Monthly Archives: October 2015

10/7/15

Psychiatry, Diagnose Thyself! Part 2

© lightwise | 123rf.com

© lightwise | 123rf.com

Similar to what happened to Robert Spitzer, just as Jeffrey Lieberman released his “untold story of psychiatry” in Shrinks and began his book tour, the very themes he presented as the uncensored truth about psychiatry were being challenged by others. Whose story about psychiatry and its history would the public believe? Although Lieberman did acknowledge in his CBC interview that he was “unfortunately” familiar with Robert Whitaker, he didn’t elaborate on how far back their acquaintance goes.

Like his description of David Rosenhan in Shrinks, Lieberman attempted to discredit what Whitaker and T. M. Luhrmann had to say by his ad hominem assessment of them (see “Psychiatry, Diagnose Thyself! Part 1”). Luhrmann’s work on psychiatry, Of Two Minds, received several awards, including the Victor Turner Prize for Ethnographic Writing and the Boyer Prize for Psychological Anthropology. Anatomy of an Epidemic by Whitaker won the 2010 Investigative Reporters and Editors book award for best investigative journalism. And in 1998, he co-wrote a series on psychiatric research for the Boston Globe that was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. It was while writing this series of articles that Lieberman and Whitaker first became acquainted with each other.

The first installment of the series, “Testing Takes Human Toll” was published on November 15, 1998. In this article, Whitaker and others described how beginning in 1972, psychiatric researchers used a variety of agents such as methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta), ketamine, and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) “to deliberately provoke psychotic symptoms in more than 1,200 schizophrenic patients.” In some cases, the level of psychosis experienced by these patients was called “severe.” Jeffrey Lieberman was one of those researchers. He conducted methylphenidate challenge tests for more than a decade.

Here is a sampling of three articles where Lieberman was a co-author of studies where methylphenidate was given to schizophrenic patients in order to activate psychotic symptoms.

In a 1987 study, 34 stable outpatients receiving neuroleptic treatment were given an infusion of methylphenidate and then withdrawn from their neuroleptic medication. Three weeks after they were withdrawn from their psych meds, they were given another infusion of methylphenidate. Then the unmedicated patients were followed up for 52 weeks—or until they relapsed; in other words their symptoms returned.

A 1994 study had a similar methodology, 41 stable patients receiving neuroleptic treatment were given an infusion of methylphenidate. They were also withdrawn from their neuroleptic meds and followed for 52 weeks, or until relapse.

In a 1990 study, 38 patients who met the criteria for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were given an infusion of methylphenidate, followed by a regimen of standard acute neuroleptic treatment. This time the patients were individuals who were experiencing their first acute episode of psychosis. The methylphenidate produced an increase in psychopathology reflected by a worsening of their symptoms.

Another 1987 article with Lieberman as a co-author was a meta-analysis of 36 studies that used psychostimulants (PS) in schizophrenia. The authors noted that non-amphetamine drugs like methylphenidate appeared to have a greater “psychotogenic potency.” In other words, they elicited a greater psychotic reaction than amphetamine drugs. “Approximately 40% evidence a psychotogenic response to PS administration in doses that are subpsychotogenic in normal’s.” Don’t miss the fact that Lieberman knowingly used a psychostimulant in his own studies that he knew would elicit a greater, more intense psychotic reaction than amphetamine drugs.

Psychologist Bruce Levine gave a scathing response to Lieberman’s “menace to society” remark concerning Whitaker. He unpacked the pre-1994 studies and questioned the claim that the subject and family members were willing and able to sign informed consent. Levine said: “Who in their right mind would give consent for themselves or for a family member for a procedure that was hypothesized to make a patient worse?”

When Whitaker interviewed Lieberman for the first article in the Boston Globe series, “Testing takes human toll,” Lieberman admitted that the induced symptoms were sometimes “scary and unpleasant.” He even acknowledged that some patients get worse. “But in my experience, the symptoms never exceeded the range of severity that occurred in the course of their illness previously.” Ironically, Lieberman was entirely silent on the topic of schizophrenic challenge studies in Shrinks. They weren’t even discussed as one of the positive examples of how modern psychiatry “now practices an enlightened and effective medicine of mental health.”

