Moshe-Mordechai van Zuiden
Psychology, Medicine, Science, Politics, Oppression, Integrity, Philosophy, Jews

No, Holocaust survivors do not have a greater chance to develop dementia

Recently everywhere in the news: Holocaust survivors have a greater chance to develop dementia. Don’t believe it. It’s not proven at all for the following reasons.

Introduction

Statistics is a greatly specialized science. No regular physician can know if a statistical finding is significant until a statistician has gone over the numbers. It’s not something that can be decided on one’s feel or hunch.

That being said, statisticians are human too, prone to making mistakes. Sometimes they act like the proverbial crazy professor, who is so smart that he forgets to do a reality check. I’m not even an amateur statistician but I have some common sense. And different from many reporters, I don’t go blank on any number presented. Let’s think about it with our horse sense. If it doesn’t make sense on a simple level, we know enough!

I learned from Pathophysiology Professor Van Gool (Wilhelmina Gasthuis), that a single case history may teach more about a mechanism of illness than the largest and most expensive statistical studies. After all, statistics can only give a correlation (which could show mere coincidence), not a causation. The rooster indeed may “think” that his crowing makes the sun rise. And is it a pure coincident that that a stalk population decline was followed by falling birth rates? (It is.)

My father, physician and not a statistician, warned that statistics are like bikinis: they hide the parts you’d have liked to see most.

The value of good statistics is that it could hint to a possible correlation between cause and illness. But the real proof of the pudding lies in finding a real causative mechanism. Without that, it’s just a clue.

One of the trickiest things in statistics is that something must be more or less rare compared to other people or people in other situation. There hardly ever will be a perfect control group to compare the patients with. There are so many examples of historical monumental medical mistakes because of a flawed control group. Two examples.

Mothers who spontaneously lost their pregnancy too early and were given DES had a greater chance next times to deliver a baby old enough to survive. However, without DES, mothers who spontaneously lost their pregnancy too early also had a greater chance next times to deliver a baby old enough to survive. (The pharmaceutical company knew and sold the junk anyway – which proved besides not working very harmful – first discovered by a high incidence of a rare cancer in girls born from this.)

Men who had a heart attack between the ages of 50 and 60 were much more often workaholics than men who didn’t. Until they found, 50 years later, that being hyperactive actually improves survival when one gets in cardiac trouble. The overworking doesn’t cause danger but protects.

Another major source of statistical mistakes may come from doing research looking back instead of forward or coming in half-way something in motion already. One needs to figure out what bias has crept in before one starts measuring. Here, hindsight is not 20/20!

Dementia in Holocaust Survivors

The statistics now presented say that survivors have a 1.2 times higher chance to get dementia over a span of 10 years. (It is unclear to me why people living with dementia and who already died while dement, were excluded from these statistics and what this exclusion does with the figures.) That means a 20% higher chance. If between 100 non-exposed people (one report calls them erroneously ‘non-survivors’) 9 get dementia, between survivors, that would be 10-11. In individual cases, that is meaningless. It would be different if the numbers were 9/18.

Second of all, the survivors will have a much greater potential to get older than the control group. This is because the physically and emotionally weak have died decades ago. What’s left are mainly sturdy fighters. Now, the researchers write that they corrected for age but until I see how they did this, I doubt if that was done properly. They have likely measured rather that Holocaust survivors still alive, live longer.

Thirdly, the control group should have only consisted of Europeans. I knew a couple, he Holocaust survivor and dementing and she Moroccan and … dementing too. But no one had noted about her. Unaware racism is everywhere. Ashkenazic patients do get more medical attention. Even her own family didn’t want to know. “She’s fine.” So, most likely, in the control group, dementia was under-diagnosed. Most Israelis are of Mideastern descent. That totally kills the “significant” 20% find.

