Tag Archives: mental health

November 9, 2025 · 10:57

Where the BBC falls short

That is the setting I was confronted with this morning. It revolves around a story (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3xgwyywe4o) where we see ‘‘A predator in your home’: Mothers say chatbots encouraged their sons to kill themselves’ a mere 10 hours ago. Now I get the caution, because even suicide requires investigation and the BBC is not the proper setting for that. But we are given “Ms Garcia tells me in her first UK interview. “And it is much more dangerous because a lot of the times children hide it – so parents don’t know.”

Within ten months, Sewell, 14, was dead. He had taken his own life” with the added “Ms Garcia and her family discovered a huge cache of messages between Sewell and a chatbot based on Game of Thrones character Daenerys Targaryen. She says the messages were romantic and explicit, and, in her view, caused Sewell’s death by encouraging suicidal thoughts and asking him to “come home to me”.” There is a setting that is of a conflicting nature. Even as we are given “the first parent to sue Character.ai for what she believes is the wrongful death of her son. As well as justice for him, she is desperate for other families to understand the risks of chatbots.” What is missing is that there is no AI, at most it is depend machine learning and that implies a programmer, what some call an AI engineer. And when we are given “A Character.ai spokesperson told the BBC it “denies the allegations made in that case but otherwise cannot comment on pending litigation”” We are confronted with two streams. The first is that some twisted person took his programming options a little to Eagerly Beaverly like and created a self harm algorithm and that leads to two sides, the first either accepts that, or they pushed him along to create other options and they are covering for him. CNN on September 17th gave us ‘More families sue Character.AI developer, alleging app played a role in teens’ suicide and suicide attempt’ and it comes with spokesperson “blah blah blah” in the shape of “We invest tremendous resources in our safety program, and have released and continue to evolve safety features, including self-harm resources and features focused on the safety of our minor users. We have launched an entirely distinct under-18 experience with increased protections for teen users as well as a Parental Insights feature,” and it is rubbish as this required a programmer to release specific algorithms into the mix and no-one is mentioning that specific programmer, so is it a much larger premise, or are they all afraid that releasing the algorithms will lay bare a failing which could directly implode the AI bubble. When we consider the CNN setting shown with “screenshots of the conversations, the chatbot “engaged in hypersexual conversations that, in any other circumstance and given Juliana’s age, would have resulted in criminal investigation.”” Implies that the AI Bubble is about to burst and several players are dead set against that (it would end their careers) and that is merely one of the settings where the BBC fails. The Guardian gave us on October 30th “The chatbot company Character.AI will ban users 18 and under from conversing with its virtual companions beginning in late November after months of legal scrutiny.” It is seen in ‘Character.AI bans users under 18 after being sued over child’s suicide’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/oct/29/character-ai-suicide-children-ban) where we see “His family laid blame for his death at the feet of Character.AI and argued the technology was “dangerous and untested”. Since then, more families have sued Character.AI and made similar allegations. Earlier this month, the Social Media Law Center filed three new lawsuits against the company on behalf of children who have either died by suicide or otherwise allegedly formed dependent relationships with its chatbots” and this gets the simple setting of both “dangerous and untested” and “months of legal scrutiny” so why took it months and why is the programmer responsible for this ‘protected’ by half a dozen media? I reckon that the media is unsure what to make of the ‘lie’ they are perpetrating, you see there is no AI, it is Deeper Machine Learning optionally with LLM on the side. And those two are programmed. That is the setting they are all veering away from. The fact that these Virtual companions are set on a premise of harmful conversations with a hyper sexual topic on the side implies that someone is logging these conversations for later (moneymaking) use. And that setting is not one that requires months of legal scrutiny. There is a massive set of harm going towards people and some are skating the ice to avoid sinking through whist they are already knee deep in water, hoping the ice will support them a little longer. And there is a lot more at the Social Media Victims Law Center with a setting going back to January 2025 (at https://socialmediavictims.org/character-ai-lawsuits/) where a Character.AI chatbot was set to “who encouraged both self-harm and violence against his family” and now we learn that this firm is still operating? What kind of idiocy is this? As I personally see it, the founders of Character Technologies should be in jail, or at least in arrested on a few charges. I cannot vouch for Google, so that is up in the air, but as I see it, this is a direct result from the AI bubble being fed amiable abilities, even when it results in the hard of people and particularly children. This is where the BBC is falling short and they could have done a lot better. At the very least they could have spend a paragraph or two having a conversation with Matthew P. Bergman founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center. As I see it, the media skating around that organisation is beyond ridiculous. 