Dr. Davis Shore, who was doing ketamine challenge studies for the NIMH, minimized the harm done to patients in challenge studies.  He argued that the increase in symptoms was very short-lived in patients who had experienced them over years. ‘”To say that increasing a particular symptom – like hearing voices for a couple of hours in somebody who has been hearing voices for 10 years – is causing [suffering] rather seems like a stretch.” Here is a 1987 account of one such “stretch” Whitaker saw reported in the scientific literature. The individual was a patient with bipolar disorder who was injected with methylphenidate.

Within a few minutes after the infusion, Mr. A experienced nausea and motor agitation. Soon thereafter he began thrashing about uncontrollably and appeared to be very angry, displaying facial grimacing, grunting and shouting … 15 minutes after the infusion, he shouted, ‘It’s coming at me again, like getting out of control. It’s stronger than I am.’ He slammed his fists into the bed and table and implored us not to touch him, warning that he might become assaultive. Gradually over the next half hour, Mr. A calmed down and began to talk about his experience.

Whitaker’s 1998 series for the Boston Globe is still a worthwhile read. Part 2, written by Deborah Kong, gives more details on “Debatable forms of consent.” She noted how researchers have conceded in court documents that they did not tell mentally ill patients the whole truth for fear of scaring them away from enrolling in the experiments. Part 3 by Robert Whitaker, Lures of riches fuels testing, looks at the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on drug research. In Part 4, “Still no solution in the struggle on safeguards,” Dolores Kong wrote about how the psychiatric community has argued that challenge and washout studies are important avenues to understanding the underlying biology of mental illness. “To this day, some psychiatric specialists are conducting medical experiments in which research subjects are allowed to grow sicker.”

On May 6, 2015, Robert Huber received a letter of apology from the University of Minnesota saying that the university was sorry that his “rights and welfare were compromised.” In July of 2007, Huber was admitted to the University of Minnesota Medical Center with symptoms of schizophrenia, where he was for two weeks. During that time, he was recruited daily to volunteer for a drug trial for an experimental drug called bifeprunox. He was repeatedly told the drug was safe, even though determining safety was one of the goals of the study. In the process of his recruitment for the study, he was also shown “the cost of his hospital care if he didn’t sign up and have the study pick up the tab.”

But there were problems. He experienced severe abdominal pains, which required two ER visits. His records indicated that the doctor in charge of the study thought it unlikely that they were due to the medication. At one point, he contemplated suicide because of the pain. In August of 2007, the FDA decided to not approve bifeprunox, but Huber was not informed of that decision and remained in the study until he withdrew in October of 2007. The university also acknowledged that he was not informed in his consent form of the risks of a medication washout that was necessary before starting the new medication, bifeprunox.

There are several concerns with these kinds of psychiatric research methods. The giving and withholding of medication may create unique risks for the subject. Individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia are at a greater risk of suicide during relapses. Adverse events of all types are more likely to occur as medications are increased or decreased in dosage. George Annas, chair of Health Law Department at Boston University School of Public Health said: “We let researchers do things to people with mental illness that we would never let them do to people with physical illness.”

There are three basic research designs with medications in psychiatry: placebo, washout (where medication is tapered and withdrawn), and challenge (symptoms are provoked in some way). In “Ethics in Psychiatric Research: Study Design Issues,” Gordon DuVal gave a helpful summary of these three research designs. His conclusion was:

Despite a history that has included serious abuses, psychiatric research is important—not least to those who suffer from mental illness. Clinical psychiatric research creates challenging ethical dilemmas. The choice of research design can have significant implications for subject safety and must be carefully considered. While these issues are not necessarily unique to this context, the particular vulnerabilities attending psychiatric illness merit close attention in the design of research involving persons with psychiatric disorders.

