide.

Finally, a psychiatrist told her about a cutting-edge trial to implant stimulation devices deep in the brains of patients with severe depression. She signed up. In June of 2006, she had the operation.

“My greatest hope that day was to have something go horribly wrong and die on the table,” she says. “I didn’t care.”

She didn’t die. Over the next few months, she got better. These days, eight years after the surgery, if you saw Liss Murphy walking her Old English Sheepdog, Ned, or playing with her 3-year-old son, Owen, only the faint silver scars on her clavicles would hint at anything unusual: That’s where the batteries that power her brain stimulator are implanted.

“We’re taking a wall of computers, basically, and putting it into something that would easily fit inside a box of Tic-Tacs.”

– Jim Moran, Draper Laboratory

But though the surgery changed Murphy’s life, “the trial, on average, didn’t work,” says Dr. Emad Eskandar, the Massachusetts General Hospital neurosurgeon who operated on her. “When you pooled everyone together it didn’t work. But there were like five people out of the 10 we did that had remarkable benefits and went into complete remission. We couldn’t continue with the study because on the average it failed, but for those people in whom it worked, boy did it work.”

Now, as part of a $70-million project funded by the military, researchers are aiming to take brain implants for psychiatric disorders to the next level.

Over the next five years, they aim to build a device that can sit inside a patient’s head, pick up the onset of depression or post-traumatic stress disorder, and head it off before it hits. One implant researcher calls it “a moonshot for the mind.” Continue reading

Where Baker, Coakley Stand On Health Care

Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Charlie Baker, before a televised debate Tuesday in Boston (Barry Chin/Boston Globe/Pool/AP)

Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Charlie Baker, before a televised debate Tuesday in Boston (Barry Chin/Boston Globe/Pool/AP)

It’s nearly half the state budget, almost 20 percent of the state’s economy and a perennial top concern for voters. The issue is health care, and so far, neither Democrat Martha Coakley nor Republican Charlie Baker has taken the lead on this topic with voters in the gubernatorial race.

“Coakley has perhaps a slight edge on the general health care issue, as well as the affordability issue, but neither campaign has really broken away” on health care, said Steve Koczela, president of the MassINC Polling Group. “It’s not like taxes, which go big for Baker. It’s not like education, which tends to go a bit bigger Coakley. It’s an issue that is still very closely fought.”

So where do the gubernatorial candidates stand on some of the key concerns in health care? Below is a summary of the candidates’ proposals for how to treat the health of the state.

On Making Health Care More Affordable:

BAKER: He argues that giving patients information about how much tests and procedures cost, in advance, will help us become informed consumers of care. We’ll spend less money, because we’ll choose to have a baby, for example, at the hospital with the lowest cost and best quality scores. As of Oct. 1, health plans in Massachusetts are required to post what they pay each hospital and doctor.

Baker would take a next step. “I’d like to get to the point where hospitals just post prices and people can see them plain as day,” Baker said. “As governor, I’m going to lean really hard on this.”

Some health care analysts say Baker’s strategy for reducing health care costs could backfire. Patients may assume that the most expensive hospital is the best even though that’s generally not true. And letting Brockton Hospital, for example, know that it is paid about half of what Massachusetts General Hospital receives for a C-section may mean Brockton Hospital demands more money, instead of MGH saying, “OK, I’m going to lower my prices to compete.” In addition, some of the expensive hospitals say their higher prices subsidize teaching and research.

COAKLEY: She argues she is uniquely positioned to tackle health care spending. She created a health care division in the attorney general’s office, issued the first detailed reports on health care costs and used her leverage to negotiate a deal that would limit the price increases Partners HealthCare could demand in the near future.