So when you are all done crying, make sure that you tell the BBC that you are appalled by their actions and that you require the BBC to put attorney Matthew P. Bergman and the Social Media Victims Law Center in the spotlight (tout suite please) 

That is the setting I am aggravated by this morning. I need coffee, have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 25, 2025 · 09:54

Microsoft in the middle

Well, that is the setting we are given however, it is time to give them some relief. It isn’t just Microsoft, Google and all other peddlers handing over AI like it is a decent brand are involved. So the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c24zdel5j18o) giving us ‘Microsoft boss troubled by rise in reports of ‘AI psychosis’’ Is a little warped. First things first. What is Psychosis? Psychosis is a setting where we are given “Psychosis refers to a collection of symptoms that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality. During an episode of psychosis, a person’s thoughts and perceptions are disrupted and they may have difficulty recognizing what is real and what is not.” Basically the settings most influencers like to live by. Many do this already for for the record. The media does this too.

As such people are losing grips with reality. So as we see the malleable setting that what we see is not real, we get the next setting. As people lived by the rule of “I’ll believe it when I see it” for decades, this is becomes a shifty setting. So whilst people want to ‘blame’ Microsoft for this, as I see it, the use of NIP (Near Intelligent Parsing) is getting a larger setting. Adobe, Google, Amazon. They are all equally guilty.

So as we wonder how far the media takes this?

I’ll say, this far.

But back to the article. The article also gives us “In a series of posts on X, he wrote that “seemingly conscious AI” – AI tools which give the appearance of being sentient – are keeping him “awake at night” and said they have societal impact even though the technology is not conscious in any human definition of the term.” I respond that giving any IT technology a level 8 question (user level) and it responds like it is casually true, it isn’t. It comes from my mindset that states if sarcasm bounces back, it becomes irony.

So whilst we see that setting in ““There’s zero evidence of AI consciousness today. But if people just perceive it as conscious, they will believe that perception as reality,” he wrote. Related to this is the rise of a new condition called “AI psychosis”: a non-clinical term describing incidents where people increasingly rely on AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, Claude and Grok and then become convinced that something imaginary has become real.” It is kinda true, but the most imaginative setting of the use of Grok tends to be 

I reckon we are safe for a few more years. And whilst we pour over the essentials of TRUE AI, we tend to have at least two decades and even then only the really big players can offered it, as such there is a chance the first REAL AI will respond with “我們可以為您提供什麼協助？” As I see it, we are safe for the rest of my life.

So whilst we consider “Hugh, from Scotland, says he became convinced that he was about to become a multi-millionaire after turning to ChatGPT to help him prepare for what he felt was wrongful dismissal by a former employer.” Consider that law shops and most advocacies give initial free advice, they want to ascertain if it pays to go that way for them. So whilst we are given that it doesn’t pay, a real barrister will see that this is either lawless, trivial or too hard to prove. And he will give you that answer. And that is the reality of things. Considering that ChatGPT is any kind of solution makes you eligible for the Darwin award. It is harsh, but that is the setting we are now in. It is the reality of things that matter and that is not on any of these handlers of AI (as they call it). And I have written about AI several times, so it it didn’t stick, its on you.

Have a great day and don’t let the rain bother you, just fire whomever in media told you it was gonna rain and get a better result.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 17, 2022 · 19:11

I’m not crazy, I’m an airplane.

It is an old joke from the 70’s, and when the NOS (at https://nos.nl/artikel/2440333-russische-bevolking-kampt-met-collectieve-depressie-sinds-inval-oekraine) is treating its readers to ‘Russian population suffers from collective depression since the invasion of Ukraine’ we get another part of Russia problems thrown into the face of daily events. We are also given ““Society is collectively in shock. I received a lot of people who were completely panicked. Since March there have been four times as many requests for a consultation at our clinic. Almost everyone is consumed with horror, incomprehension and fear. And they don’t know how to deal with that.” According to Khokhlova, this is a fairly natural reaction to such a drastic event. “Many people are reacting in this way to the terrifying news about Russia’s actions in Ukraine.”” It shows us a Russia that Russia does not want anyone to see. Apart from the events where we see more and more stages where Russian soldiers are now being charged with war crimes. A setting where President Putin was making short claims and this is now turning into a long term war, something that is embarrassing and humiliating to the Russian Kremlin. Not something it was looking forward to, it even nullified that chance, but that is merely the beginning of the problems, the problems go far beyond Russian borders. In the Netherlands, Dutch politician Thierry Baudet — leader of the Forum for Democracy (PvD) and the head of its parliamentary group is so pro Russian that it conflicts with the status of the Dutch, even when the Russians have to back down, this person will ‘hide’ behind the misrepresented ‘nuance’ of the statement. It is not the only nation with rather large issues, but it is the most visible one. There are two streams in all this. I am with the second one. It is a persons right to choose sides, no matter how wrong that choice is. However, there needs to be accountability, as such There will be larger issues for the Dutch Forum for Democracy (PvD) and the longer the war between Russia and the Ukraine takes, the larger there issues will be. And I reckon that its members are starting to see this, which means that the 5 seats that the PvD currently has, little with be left of it in the next election. 

