[Are conspiracy theorists psychotic? A comparison between conspiracy theories and paranoid delusions]. / Zijn complotdenkers psychotisch? Een vergelijking tussen complottheorieën en paranoïde wanen.

BACKGROUND: Conspiracy theories are popular during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conspiratorial thinking is characterised by the strong conviction that a certain situation that one sees as unjust is the result of a deliberate conspiracy of a group of people with bad intentions. Conspiratorial thinking appears to have many similarities with paranoid delusions. AIM: To explore the nature, consequences, and social-psychological dimensions of conspiratorial thinking, and describe similarities and differences with paranoid delusions. METHOD: Critically assessing relevant literature about conspiratorial thinking and paranoid delusions. RESULTS: Conspiratorial thinking meets epistemic, existential, and social needs. It provides clarity in uncertain times and connection with an in-group of like-minded people. Both conspiratorial thinking and paranoid delusions involve an unjust, persistent, and sometimes bizarre conviction. Unlike conspiracy theorists, people with a paranoid delusion are almost always the only target of the presumed conspiracy, and they usually stand alone in their conviction. Furthermore, conspiracy theories are not based as much on unusual experiences of their inner self, reality, or interpersonal contacts. CONCLUSIONS Conspirational thinking is common in uncertain circumstances. It gives grip, certainty, moral superiority and social support. Extreme conspirational thinking seems to fit current psychiatric definitions of paranoid delusions, but there are also important differences. To make a distinction with regard to conspiratorial thinking, deepening of conventional definitions of delusions is required. Instead of the strong focus on the erroneous content of delusions, more attention should be given to the underlying idiosyncratic, changed way of experiencing reality.

Nasal nitric oxide in cystic fibrosis with and without humming.

BACKGROUND: Nasal nitric oxide (nNO) values are reduced in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). Humming during nNO measurement increases nNO values in healthy subjects. Nasal NO is reduced in patients with CF, sinus disease or nasal polyps. Humming nNO values have not been reported in CF patients yet. Our aim was to explore humming nNO values in CF patients and assess whether nNO during humming is a better discriminator than silent nNO measurements in this patient group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a cross sectional study we measured nNO concentrations in healthy controls (HC) and in CF patients (n = 23 and 31, respectively). The participants held their breath for 10 s while air was passively extracted from one nostril with 700 mL min(-1) for direct NO measurements (NIOX chemiluminescence analyser). Subsequently nNO was measured during humming with the mouth closed for 10 s. RESULTS: Mean nNO in parts per billion (p.p.b.) (SD) during breath hold was 499 (164) and 240 (139), respectively. The median nNO peak (p.p.b., minimum-maximum) during humming was 1500 (425-4100) for HC and 120 (23-500) for CF. There was a highly significant difference between nNO both with and without humming between CF and HC (P < 0.01). The sensitivity and specificity of nNO for detecting CF were better with humming. CONCLUSION: Nasal NO concentrations with and without humming are significantly decreased in CF. Humming nNO is an excellent discriminator between HC and CF and performs better than silent nNO.