I am canceling my subscription to the New York Times, after 35 years of reading it. It has consistently kept its ironclad stance of excluding expert voices on the issue of the president's mental health. It is not neutral, and its exclusion of one side of psychiatry deliberate.

I thought that an op-ed editor would be sympathetic for once. After all, they published an anonymous White House official. It turns out the person just does not care enough. How hard it is to come across principled people who would take a stand!

I just thirst for the experience, once, just once, to stumble on someone with power who could move me with genuine intent, who does not have ulterior motives, who does not conform, who is not filled with self-preoccupation. Is this simply too much to ask??

So I have wondered why the Times would choose the most frivolous, unimportant op-eds by physicians, when I know so many thoughtful ones around me. It published one on suicide that was so wrong it was harmful. All these were not accidents.

When you have mind-numbing distractions, not only are time and energy diverted away from important real concerns, you lose the ability to think. Whether this is deliberate or not, it appeals to the lowest denominator, even among the educated, perhaps to sell more than inform.

I have never had so many endorsements of a “tweet”, and this is exactly what I mean here. A critical societal need, and hunger from the public, is not being fulfilled. We know from the members of the public who have been contacting us for three years.

We know from our book being such an instant bestseller, that Macmillan, one of the 5 big publishers, took 5 weeks to fill enough stocks for Amazon and Barnes and Nobel not to run out in a couple hours! We heard about people driving across states to grab the one copy they found.