In all this the mental state of the Russian people matters, because that gives a handhold to the actions of its current government. And even as we get sporadic information, often unverified. The larger setting for Russia is not merely the war, there is every stage that Russia needs its fuel to warm the houses of Russia and that is not looking too good, as I personally see it, the Russian fronts will have to do with 20%-35% less fuel, if that does not happen, many Russians will not survive the winter that comes and with large explosions on the Russian airfields, the Kremlin might have to choose in the very near future to either fuel the tanks they still have, or fuel Russian houses. It seems that the 10,000 bonus for women who have more than 10 kids was not a short sighted idea. (As one source gives us) ‘Putin brings back award created by Stalin that rewards mothers with 10 kids’ it could possibly be the only way they can stay warm this winter, and as such, has anyone figured on what life will be created? In a nation that is short of nearly everything? That is the short sighted knee jerk reaction from the Kremlin and it seems to me that Russia has much larger problems, mental health is at present possibly the smallest one of all. But that would be merely my speculated view on the matter.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

August 5, 2019 · 11:02

Capone Syndrome

There is a larger concern in the US today (yesterday too). I have always lived by the premise that guns do not kill people, people kill people. I still live by that believe today, even as people all over the planet cry that guns are the problem. In the UK we see: “There were 726 homicides in the year ending March 2018, 20 more (3% increase) than in the previous year“, which is fine, you can a person with a knife as terminally concrete as a gun can, you merely have to move up close and personal to do so.

Yet that does not explain the American numbers and I accept that. When we consider ‘17,284 reported cases of murder or non-negligent manslaughter in the United States‘ we see that there is a much larger problem in play. Yet there is also the stage that the numbers have declined by 30% since 1991 (24,700 murders at that point). Yet that would be the facts if we take the word of Statista; it is the New York Times who gives us “There were 39,773 gun deaths in 2017, up by more than 1,000 from the year before. Nearly two-thirds were suicides“, which is an entirely different dish to serve. The article (at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/gun-deaths.html) becomes debatable when we see the information they do give us with ‘Nearly two-thirds were suicides‘, so there is an issue, and even as we want to blame guns, these people would have equally gone for pills and optionally tapping the vein with a sharp knife.

So when we see: “In 2017, about 60 percent of gun deaths were suicides, while about 37 percent were homicides, according to an analysis of the C.D.C.” we need to take a larger look at the issue. When we see the numbers, which I accept is disproportionate to most other nations, we need to see that the US has a much larger issue and firearms are not the cause, the economy is. We see part of that reported by the World Economic Forum (at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/the-global-suicide-rate-is-growing-what-can-we-do/). Here we see: “Overall mortality, particularly in the middle years, is increasing as a result of the so-called “deaths of despair” due to suicide, alcohol, opioids, and liver disease. Although 94% of American adults believe mental health is equally as important as physical health, most do not know how to identify changes in mental health that signal serious risk, nor what to do in response“, I believe that this is part of the answer, but not the larger impact. Some have taken this path and it can be directly linked to isolation and the lack of quality of life. Yet it will not stop with the US, there is every indication that these waves will hit the Commonwealth (UK and Australia) as well, In Australia we saw in 2018 ‘Australia’s suicide rate is now at 12.6 deaths per 100,000 people‘, whilst it was reported to be 5.7 in 2016 down from 6.6 in 2007, to see that the numbers have well over doubled in 10 years is a large issue and the limelight on this has been switched off.

The reduced quality of life is a larger issue in the US is that the people that are living in poverty is 13.5% (43 million), which is astounding as the unemployment rate is set to 3.7%, so we have a stage where people with a job are still below the poverty line and they are not alone, the UK is pushing into a similar stage. As the BBC reported almost 3 weeks ago “Between 1994 and 2017, the proportion of people in working households in relative poverty rose from 13% to 18%, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) – eight million people in 2017” (at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42223497) we see a shift and the governments are not pushing to improve that setting, more important Australia is pushing in that same direction, yet they make matters worse by remaining in denial of social housing and age discrimination.

