Desi Talk

www.desitalk.com – that’s all you need to know 12 HEALTH February 20, 2026 Ask Sahaj: My Son’s 5-Month Relationship Ended 3 Years Ago. He’s Still Reeling letter regarding his struggle to “trust any other women” or “fall for this type of girl again.” Consider what he means when he says this and how he may be channeling his rejection, pain or even humiliation into broad overgener- alizations and even potentially harmful views. Ask questions and offer new ways of thinking to chal- lenge his focus on what could go wrong or negativity. This may sound like, “Do you feel like you are being fair to yourself?” Or, “Are you sure that’s the only conclusion to make from that experience?” You may also consider offer- ing the other side of his perspective. For example, when he says something about not wanting to get hurt again, you may say something like, “What might you be missing out on by avoiding a relationship?” Your son sounds ambivalent when it comes to doing anything to initiate change. You can reflect this back to him by saying, “You say you want to get help and stop feeling this way, but it’s been three years.” Or, “I know you are struggling and I know you don’t want to feel this way, but I wonder how anything will change. What do you think?” Sometimes, it’s easier to feel bad about something and blame ourselves than it is to take action and accept that you can experience pain from a previous relationship and believe in the possibility of finding joy and love in a different relationship. Right now, your son has tied his sense of self to this experience. Help build up his self-esteem by normalizing breakups. He needs to know that weeding through the wrong people to find the right person is something that everyone more or less navigates and that it isn’t a sign that something is wrong with him. And encourage him to partake in activities and invest in friendships that make him feel good. It’s hard for you to see your son like this. As a parent, you want to save him from feeling pain or heartache, but unfortunately you can’t. This is an experience he has to move through himself. But this doesn’t mean you can’t be supportive and encouraging. You can tell him you are concerned matter-of-factly and without judgment. This may sound like, “I love you and know that this has been hard on you. I am worried that it is keeping you from liv- ing your life.” Because it’s been years of him feeling this way, and he has shown interest, you may want to consider providing him with professional or mental health resources in your area or hotlines such as 988. Remem- ber, you can be a compass and guide while he navigates this heartache without doing the work for him. Sahaj Kaur Kohli is a therapist and the creator of Brown Girl Therapy. -Special to TheWashington Post PHOTO:@sahajkaurkohli.com I Joined A MAHA Roundtable. What I Heard Surprised Me By Chethan Sathya - Continued From Page 10 I n recent years, I have grown increasingly concerned that public health has become too siloed, too dog- matic and too uncomfortable communicating uncer- tainty. I have seen colleagues on all sides digging in, becoming less willing to engage across disagreement or to acknowledge limits and trade-offs. That retreat may feel protective, but it ultimately undermines trust, both within science and with the public we serve. It was with that in mind that I took part last month in a Make America Healthy Again Institute roundtable on rebuilding public trust and the future of the National In- stitutes of Health. There, I joined a small group of public health colleagues alongside NIH Director Jay Bhattacha- rya and NIH agency heads, MAHA activists and commu- nity members. I want to be clear about my posture going in: I am not ideologically aligned with many who were in that room. As an immigrant physician and scientist, I worry that national funding cuts and policies that make this country less welcoming will deter the next generation of lifesaving talent and leadership from coming to the United States. I understand why many of my colleagues feel frustrated or concerned. But rather than avoiding the conversation, I decided to lean in. My goal was not to smooth over disagree- ment, but to understand where critique is ideological and where it reflects real dysfunctions that many scientists themselves have acknowledged for years. What I heard at the event was more complex and constructive than much public discourse would suggest. There was a clear appetite for action, for questioning the status quo and for improving systems without dismiss- ing what’s working. There was acknowledgment of the incredible lifesaving research that has happened at NIH in years prior and the outstanding dedication of NIH employees. Importantly, I come to the conversation not as an out- sider, but as an NIH-funded researcher and grant review- er. Going through that process, I’ve seen extraordinary rigor and commitment. But I’ve also witnessed where the system strains under its own weight. The experience has left me both more invested in the success of the institu- tion and more candid about where it can do better. Even when I disagreed with some points raised, much of what I heard from NIH leaders at the roundtable had the potential to be genuinely transformative. One recur- ring theme was the need to rethink how peer-review functions in practice. Agency leaders acknowledged that institutional prestige and entrenched networks can influence funding decisions. This was not discussed as evidence of misconduct but as a structural issue that emerges when many proposals are strong and reviewers need to rely on familiar signals to differentiate among them. That acknowledgment resonated with my own experience as a reviewer. A system designed to reward excellence may unintentionally discourage risk at a time when bold ideas are urgently needed. In addition, instead of asking reviewers to assess every aspect of an applica- tion, the process could be modernized by engaging tar- geted experts, such as statisticians, while using technol- ogy to evaluate other elements. There was also discussion about fragmentation across research. NIH leaders described how, in the absence of shared standards, institutes and laboratories often devel- op parallel models, protocols and validation approaches, slowing progress and making results difficult to compare or reproduce. To address this, the leaders highlighted in- vestments in collaboration and shared infrastructure. The goal is not centralization for its own sake, but interop- erability – enabling work generated in one place to be meaningfully built upon by others. Agency heads also acknowledged that failure to repli- cate can often be misread as misconduct, when it more accurately reflects how difficult science is. Experiments are complex, replication is underfunded, and career in- centives still reward novelty over verification. Strengthen- ing the incentives for replication work would strengthen the credibility of biomedical research. The discussion around equity was more nuanced than it often is in public debate. NIH leaders suggested that some mechanisms focused on diversity, equity and inclu- sion have not translated into desired outcomes, while emphasizing that improving the health of minority and disadvantaged communities remains a core priority. The emphasis was on accountability and measurable impact. Concerns about concentration of funding resonated most strongly with me. One example captured the issue clearly: If two proposals are scientifically equivalent, but one lab in Boston requires far higher facility costs than a lab in Oklahoma, shouldn’t that cost-effectiveness matter in funding decisions? In practice, it rarely does. Insti- tutional affiliation can influence outcomes even when scientific quality is similar. This reflects a deeper problem in how academic success is defined and rewarded. NIH leaders also spoke about the need to create a legitimate pathway where negative findings – rigorous work that fails to confirm a hypothesis – are valued rather than buried. I strongly agree. Our system rewards positive results and publication counts, which can discourage risk. Negative findings are not failures; they are essential to progress. Scientists rightly worry about the politicization of science. But what struck me last month was how much time was focused on practical ideas for making systems more efficient, more rigorous and more supportive of sci- ence. There were disagreements, but they were open and respectful. In the current climate, that mattered a lot. Rebuilding trust will require showing up, listening critically and commu- nicating uncertainty honestly, while supporting reforms that improve fairness, rigor and out- comes. Progress can come only with participation. Chethan Sathya is a pediatric sur- geon and public health researcher. -Special to TheWashington Post PHOTO:northwell.edu PHOTO:REUTERS