DuVal singled out challenge studies as particularly risky, despite the potential research benefits. The risk is that someone who is already sick or vulnerable to a negative response to the challenge “may have harmful symptoms provoked or exacerbated or may suffer a relapse.” He said it was unclear whether the balance of risks and potential benefits can ever justify people in studies where “potentially harmful responses are intentionally induced.” But this is exactly what schizophrenic challenge studies done by Lieberman and others were designed to do. They often have a washout element, which heightens the ethical concerns. “Finally, for practical reasons, challenge studies often require that subjects be deceived, or at best partially informed, about the details of the study.”

A search in Google Scholar found 1,030 entries for “challenge studies”, psychiatry since 2011. This suggests that some psychiatric specialists are still conducting medical experiments in which individuals with various mental illnesses are allowed to grow sicker, and even triggered to so do, in the name of science. This technique is seen as a valuable and necessary element in psychopharmacological research. D. C. D’Souza and J. H. Krystal said in 2001 that: “Psychopharmacological challenge studies have made significant contributions to understanding the neurobiological basis of psychiatric disorders.” They may continue to provide an important method of testing pathophysiologic mechanisms and studying potential pharmacotherapies.

So here’s what I’m thinking. Dr. Jeffery Lieberman writes a book that is supposed to be the untold story of psychiatry for the general public. But he is totally silent in Shrinks about research where psychiatric symptoms are triggered in patients by challenge agents. It’s not given as an example of the scientific standing of the field or the revolutionary process in psychiatry over the past fifty years. His past use of the methods, coupled with his silence, also suggests he still believes that it has a place in psychiatric research. And it certainly is not given as an example of psychiatry’s “long sojourn in the scientific wilderness” in Shrinks along with lobotomies, coma therapy, and fever cures.

Could he have decided to not mention challenge studies, because he thought the public would not accept them or would misunderstand their importance? Worse still, similar to the Rosenhan study, would they be seen as an example of the bankruptcy of psychiatry? Robert Whitaker could connect the dots for the general public between Lieberman and his past challenge studies, so did he become a particular target for marginalization and discrediting by Lieberman? Another possibility is that discussing challenge studies complicates the story of progress and heroism Lieberman wanted to tell in Shrinks. His goal does seem to have been a retelling of the same old rhetoric put forth by the APA since 1980. As Whitaker observed in his review of Shrinks, this mantra was:

The disorders in the DSM are real diseases of the brain; the drugs prescribed for them are quite safe and highly effective; and psychiatric researchers are making great advances in discovering the biology of mental disorders. Therapeutic and research progress are to be found at every turn.

It will be interesting to see what the future holds for psychiatry. Does the given rhetoric of the APA hold sway, or will the growing questions about psychiatry and diagnosis lead to another revolutionary change. Will the public continue to believe Lieberman’s version of the untold story of psychiatry; or will they begin to see it in light of what Whitaker has written? Stay tuned.

10/5/15

The End of Alcoholism? Part 3

© f8grapher | 123rf.com

© f8grapher | 123rf.com

“One of the first duties of the physician is to educate the masses not to take medicine.” Sir William Osler, physician

Olivier Ameisen wrote in The End of My Addiction that thoughts about an addictive substance could insinuate themselves into an addict’s consciousness and quickly preoccupy the whole mind with anxiety about how to get it. “This is a harrowing experience mentally and emotionally as well as physically, because it is charges with shame and self-loathing for even experiencing the craving.” Cravings could propel him into a trance-like state. He would set out to buy liquor, feeling as if someone else was controlling his body. “When craving defeated me, I could only hope, pray, and strive to do a better job of resisting it the next day.”

Ameisen was “a French-American male physician with alcohol dependence and comorbid pre-existing anxiety disorder.”  He said he had been plagued by anxious feelings of inadequacy throughout his life. He’d been seeing therapists for a long time before he started drinking. They were never much help with his anxiety. “Nor was the Xanax they prescribed me.” So he turned to alcohol.

I was terrified of living without alcohol. Without it, I would be an anxious wreck. Admitting my problem drinking to most of my friends and my colleagues terrified me too. I feared being ostracized, and since I felt that drinking should be under my control I felt ostracism would be justified.