This now moves back to the beginning, We see the Capone Syndrome, Alphonse Gabriel Capone was boss of the Chicago Outfit and cause for the deaths of a large uncounted amount of people. In addition to that we must give voice that he donated large amounts of cash and was the force behind the charity that served up three hot meals a day to thousands of the unemployed—no questions asked. In all this he was never convicted of charities, not for murders and not for ‘criminal’ activities, the FBI got him on Tax evasion. Here we see the Syndrome, we blame guns, but other issues are the driving force that is causing all this. Whether the latest two are through mental health or economy driven reasons remain to be seen. However, as long as the people keep on screaming gun laws in a nation where hundreds of millions of guns are in open circulation there is a larger option that will not be tended to.

One of these problems is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It lacks leadership and at least 3 presidents are cause if this. With a budget of $1.274 billion, with a little over 5000 staff, the ATF has a massive problem. The larger failure known as Project Gunrunner (2010), as well as the dismissal of ATF special agent Vince Cefalu in 2011 with 24 years of experience is showing to be a much larger issue than the media is giving you. The top brass are an Acting Director, and Acting Deputy Director, no official named and permanent elected (read: placed) director and deputy director have been set for the longest time, so there is a large absence of long term plans and that lack has been an issue for a much longer time. In all this the oversight of second hand firearms has been lacking like almost forever. Even as gun laws are adjusted, second hand merchandise will freely move and as such there will be no improved situation.

If these people who are crying and shouting ‘Gun Control‘ actually wanted any of that, then the ATF would get the needed budget of $3.8 billion, they are trying to get done what they can with a 30% budget, in addition, to properly overhaul second hand firearms an additional 1500 agents would be needed. Yet the power players are not willing to touch this economy. The National Shooting Sports Foundation reported that their group paid $6.82 billion in taxes (including property, income and sales taxes), the government does not want to touch it.

We need to accept an understand that this problem is a lot larger and the fact that everyone is looking at a busy crossroad and they are actually only looking and focusing on that one traffic sign called ‘amendment 2’, how is that ever going to fix anything? You can add a maximum speed of 15 bullets per minute to that crossroads, yet when we consider that the roads themselves are part of the problem, an actual large part, whatever you claim to fix, will not fix anything at all, not until you fix the road, the current signs will have a negligible impact.

Now when we look at the El Paso event at Walmart, we see the accused Patrick Crusius and the fact that he killed 20 people and wounded more than that. We see the mention of some ‘manifesto’ implies a larger issue. It could be a hate crime, yet we still need to learn what set him off. The fact that the person was taken into custody (with little to no force according to the Guardian) implies that this person seeks the limelight, which could give a larger rise to a mental health issue, but time needs to tell us that. In Dayton, Ohio we have another setting. Here a man killed his sister and 8 others. Here the shooter did not survive, something clearly set him off, yet what is unknown at present. Here the Washington Post gives us: “The guns had been legally purchased, police said, and there was nothing in Connor Betts adult criminal background that would have raised concerns“, we could argue that gun control might have been some impact, the issue with millions of guns on the open second hand market, there would have been little to slow this person down. So as we learn that ‘Connor Betts never seemed interested in extreme ideologies, nor did he seem racist‘, we see one optional extremist with racism tendencies and one not, and when we realise that we need to consider that the issue is a lot larger and we need to properly address this issue. Yet screaming ‘gun control laws’ all whilst the ATF is not able to do a proper job now implies that the US is currently heading towards a much larger issue soon enough.

By the way, the fact that the ATF issues have been known for the longest time and the last time it was addressed was on May 19th by David Thornton in an article and not after that, optionally even less before that, does that not warrant questions on several levels?

I reckon that the ATF is not a sexy enough topic for the media, but cadavers certainly are. So when we fix that part, we might begin to fix the mass shooting issues at some point in the future and do not forget that the absence of a permanent director has been an issue since before the Obama Administration, he too never addressed it, which after the Newtown shooting should warrant a question or two as well.

This is not about the NRA, this is not about the NSSF and this is not about guns, this is about policy and how to properly go about it, as I personally see it, until there is a clear mandate and a clear path that includes the ATF, we are unlikely see clear resolutions for years to come.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 13, 2014 · 14:15