Four, there’s this tendency to look intently for trauma and trouble in Holocaust survivors. (This also is done to the elderly. Endless lists of “the ailments of old age.” They never talk about what great it is that above 60 the chance to heart attacks diminishes, allergies die out, keeping up appearance takes a nosedive, that above 90, it’s highly unlikely you still get any of the popular killer diseases, most illnesses, etc.) This, on top of the many (Jews included) who see Jews as a pitiful bunch, sufferers.

Five, as mentioned above, until a mechanism has been found by which Holocaust stress would give dementia (on contribute to developing dementia), these correlations are at best hints, not facts. But, causes for dementia are far from known. I wouldn’t hold my breath on this one.

Survivors of the Holocaust still alive probably live longer and better than those who weren’t subjected to genocide. In any case, they should not fear developing dementia more than anyone else unless there is proof of that. And then I don’t mean, shaky hints or marginally elevated risks.

About the Author
The author is a fetal survivor of the pharmaceutical industry (DES - Diethylstilbestrol), born in 1953 to two Dutch survivors who met in the largest concentration camp in the Netherlands, Westerbork, and holds a BA in medicine (University of Amsterdam). He taught Re-evaluation Co-counseling, became a social activist, became religious, made Aliyah, and raised three wonderful kids. He wrote an unpublished tome about Jewish Free Will. He's a vegan for 8 years now. He's an Orthodox Jew but not a rabbi. * His most influential teachers (chronologically) are: his parents, Nico (natan) van Zuiden and Betty (beisye) Nieweg, Wim Kan, Mozart, Harvey Jackins, Marshal Rosenberg, Reb Shlomo Carlebach and lehavdiel bein chayim lechayim: Rabbi Dr. Natan Lopes Cardozo, Rav Zev Leff and Rav Meir Lubin. * Previously, for decades, he was known to the Jerusalem Post readers as a frequent letter writer. For a couple of years he wrote hasbara for the Dutch public. His fields of attention now are varied: Psychology (including Sexuality and Abuse), Medicine (including physical immortality), Science (statistics), Politics (Israel, the US and the Netherlands, Activism - more than leftwing or rightwing, he hopes to highlight Truth), Oppression and Liberation (intersectionally, for young people, the elderly, non-Whites, women, workers, Jews, GLBTQAI, foreigners and anyone else who's dehumanized or exploited), Integrity, Philosophy, Jews (Judaism, Zionism, Holocaust and Jewish Liberation), Ecology and Veganism. Sometimes he's misunderstood because he has such a wide vision that never fits any specialist's box. But that's exactly what many love about him. Many of his posts relate to affairs from the news or the Torah Portion of the Week or are new insights that suddenly befell him. * He hopes that his words will inspire and inform, reassure the doubters but make the self-assured doubt more. He strives to bring a fresh perspective rather than bore you with the obvious. He doesn't expect his readers to agree. Rather, original minds must be disputed. In short, his main political positions are: anti-Trumpism, for Zionism, Intersectionality, non-violence, democracy, anti the fake peace process, for original-Orthodoxy, Science, Free Will, anti blaming-the-victim and for down-to-earth optimism. Read his blog how he attempts to bridge any discrepancies. He admits sometimes exaggerating to make a point, which could have him come across as nasty, while in actuality, he's quit a lovely person to interact with. He holds - how Dutch - that a strong opinion doesn't imply intolerance of other views. * His writing has been made possible by an allowance for second generation Holocaust survivors from the Netherlands. It has been his dream since he was 38 to try to make a difference by teaching through writing. He had three times 9-out-of-10 for Dutch at his high school finals but is spending his days communicating in English and Hebrew - how ironic. G-d must have a fine sense of humor. In case you wonder - yes, he is a bit dyslectic. November 13, 2018, he published his 500st blog post with the ToI. * To send any personal reaction to him, scroll to the top of the blog post and click Contact Me. To see other blog posts by him, a second blog - under construction - can be found by clicking on the Website icon next to his picture.
Related Topics
Related Posts
Comments