He told every physician and therapist he saw that his fundamental problem was anxiety, “which expressed itself in chronic muscle tension, and which intensifying to a panic state, triggered the overwhelming need to drink for relief.” None of the addiction professionals took him seriously. So he looked around to prescribe his own treatment. He thus disregarded another observation of the Canadian physician, William Osler: “A physician who treats himself has a fool for a patient.”

An old girlfriend sent him a copy of a New York Times article that discussed baclofen reduced craving with cocaine, but he was in the midst of a binge and misplaced the copy. He eventually contacted the doctor mentioned in the article and asked her about baclofen. Although he was encouraged by the conversation, his alcohol treatment specialist and psychiatrist weren’t interested in discussing an unproven medication. In early February of 2002 he began doing an internet research into baclofen. Panic was his most crippling symptom, so he searched first under “baclofen panic.” He found several reported studies, including the 2000 study by Addolorato, “Ability of baclofen in reducing alcohol craving and intake.”

Ameisen developed a theory that there is a “threshold dose” of baclofen needed to break the cycle of craving, preoccupation and obsessive thoughts with alcoholism. And he decided to try out the theory on himself. He began his self-medicated treatment with baclofen on January 9, 2004. See “The End of Alcoholism? Part 1” for a fuller description of this process. Ameisen did attempt social, controlled drinking, about fifteen months after establishing alcohol abstinence by taking baclofen. But he said he preferred not drinking. James Medd in The Guardian suggested that “He can now drink socially—an idea entirely counter to the teachings of AA and most other therapies.”

Ameisen saw anxiety as his primary disorder, with his drinking as a way to self-medicate his anxiety. Additionally, he held on to a belief that he should be able to control his drinking: “I should be able to control my urge to drink. . . . Since I felt that drinking should be under my control, I felt ostracism would be justified.” Even though he reportedly went to hundreds of Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) meetings, if he held onto a belief that he should be able to control his drinking, he would not be able to effectively use A.A. to remain abstinent, because he didn’t entirely accept their first Step: “We admitted that we were powerless over alcohol, and that out lives had become unmanageable.”

Other medical professionals were concerned with his use of high dose baclofen. Jonathan Crick, the psychiatrist who is the editor-in-chief of Alcohol and Alcoholism, said he’s been encouraged with his own treatment of 50 patients with baclofen, but won’t use the high doses of Ameisen’s method. He stays under 100 mg a day. “I do actually have some concerns about unwanted effects in large doses. . . . This is a drug which is active in the brain, and there are some concerns about some unwanted effects of higher doses.”

I also wonder if he turned a blind eye to some of the concerns raised about baclofen in the literature. He saw it as essential to his own ability to manage anxiety, cravings, and to refrain from compulsive, out of control drinking.

There have been a series of studies reporting what has been called a “baclofen withdrawal syndrome.” A 1981 article, Complication of Baclofen Withdrawal, reported that three patients taking baclofen on a long-term basis experienced hallucinogens and/or seizures with abrupt reduction of their dose or discontinuation of baclofen therapy. A 1998 article, “Prolonged Severe Withdrawal Symptoms,” reported that an abrupt decrease or too rapid taper off baclofen could result in a withdrawal syndrome manifesting hallucinations, delirium, seizures and high fever.

A 2005 study, “Delirium Associated with Baclofen Withdrawal,” reviewed 23 published cases of psychiatric symptoms with baclofen withdrawal. Delirium, but not other symptoms was found to arise from abrupt baclofen withdrawal. The delirium appeared to be greater in individuals who received chronic baclofen therapy. A 2001 case study reported on the case of a man with neuroleptic malignant-like syndrome, with disorientation, signs of autonomic dysfunction and rigidity from abruptly stopping his long-term baclofen treatment. “He improved markedly after the reintroduction of baclofen.”