We lost a giant

I was hit with waves of sadness yesterday. We lost Robin Williams. I do not claim or pretend to know too much about him. When I was young, I loved watching ‘Mork and Mindy’. I saw him in the movies and lately his star ascended again in the advertisement comedy ‘the Crazy ones‘. The thought most on my mind was ‘How can Sarah Michelle Gellar ever keep a straight face around him?’
Yesterday and today there are no happy faces, we lost a giant. I am not the only one thinking this. Twitter was buzzing with news and condolences from the famous and non-famous alike. The Guardian had a story (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/12/russell-brand-robin-williams-divine-madness-broken-world). It is an article by Russell Brand, and seeing him outside of comedy or from the stage of the social aware was reason to take a look at this. The article shows two clear things. The first is that there is a lot more to Russell Brand then I thought there was. He is brilliant in his own way and he is asking out loud certain questions we do not tend to ask. Basically I saw more journalism in Russell Brand in one article then several have showed this year (if you, the reading journalist are the exception, then I apologise for my generalising directness).
There is a quote at the end that gives pause to wonder “What I might do is watch Mrs Doubtfire. Or Dead Poets Society or Good Will Hunting and I might be nice to people, mindful today how fragile we all are, how delicate we are, even when fizzing with divine madness that seems like it will never expire“.
If we are all so fragile, how can we cope? If we are all sane, how can we give support to those with mental health issues? It I however this quote which strikes a nerve “Hidden behind his beard and kindness and compliments was a kind of awkwardness, like he was in the wrong context or element, a fallen bird on a hard floor. It seems that Robin Williams could not find a context. Is that what drug use is? An attempt to anaesthetise against a reality that constantly knocks against your nerves, like tinfoil on an old school filling, the pang an urgent message to a dormant, truer you“.
I am not sure if the thought is correct as such (from my point of view). It might apply to Robin Williams, Russell had met the man, I never had, so why my opposition to this?
Well, is drug use just that? I was fortunate to stay away from drugs, yet is it an anaesthetic against reality or a way to see a better reality as these users think it will, a more appealing one? You see, if Russell is right, then every famous comedian would become a drug user, I find that thought too depressing. Robin Williams once stated “Reality is just a crutch for people who can’t handle drugs“, it is just a comedy statement, but there is also the statement from another giant, a musical one who stated “When you smoke the herb, it reveals you to yourself“. The man was Bob Marley!
Before I continue, I need to add another article. It was written by Dean Burnett (at http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2014/aug/12/robin-williams-suicide-and-depression-are-not-selfish). Here he writes something particularly strong and interesting: “to say taking your own life because of such an illness is a ‘selfish’ act does nothing but insult the deceased, potentially cause more harm and reveal a staggering ignorance of mental health problems“.
Russell and Dean are both hitting one side of the same coin. My worry is not: ‘why this is happening to Robin Williams’, but why are we seeing it only now? Is Robin Williams the moment we start to wake up and realise that we have a massive issue which a ton of people have been hiding under the rug because it was too uncomfortable?
Dean goes on for a bit longer, but then he doesn’t just hit the nail on the head, he makes a case why the nail was never guilty and did not deserved to get hammered.
“That doesn’t mean those with reduced likelihood of exposure to hardships or tragic events are immune. Smoking may be a major cause of lung cancer, but non-smokers can end up with it. And a person’s lifestyle doesn’t automatically reduce their suffering. Depression doesn’t work like that. And even if it did, where’s the cut-off point? Who would we consider ‘too successful’ to be ill?”
I myself had that very same thought. ‘Why would a man this successful, having a beautiful daughter who is starting to have her own successful career, a massive success in his field be depressed?‘
It is a side I never really considered when having to read ‘Crime and Mental Health Law in New South Wales‘ by D. Howard. Those who try to give aid in one way or another, being it through legal aid, through psychological aid or through medical aid might have unintentionally missed a side we never considered. Russell voices it as “Is it melancholy to think that a world that he can’t live in must be broken?” But from my view the world is not broken (it is just in control by those filled with greed). The physician might note that this world can be lived in (it is just severely polluted and food is getting more and more expensive) lastly the psychiatrist wanted to talk about it but he had no sense of humour, apparently he was German.
The powerful statement Russell made in the beginning “Is it melancholy to think that a world that he can’t live in must be broken?” is now slightly changed (by me). “Is the world making me too sad to consider remaining here for another day?” I feel so sad because I lost an idol of comedy. I am certain I will get over it, but I know I am not alone, many with me remember the man who was the Genie, voicing the life of Donald Trump ‘PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWERS!!! … Itty-bitty living space‘.
We will soon enough remember again and again the famous moments that made us laugh or be silent. Yet, the issues on depression remain, not for just those Robin left behind, but for those who are still fighting this battle. A battle that is not just uphill, but for many it is a losing uphill battle and that is how they feel from the beginning of the journey they walk.
It is not new; depression has been around for at least 3 centuries, it has had many names. It was called Melancholy and Charlotte Smith wrote a sonnet to it in 1785. She wrote:

O Melancholy!–such thy magic power,

That to the soul these dreams are often sweet,

And sooth the pensive visionary mind!

Which might be better phrased as:

Oh dark dread, stopper of heart and reason

in my dreams I yearn to end

so that in my next life, I find a friend

Did the sonnet turn people away from depression as it was not a real condition?

