Why Didn't Dr. Birx and Acting Under Secretary Bryan Speak Up Loudly Against Bleach Injections and UV Light Treatments?

Coronavirus Task Force Briefing

Some of the technical and medical personnel in President Donald Trump’s coronavirus task force suffer from George W. Ball Syndrome. George W. Ball was Under Secretary of State under President Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. In public, Ball strongly supported the war; in fact, he gave some of the most persuasive, well-argued speeches showing why the United States fought against the communists in Vietnam. In his heart, however, Ball opposed the war. In meetings with President Johnson and his advisors, Ball wanted the United States to scale back and withdraw from the conflict. He believed, wrongly, that if he loyally represented the administration's viewpoint, Johnson would value his loyalty and listen more attentively to what he said during their private meetings. Years later, and many years too late to stop the spilling of blood, he wrote a book explaining what he truly believed.

With that sad story in mind, let’s take one last look at Trump’s bizarre Coronavirus Task Force briefing of April 23, 2020. In this briefing, President Trump asked – at length – whether it would be a good idea to inject coronavirus patients with disinfectants and to shine powerful lights into their bodies. Acting Under Secretary William Bryan, who gave the technical part of the briefing, had talked about using powerful lights, bleach and isopropyl alcohol to kill viruses on various surfaces. This resulted in the following exchange, which I quote in its entirety:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too. It sounds interesting.

ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We’ll get to the right folks who could.

Now, dear reader, you and I alike understand that we cannot kill viruses by shining massive quantities of ultraviolet light into and through the patient’s body. So why didn’t Bryan say so? Why did he instead say, “We’ll get to the right folks who could?” Why did he not instead gently say, “Sorry, Mr. President, it’s neither practical nor safe to shine light or UV radiation of that intensity into a person body?” The obvious answer is that he didn’t want to call the president out, embarrass him, or insult him in front of his audience. But by speaking so meekly, Bryan let the president off the hook, and, instead, allowed the more gullible members of the public, of whom there are many, to believe that the president had given some degree of authority to a dangerous and ineffective treatment.

Later, a reporter initiated an exchange with Dr. Deborah Birx, a medical expert on the panel:

THE PRESIDENT: Here we go. The new — the new headline is: “Trump Asks People to go Outside. That’s Dangerous.” Here we go. Same old group. You ready? I hope people enjoy the sun. And if it has an impact, that’s great. I’m just hearing this — not really for the first time. I mean, there’s been a rumor that — you know, a very nice rumor — that you go outside in the sun, or you have heat and it does have an effect on other viruses.

But now we get it from one of the great laboratories of the world. I have to say, it covers a lot more territory than just this. This is — this is probably an easy thing, relatively speaking, for you.

I would like you to speak to the medical doctors to see if there’s any way that you can apply light and heat to cure. You know — but if you could. And maybe you can, maybe you can’t. Again, I say, maybe you can, maybe you can’t. I’m not a doctor. But I’m like a person that has a good you know what.

Q But, sir, you’re the President.

THE PRESIDENT: Deborah, have you ever heard of that? The heat and the light, relative to certain viruses, yes, but relative to this virus?

DR. BIRX: Not as a treatment. I mean, certainly fever —

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

DR. BIRX: — is a good thing. When you have a fever, it helps your body respond. But not as — I’ve not seen heat or (inaudible).

THE PRESIDENT: I think it’s a great thing to look at. I mean, you know. Okay?

Then, as Trump realized that Dr. Birx would not support his idea, he quickly deflected and changed the subject.

Birx made faces as Trump spoke, but her verbal response was timid: “When you have a fever, it helps your body respond. But not as — I’ve not seen heat or . . . ” What I wondered about at the time is this: given how ridiculous and dangerous the President’s suggestions were, why didn’t Dr. Birx forcefully intercede to say, “no, Mr. President, that’s a hazardous idea and people shouldn’t do it,” or, at least, make a tactful statement like, “No, Mr. President, we don’t think that there is a need to investigate that.”

This all sounds like a failure of rhetoric and persuasion. It is, however, really a failure of group communication. Specialists in group psychology and group communication have long known that a group with an authoritarian leader who suppresses open discussion and disagreement tends to produce unwise and even dangerous decisions. That is very much what went wrong in the Vietnam War, when President Johnson systematically expelled any advisors who questioned his judgment. Ball’s sycophantic willingness to support President Johnson’s policies did not, contrary to his hope, give him any influence on Johnson’s policies. It just made him look weak and gave Johnson more opportunities to push him around.

I’m sure that Birx and Bryan hope that they can influence the President behind the scenes as long as they do not offend him in public. It seems they are wrong, since Trump is no longer bringing them to the briefings. Interestingly, I cannot recall hearing them say a word against injecting disinfectants (see my earlier posts, links below).

Effective leaders, which President Trump is not, need to welcome and even seek out diverse opinions so they can make the best decisions. When group members like Bryan and Birx and anyone else encounter inflexible, authoritarian leaders, they gain little by caving in. Instead, they risk their reputations – as George W. Ball lost his – and, once they are co-opted, any remaining influence they have goes to waste. Instead, they should remember that they serve the public, not their leader, and speak out no matter what the consequences might be. A weakness of the human species is that few people have the courage to do so.

Speakers Need Research: Donald Trump Suggested Injecting Disinfectants to Cure the Coronavirus

Teenagers Know to Keep Their Stories Straight, but Donald Trump Does Not: The Sad Case of the Injecting Disinfectants Briefing

Research note:

Social psychologists, communication researchers, and specialists in organizations and business have written many good books and articles about effective leadership and communication. Of all the areas of social science, group leadership has probably produced the most definite and useful findings. Yet, many of those findings – the importance of collaboration, the harmful effects of authoritarian leadership, the need for open discussion, and the benefits of constructive, well-managed, issues-oriented engagement, contradict many people’s cultural ideas and preconceptions.

I’ll suggest a book by psychologists S. Alexander Haslam, Stephen D. Reicher, and Michael J. Platow, The New Psychology of Leadership. Irving Janis’ classic book Groupthink is outdated and some of his theory has been discredited, but his suggestions for running a business or government group deserve every leader’s attention. The Fundamentals of Small Group Communication, by Scott Myers and my friend Carolyn Anderson, covers the basics thoroughly and accurately. It may seem a little off-topic, but Why Nations Go to War by political scientist John G. Stoessinger is quite an eye-opener. Stoessinger analyzes the group decision making processes that world leaders have used before unwisely starting wars. If you think that world leaders know what they’re doing, Stoessinger will cure you of that wrong belief. You will be much wiser, but will probably never sleep quite as well, after you read his book, and he plays a tattoo on George W. Ball.

On a more positive note, my wife, psychologist Elaine Clanton Harpine, believes that group prevention is more important than cure, and you might want to read her book Group-Centered Prevention in Mental Health.

Many large libraries and bookstores will have these books available. 

Many years ago, I wrote a paper about George W. Ball’s two-faced approach to the Vietnam War. I made what I thought was a major theoretical contribution, but I never convinced anyone to publish it. Still, it’s one of my favorites. You are welcome to read it at this link if you wish.