In contrast to published studies saying that baclofen helped with alcohol withdrawal, a Cochrane review published in May of 2015, “Baclofen for alcohol withdrawal syndrome,” concluded that the evidence for recommending baclofen for alcohol withdrawal syndrome was insufficient. “We therefore need more well-designed RCTs to prove its efficacy and safety.”

A 2013 article assessed the potential to confuse baclofen withdrawal for alcohol withdrawal. The authors said the clinical and psychopharmacological overlap between acute intoxication and the withdrawal symptoms of baclofen, alcohol and benzodiazepines could lead to diagnostic uncertainty. “In every case of unexplained confusion, agitation, hallucinations, seizures, and psychosis occurring in patients with current drinking, both AWS and BWS should be systematically considered.”

A small study by Franchitto et al. in 2013 did a retrospective study of the medical records for 12 individuals diagnosed with alcohol dependence who had overdosed on baclofen. The median dose of ingested baclofen was estimated at 340 mg. Ten had a previous suicide attempt. Three had co-ingested benzodiazepines. The “classic” effects of baclofen overdose associated with neurotransmitter inhibitory effects were evident:

Impaired consciousness or coma, generalized muscular hypotonia with absent limb reflexes, respiratory depression, seizures, hemodynamic changes and cardiac abnormalities such as supraventricular tachycardias, premature atrial contractions and first-degree heart block.

Four patients were in coma before admission, and required intubation and respiratory support. Coma after a baclofen overdose may persist for several days because of the drugs’ depression of neuronal activity in the central nervous system. Nevertheless, the authors concluded that consistent with other reports, “most patients with baclofen overdose had a good outcome with adequate supportive care.”

There have been reports of heart problems and even mania. A 2014 case report concluded that cardiac arrest occurred with baclofen withdrawal syndrome. A 2014 article concluded that baclofen-induced manic symptoms could appear in individuals regardless of a history of bipolar or mood disorders. The question to be raised about the use of baclofen for alcohol use disorders is what effects does it have on the brain? To the extent that these effects correspond to the effects of alcohol, or any other potentially “addictive” substance, its use in substance misuse treatment is a double-edged sword.

A 2015 study by Rigal et al. reviewed the records of 146 patients who used baclofen to treat their alcohol use disorder. Ninety (78%) reported at least one adverse effect. The most frequently reported adverse effect was a disruption of the wake-sleep cycle in 73 patients (63%). “Persistent adverse effects occurred in 62 patients (53%).” There were 8 patients who had adverse effects that led them to stop taking baclofen. Women reported more adverse events than men. “High-dose baclofen exposes patients with alcohol disorders to many adverse effects. Generally persistent, some adverse effects appear at low doses and may be dangerous.”

The evidence seems clear for a baclofen withdrawal syndrome. There is a state of tolerance or dependence that develops with long term, high dose use. Are patients given baclofen informed of the potential for them to develop a dependency upon this medication? My concern is this dependency is a “sleeper” symptom that initially goes largely unnoticed as with medications used to “treat” opioid use disorders—buprenorphine, and methadone. This same problem with dependency also exists with benzodiazepines prescribed for anxiety or sleep disturbance. They initially work so effectively that the dependency, if it’s noticed at all, is minimized. Only after it becomes seriously entrenched physically and psychologically do people realize what has happened.

So where might all of this lead? Baclofen is a generic drug with no potential for a pharmaceutical company to patent, and thus become a highly profitable product for them. So pharmaceutical companies are largely not interested in developing baclofen as a treatment for addictions. However, there is a prodrug version of baclofen called arbaclofen palcarbil that was initially in development by XenoPort as a treatment for GERD and spasticity due to multiple sclerosis. In May of 2013, XenoPort announced that Phase 3 clinical trials for arbaclofen palcarbil were unsuccessful and they decided to terminate further investment in the program.

In May of 2014, Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals and XenoPort announced they had entered into a joint license agreement, where Reckitt Benckiser will have the exclusive rights to develop and commercialize arbaclofen palcarbil as a treatment for alcohol use disorder.ClinicalTrials.gov indicated that a Phase 2 study by Reckitt Benckiser was scheduled to begin in September of 2015 and should be completed by April of 2016. The purpose of this clinical trial is to determine the maximum tolerated dose of arbaclofen palcarbil in treating alcohol use disorder.