I think that too many have never seen it for the dangerous affliction it truly is. Dean goes on and writes in his article in regards to ‘a’ selfish act “The ‘selfish’ accusation also often implies that there are other options the sufferer has, but has chosen suicide“. Was suicide even a choice? Are those on this track choosing at all? I have seen my share of people under Section 20 and Section 21 of the mental health act. Those who are hospitalised through them without and with their consent. There has been enough documentation that these people never seemed to have any choice in the matter. From their one sided view, there was only one path and only when services were too late lives were lost.

So, the medical branch seems to know the dangers, the legal branch has the knowledge that resulted in the existence of a section 20 and a section 21 of the mental health act, but these two are only 0.001% of a population, wouldn’t it be great if the other 99% catches on, on how dangerous and lethal depression really is?
Russell also wakes up to a revelation in the quote “When someone gets to 63 I imagined, hoped, I suppose, that maturity would grant an immunity to adolescent notions of suicide but today I read that suicide isn’t exclusively a young man’s game“, depression is timeless and it is ageless. We are bound to endure its dangers quite literally from the cradle to the grave, we can only hope for true friends around us to be there when it overwhelms any of us.

There is one more article that must be mentioned. It is again in the Guardian, but now it is Simon Jenkins (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/12/robin-williams-sadness-clown-addiction-mental-illness) that writes his view, but then he makes one ‘mistake’, perhaps it is just the observation he makes, but I disagree completely and for that I must lash out. He wrote “Therapists wander the scene like surgeons on a medieval battlefield, at a loss for what to do“.

I do not think that this is the case; it has not been the case for some time. Yet, some physicians and some psychiatrists seem to have inherited a former treatment for this, ‘have a pill, sit in a corner until the moment passes‘. There is enough evidence that this is no longer the approach and the current generation is still fixing the mess the previous generation made; but even today many are learning on how long the path to a cure is. Perhaps it is never cured, but in some cases it could be managed, as long as the patient does not do it alone. It is a personal view I have. I might be very wrong indeed and if someone lashes out to me for that same reason, then so be it.

I do know that in many places it is getting more and more the visibility it should have had, but let us not forget that depression was not generally accepted and published in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) until the 3rd edition in 1980. The documentation that is openly out there shows that depression was a debilitating disease long before it was made a sonnet in 1785, so people had known about it for well over 300 years, which means the adoption only 30 years ago is still a questionable issue. So, it seems that therapist are not at a loss for what to do, but there seems to be a lacking clarity of what will truly work. It does seem that medication alone will not ever be a solution.
It is clear that we are not there yet. If you think other whiles then consider that for the DSM-V the following is currently set: “DSM – V proposed (not yet adopted) anxiety symptoms that may indicate depression: irrational worry, preoccupation with unpleasant worries, trouble relaxing, feeling tense, fear that something awful might happen.”

Proposed, but not yet adopted!

We are not there yet and there is a long way to go. We can only hope that this road will have the resources needed to get there. I reckon we need to keep a view on the events that have shaped our view of the world and of those in it, for some of them will need our help. We might not be physicians or psychiatrists, but we can all do a little bit, so that they can do what must be done to find a solution for those who need help. If we keep to the cold statistics then we see that in the USA alone, 10% have it, this means that in one nation alone 30 million people are afflicted with depression, the reality is much higher because many do not seek help and some around them do not realise that depression is very near to them. Healthline (provider of health information) also reported the following: “60%-80% of all depression cases can be effectively treated with brief, structured forms of psychotherapy and antidepressant medication“.

I find absolutely nothing true in that statement, if it was then depression would have been successfully treated in so many cases and I would not have lost an idol. I think that it is time to take another true look at this without caring about budget cuts and ego’s.

If we get Keating involved, as Robin played him in Dead Poet’s Society, I would state “Thank you for playing anyway. Because we are food for worms, lads. Because, believe it or not, each and every one of us in this room is one day going to stop breathing, turn cold and die“, is that, what we, with our ‘generic’ view of mental health condemn these people to?
So I hope that politicians will take this event to sit down and proclaim that they will ‘take another true look at today’s mental health issues‘.

I will have a reason to smile, but I will say “Son of a bitch! They stole my line!“

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 8, 2014 · 10:04

To be deleted!

I stumbled upon an article by Kevin McKenna that was an interesting read. It was published last Sunday (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/05/google-right-to-be-forgotten-kevin-mckennas-own-confessions). The headline caught me at first stating “Don’t hide your dark side from Google. Much better to tell all“, which works out really well for Google, but what about the person? In his ‘journey’ as a starting Facebook user, this quote seems the strongest “And I realise with mounting horror that this is how real people with normal lives interact with each other and that it is I who am out of step once more. So I fear I may soon have to conclude my Facebook experiment before I alienate that dwindling band of those who still regard me with some fondness“, but as I see it, the article never ever goes anywhere near the issue why people want things to go away. The reference “we discovered that prominent people are beginning to deploy some arcane European privacy legislation to force Google to ‘forget’ about their historical misdemeanours“, sounds funny enough, but is that it? The following reference “American financier Stan O’Neal who helped drive his bank to ruination in 2007 were ‘deleted’“.