“The agreement that we have reached, to be approved by the court, caps costs and lowers costs as opposed to maintaining the status quo, which we all agree is too expensive,” Coakley said during a campaign debate on WBZ-TV. Continue reading

Opinion: Why America’s Ebola Fears Are Dangerously Misplaced

Cpl. Zachary Wicker demonstrated the use of a germ-protective gear in Fort Bliss, Texas on Tuesday. (Juan Carlos Llorca/AP)

Cpl. Zachary Wicker demonstrated the use of a germ-protective gear in Fort Bliss, Texas on Tuesday. (Juan Carlos Llorca/AP)

By Richard Knox

At the memorial service last weekend for the only person to have died of Ebola on American soil, the Liberian clergyman who eulogized his countryman Thomas Eric Duncan posed a question we all should be thinking hard about right now.

“Where did Ebola come from to destroy people — to set behind people who were already behind?” Methodist Bishop Arthur F. Kulah wondered.

Here’s the reality: Until the world (and especially the United States of America) refocus on the “people who were already behind” in this battle of virus-versus-humanity, no one can rest easy.

Ebola is an animal virus that has sporadically caused local human outbreaks in Africa for at least 38 years. But now it has crossed into people who live in densely populated African nations with barely functioning health systems and daily jet connections to the rest of the planet.

“It’s like you’re in your room and the house is on fire, and your approach is to put wet towels under the door.”

– World Bank chief Jim Yong Kim

This is entirely predictable, as scientists who watch emerging diseases have long known. They just didn’t know which virus would be the next to terrorize the world. (SARS and HIV showed how it can happen, remember?)

Those of us who, like me, report on global public health have a sense of inevitability as we watch the Ebola crisis unfold. We always knew it would mostly affect, as Bishop Kulah so aptly puts it, “people who were already behind.”

And we knew the people least affected by this scourge — privileged denizens of wealthier countries — would overreact out of misplaced fear for themselves, rather than a reasoned and compassionate understanding about what needs to be done.

So we see the freaked-out, wall-to-wall, feedback-loop media coverage we’re experiencing now. Schools closing down in Ohio for completely unnecessary disinfection. Recriminations against hapless health workers who suddenly find themselves dealing with an exotic new threat. Continue reading

Outbreak On Trial: Who’s To Blame For Bringing Disease Into A Country?

Francina Devariste, 3 years old, is one victim of an ongoing cholera outbreak in Haiti that has killed 8,000 people and sickened over 700,000. (2010 photo courtesy of the United Nations)

Francina Devariste, 3 years old, is one victim of an ongoing cholera outbreak in Haiti that has killed 8,000 people and sickened over 700,000. (2010 photo courtesy of the United Nations)

By Richard Knox

If an international agency introduces a devastating disease to a country, should it be held accountable?

That’s the big question at the heart of a court proceeding that gets underway next Thursday. The international agency is the United Nations. The disease is cholera. And the nation is Haiti.

Four years ago this month, thousands of Haitians downstream from a U.N. peacekeeping encampment began falling ill and dying from cholera, a disease not previously seen in Haiti for at least a century.

Since then cholera has sickened one in every 14 Haitians — more than 700,000 people; and over 8,000 have died. That’s nearly twice the official death count from Ebola in West Africa thus far.

A year ago, a Boston-based human rights group sued the U.N. for bringing cholera to Haiti through infected peacekeeping troops from Nepal, where the disease was circulating at the time. The U.N. camp spilled its sewage directly into a tributary of Haiti’s largest river.

There’s little doubt that the U.N. peacekeepers brought the cholera germ to Haiti. Nor is there argument over the poor sanitary conditions at the U.N. camp.

When I visited the scene in 2012, it was plain how untreated sewage from the camp could easily contaminate the Meille River that runs alongside before it spills into the Artibonite — Haiti’s Mississippi — which provides water for drinking, washing and irrigation for a substantial fraction of the country’s population.

The smoking gun, scientifically, is a molecular analysis of the Haitian cholera bug compared to the Nepalese strain from the same time period. It showed the two differ in only one out of 4 million genetic elements.

“That’s considered an exact match, that they’re the same strain of cholera,” Tufts University environmental engineer Daniele Lantagne told me last year. Continue reading