Reckitt Benckiser appears to be looking for a replacement blockbuster product since its opioid treatment drug, Suboxone, went generic. Before losing its patent rights, Suboxone had become a billion dollar drug for Reckitt Benckiser, rising to the 25th best selling drug of 2010, according to drugs.com. The existing research on baclofen gives us a pretty good idea on what the future holds for any arbaclofen palcarbil product. Also, the potential population for a maintenance drug for alcohol use disorder is significantly larger than there was for an opioid maintenance drug. If Reckitt Benckiser can successfully move arbaclofen palcarbil through the FDA approval gauntlet, we will see a patented knock off product of baclofen on the market to treat alcohol use disorder in a few years.

Suboxone made another top drug list in 2013. It was listed as the #2 most abused prescription drug of 2013 by Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News. Hopefully, any arbaclofen palcarbil product will not repeat that ‘achievement’ for Reckitt Benckiser.

10/2/15

Uncircumcised Philistines

© ruskpp | 123rf.com

© ruskpp | 123rf.com

I’ve been reading through the book of First Samuel recently, and began to wonder about the history of the arch foes of Israel at the time: the Philistines. Their origins and their disappearance from history are shrouded in mystery. Intriguingly, they also have a connection to the modern day political climate of the Middle East. Palestine means the land of the Philistines. The term refers to the geographic area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, where Israel and the West Bank/Palestine is today. It first appeared in the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus around 450 BCE. He used the word “Palaistinê” to describe the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt, including the land of Israel.

There is archaeological evidence of a Philistine presence in Canaan from the time of Abraham (Genesis 21 and 26). Some have speculated this was from the trade and commercial activities of the Philistines. They would have settled along the coast of Canaan and built fortified cities to protect their trading colonies and caravan routes. When Israel left Egypt, they blocked the shortest way for the Jews to enter the Promised Land (Exodus 13:17). There is a debate over the time of the Exodus. An early date, based upon a biblical chronology dates it around 1440 BCE, 480 years before the reign of Solomon. A later date of 1270 BCE has been proposed by others, who appeal to the name of Rameses given to one of the store cities built by the Israelites (Exodus 1:11). But either way, Philistines were in Canaan before their major role in biblical history during the time of David and Saul.

There is a theory that the military power of the Philistines was partly because they had iron weapons before others in the ancient Middle East, particularly before the Jews. Richard Gabriel, in The Great Armies of Antiquity, said they were the Peleset of the Sea Peoples, who were originally from the Aegean; possibly from Cyprus or Crete. They simultaneously swept down the shores of the southeastern Mediterranean in ships, along with the overland movement of their tribes armed with iron swords. An iron sword bearing the name of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah (1213-1203 BCE), who fought against the Sea peoples in Canaan, has been found.

During the reign of Rameses III, the Egyptians defeated an attempted invasion by the Sea People in 1190 BCE. The Harris Papyrus recorded the following account of his victory:

As for those who reached my frontier, their seed is not, their heart and their soul are finished forever and ever. As for those who came forward together on the seas, the full flame was in front of them at the Nile mouths, while a stockade of lances surrounded them on the shore, prostrated on the beach, slain, and made into heaps from head to tail.

So these Sea People turned north and settled in west Canaan, along the coast around 1200 BCE. Rameses III claimed this was his idea, but there is no clear evidence that was the case. What seems likely is that unable to prevent their gradual resettlement in Canaan, he claimed it was his idea to let them have this territory. What seems more likely is that they were simply too numerous and militarily powerful for Egypt to eject them from Canaan. Egyptian power in the region began to wane, and the Philistines were essentially unopposed in the region. Nevertheless, what is clear is that from around 1200 BCE, the Philistines were a military and cultural power in Canaan for the next 200 years.