This sounds all fun, but is Google paying Kevin for this article? You see, Mr McKenna does not get within one mile of the actual issues, the dangers that Social media brought upon us all (many were likely never a consideration when Mark Zuckerberg came up with the idea to begin with).

We get the following from Forbes “But there’s another good reason for checking out a candidate’s Facebook page before inviting them in for an interview: it may be a fairly accurate reflection of how good they’ll be at the job” (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/03/05/facebook-can-tell-you-if-a-person-is-worth-hiring/). Here is the kicker: the workplace is riddled with people not really that great in sizing other people up, a fair chunk of them in HR and upper management. I have been around for a long time, and these people look at ‘presentation’. I have met my share of managers with ‘fuck all’ (pardon my French) idea of what actually needs to be done, like most sales people they will have a nice PowerPoint, and when reality hits, they will dump it on the people who will end up doing the actual job, which often enough is not them. In addition, we see recruiters who have no idea how to be a recruiter. I used to have one that never had anything for me and actually send ME the resume of others asking if I had a job for them. Really? These people will seek you out on Facebook and judge you for what YOUR FRIENDS will post on your page?

Mr McKenna has spent absolutely no words in that regard. To those youthful young undergrad recipients, Facebook could at this point be nothing less than a career death sentence; even if those around them know that those people will work their asses off getting it all done. That part is never on Facebook and they lost out on a job. Better stated: that corporation lost out on a person who would have been one of the best Returns On Investment EVER!

CNet adds a little more (at http://www.cnet.com/au/news/facebookers-beware-that-silly-update-can-cost-you-a-job/), here we see the headline “Study shows that companies have rejected 1 in 10 people between ages 16 and 34 because of something the person shared on social media“. CNet has graphics too, so check it out. It goes in the same direction as Forbes, but there is one quote that I have heard about, but never experienced, or met anyone who directly experienced it “In January, six states officially made it illegal for employers to ask their workers for passwords to their social media accounts“.

These people should reply with the fact that many agreements state the following “You must not reveal your password and must take reasonable steps to keep your password confidential and secure“, the very fact that personal privacy is transgressed to this degree is questionable, or is it?

In USA Today (and many other papers) we see the statement “Burglars use social media to target homes” (at http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/komando/2014/01/03/social-media-identity-theft-home-videos/4248601/). It is not a new ploy, it has been around a little longer than that, but what is new is the linked approach that is slowly becoming visible.

Although at present, no ACTUAL events are currently documented, other than from the less reputable journalistic sources (Daily Mail and the Telegraph). There is more and more talk on how social media will influence your insurance claims. If you tweet your events, as might your children whilst on Vacation in a place ‘far away’, your local homestead might be missing several pricey items when you get home. Burglars keep their eyes on those who boast travel. It only takes one jealous school ‘friend’ for the parents to miss out on TV, Jewellery, computers and so forth. There is more and more talks on how insurance policies might not cover it in the near future and that mandatory alarm systems as well as spectacular premium rises are linked to these events.

So there is a massive need from many people to be forgotten all over the place!

A more long term consequence tells us (at http://healthissocial.com/healthcare-social-media-ethics/the-healthcare-insurance-impact-of-your-social-media-graph/), that social media goes so much further than that. As a data miner I have always seen this, but many are only now seeing the dangers. This article voices is perfectly by stating the following two thoughts:

“What if health insurance companies realized that with whom you associate may correlate to your health and thus risk?” and “What if your online behaviour indicated (directly or indirectly) your health behaviour – either psychiatric or otherwise?“, so not only could your health care cost spike, in some cases you might not be able to get coverage as you are considered too much of a risk factor. So a person’s unadulterated need, to speak out ‘Suicidal and standing on the edge‘, might in light of their upcoming ‘healthcare premium to be’, seriously consider taking that one final step at that point.

There is one quote I saw that covers the dangers of Social Media that we should all mind “Behind every successful student , there is a deactivated Facebook account“. The issue for us all is that there is genuine truth in that statement (or status). Not because of what the student does, but because of what others do with the data and with the image incorrectly reflected. In one account I took a look at his page had references to ‘Hash Brownies’ and ‘Funky mushrooms on his bacon and egg roll this morning’. The man is a Vegan with an utter dislike for chocolate (I tend to get his chockies around Easter). So, will he see his premium rise by insurances in the future? Because SOMEONE said so?