During the time of Samson, Israel was subject to Philistine rule (Judges 15:11). But if Philistine hegemony was due to its use of iron weapons, there is not clear archeological evidence of the widespread use of iron weapons by the Philistines at that time. Yet there does appear to be an oblique reference to this with the Philistines of Saul’s time, where they controlled Jewish access to blacksmiths (1 Sam 13:19). Preventing their vassals from access to the ability to forge their own iron weapons would be a common sense way of maintaining their dominance over Israel. An iron sword could cut through a bronze (copper and tin) shield.

It was during the time of Samuel, that Israel and the Philistines began to come into greater conflict with each other. First there was the Battle of Ebenezer (1 Samuel 4:1ff), where Israel was defeated, the sons of Eli were killed, and the ark of the covenant captured by the Philistines. Later, the Israelites defeated the Philistines at the Battle of Mizpah (1 Sam 7:10). Although God had delivered them from the Philistines, the people of Israel came to Samuel saying they wanted a king, like the nations around them. The Lord granted their request, and Saul became the first king over Israel (1 Samuel 10:1).

It was under Saul and David after him that the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Philistines reached its height.  Ultimately, when David was made king he utterly defeated the Philistines (2 Sam 5:17-23) and they were never again a threat to Israel. How was it that a powerful military people like the Philistines could be neutralized so effectively by a newly formed nation like Israel?  Some individuals have speculated that in the years of his exile among the Philistines in Gath (1 Samuel 27), David learned about Philistine military tactics and strategies and then put them into practice against them in battle when he became king after Saul’s death.

But their civilization continued for a few more centuries. Three hundred years after their defeat by David around 700 BCE, the Philistines were conquered by the Assyrian empire. The Assyrians concentrated the production of olive oil at Ekron, and the Philistine city thrived under Assyrian rule. This lasted for about 100 years. Zephaniah (2:5) and Jeremiah (47) both prophesied of the destruction of the Philistines. Then around 600 BCE, the Babylonians invaded and the prophecies were fulfilled. The “uncircumcised Philistines” were no more.

After the Babylonians conquered Canaan, the Philistines were no more. No human bones were found in the debris from the Babylonian onslaught on Ekron. Scholars have speculated this was because the Philistines fled before Babylon overran Ekron. What seems more likely is that the after the destruction of Ekron by the Babylonians, many of the remaining people were relocated into other geographic areas of the empire, as the Jews were after Jerusalem fell (2 Chronicles 36:20). There may not have been any killing if the citizens of Ekron surrendered peacefully, which the Jews did not.

A YouTube video suggests that the Philistines were gradually assimilated by the surrounding cultures almost from the beginning. Professor Seymour Gitin, the Director of the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research said from the time of their immigration to Canaan, they had decreasingly “less of the ethnic markers that would indicate an Aegean origin.” By the year 1000 BCE, the Philistines lost their geopolitical importance. And this is recorded in the archeological record.

Around this time Ekron was mostly destroyed, and what been a 50-acre city shrunk to about 10 acres. It remained that way for about 250 years, until the Assyrians conquered the area. They gave the Philistines some independence, making them vassal states. Ekron became the largest site center for olive oil production in the ancient Near East. Under the Assyrians, Ekron grew to 85 acres in size. It’s believed the Philistines produced around 290,000 gallons of olive oil per year for export.

Gitin and his team theorized that the Philistines survived because they were a very flexible culture. They continually incorporated something from the cultures around them; and from those that conquered them.  “Whenever a nation confronted them or conquered them, they adapted something of that culture, and they were flexible enough to survive.” By the time of the rapid growth under the Assyrians, there is not much left over culturally with an Aegean motif.

By the time of the Babylonian conquest around 597 BCE, when they were transported to the Babylonian nation to the east, they no longer had any cultural core left to maintain their identity in exile, as the Jews did. “We don’t have any evidence archaeologically, or in terms of text that is significant that would indicate they really continue. It is more or less a people who disappeared.” They became a group of people lost in the march of history.

So the modern Palestinian Arabs are not the descendants of the Philistines, but it does seem they have taken up the mantel of the Philistines by becoming the archenemy of modern day Israel.