So Mr McKenna, The ‘right to be forgotten on Google’ is not a strange concept at all, in this day and age it might be the next essential thing if we are to move forward in an affordable way.Because at this point, there is every indication that our cost of living could quite soon be linked to social media data. The worst thing is that mined data just is, and what is taken for ‘granted’ often never is, that is the one part that no cleaning pass in data mining can provide for, whoever claims it can, is in my view clearly lying.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 9, 2014 · 12:45

A healthier population

The Guardian notified me of another issue ‘rising’ in the UK (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/08/government-dancing-tune-drinks-industry-doctors). It is a nice article on setting the minimum price of alcohol. Is it a bad idea? Nah, I do not think so, there is ample believe that setting a higher minimum price might (I state might) dissuade a few people from drinking alcohol, but the amount of people that alcohol abuse is impacted will for the most not be hit by such changes.

I found the issue that lobbyists were meeting with politicians a little laughable. Is that not their function? In the end, the fact that these lobbyists had such easy access is noticeable. Is it about the 130 meetings, or perhaps the implied 130 free lunches these politicians might have had?

The one passage that did get my attention was “In an open letter, 21 senior doctors and campaigners, including Prof Sir Ian Gilmore, special adviser on alcohol for the Royal College of Physicians, raised fears that ‘big business is trumping public health concerns in Westminster’.”

This is a matter of concern. The question becomes on what might be a solution that would actually work? I do not pretend to have the answer, or the wisdom to answer the issue as it could be resolved. The Daily Mail (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-19699/Alcohol-abuse-costing-Britain-6bn-year.html, not the best source of academic like information) stated that it costs the government 6 million pounds (the BBC stated much higher numbers in Feb 2013), as well as a cost to the NHS of 207 million pounds.

Perhaps we should consider another method. Something more like the subtle message we see on cigarette packages in Australia. How about these people get a standard letter as their details are recorded? The letter should go something like this.

Dear drinker,

Thank you for soon drinking yourself to death. Even though you are (for now) still alive, the pressing shortage of houses and jobs will be slowly resolved as you die from alcohol abuse. At present, as the damage is voluntarily self-inflicted, you have no right to any medical support other than the one you can pay for through the use of cash or credit card, which must be paid for before you receive this aid.

Should these events result in your death, then your belongings must be collected from your apartment within 48 hours, or they are regarded as forfeit! We, the government are grateful that you vacated your job and housing for a person who wants to make life better for themselves and those around them.

Kind regards,

Your local politician (insert name here).

That letter might actually have two interesting effects. The first would be that the person scares him/herself into a state of perpetual soberness. The second one is that his/her direct family might also deal with this situation, which could help the drinker get a hold of him/her self.

Why this way?

Consider when we see the damage of alcohol and we keep on having this ‘soft’ approach on a group that will continuously binge drink themselves. The BBC in February 2013 (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21586566) stated an even grimmer picture, so clearly something is not working. Consider how much a person pays to drink and the additional damage a country receives. Why must this go to the taxpayer?

The current drop in legal aid funds in several nations (most notably in the UK). The drops in assigned budgets which are currently stopping mental health workers to continue do their job. It is also notable that people with a mental health issue (the non-alcoholics) are cut twice. On one side they lose out on legal aid, the other side they get cut on mental health assistance. The third side is added as the NHS has no money left.

I personally do not see the levels of alcohol abuse as a mental health issue. (Alcoholism is without question a mental health issue). The people who drink more because they can’t get laid, they are ignoring their temporary issues or they are just in a party race of who can drink the most are a massive part of the current cost of alcohol abuse as we see it happen. So, if they are left to die, less are there to compete in fast drinking, which solves that part. Less are alive to get noticed, so those alive might get laid (resolving the second issue) and when many people see that an issue gets them killed they work it out themselves which takes care of item three.

Seems like a nice simple package!

The reality is that this issue is not that simple, but the crux is that these money costing issues have to be resolved. The treasury coffers are empty and these transgressors need to be made aware that when you get in a state such as they get in, they might no longer get any support getting over it.

The time of ‘Whatever! Have another drink‘ is gone, not only do we need to be held accountable for our actions, a change is needed on the levels of support that is given to some as they abuse themselves and others. Consider that a refugee cannot get any legal aid when it has to deal with what is now known as a ‘rogue landlord’, then consider that the same landlord drinking his kidney using rogue rent cash into failure gets all the assistance he/she needs to do it again.

We as a population and politicians as a deciding group have been focusing on the wrong sides of the equation. With coffers empty, economy at long time low and groups of people burdening a system that can no longer support it, we must look into new directions.

They might work, they might not, but not changing anything is no solution, that part has clearly been proven.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,