Thursday, November 28, 2013

Dilettante Journalism About Adam Lanza By PBS

Raising Adam Lanza

Just (11/27/2013) watched online a PBS Frontline report by this title aired on 2/19/2013 about the shooter of the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting of 12/14/2013. This report was basically about two reporters from the Hartford Courant newspaper.

Unfortunately, we learn little about this young man. The reporting was done in an amateurish, superficial, and dilettante way.

What Did We Not Learn About This Young Man

This Frontline report failed in so many ways:
  1. Was AL seeing a psychologist or other mental health professional?
  2. AL was diagnosed with sensory processing disorder and Asperger's disease. No further details provided. Who diagnosed? How severe?
  3. No interview with father of AL. Frontline may have tried.
  4. No interview with the brother of AL. No reason given.
  5. No interviews with any other family members of father or mother. No reasons given.
  6. No interviews with mental health professionals or experts on such crimes
  7. No interviews with peers of AL
  8. No investigation in the after school activities of AL
  9. Only one teacher interviewed
  10. Only one friend of mother interviewed
  11. No parallels or contrasts to other, similar shootings developed
  12. And we could go on and on ...

The Mother And First Victim

Frontline looked at her only as she was perhaps ignorant or in denial of the severity of her son’s mental condition. Or was she just overwhelmed as a divorced, single mother?

The mother was reported (not by Frontline) as unemployed living off financial support from her divorced husband. Frontline basically only reported that she had a gun collection and took her sons to a gun range for shooting practice.

I believe, it does not happen that often that the mentally ill shooter kills his parents as well. This kind of parenticide by itself is, I believe, a very serious sign of something gone wrong. Frontline completely failed to recognize this.

It appears quite obvious to me that the mother likely was mentally ill herself. So was possibly one of her parents or possibly other family members. Unfortunately, Frontline did not investigate this angle at all.

Jared Lee Loughner

A surviving, mentally ill shooter who severely injured U.S. Representative Gifford and killed several people in 2011.

How much research if any is being done on him?

Gun Control Absurdity And Denial

In part II of the above Frontline report, PBS exposes the viewer to gun control nonsense. Clearly, the Sandy Hook massacre had basically nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Those, who advocate more gun control in the wake of such a shootings obviously committed by a mentally ill person are in pathological denial of the facts.

Mentally illness is still a taboo subject and a stigma in this society. There are no races for the cure in this country in every town like for breast cancer.

Price Of Freedom

Do we simply have to live with the fact that every so often a mentally ill person would take a gun and go somewhere to kill people?

Or is it not high time to offer more help for mentally ill people in this great country!

Previous, Related Blog Posts

See here, here, and here.

The US President Continues To Exploit The Assault In Tucson For More Gun Control

Introduction

This blog post was previously posted, but then withdrawn.
Unbecoming Of A President Of The United States
Again, the President of the United States exploits the rare incidence that a mentally ill young man went on a shooting rampage. On March 13, 2011, Obama published an op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star titled “We must seek agreement on gun reforms”. An authoritarian demand. Once more he is so pathetic. This is a cheap political stunt unbecoming of a President of the United States.
Too Much Baloney
In this op-ed he claims another 2,000 people died due to gun violence since the assault happened in Tucson. Does he really believe that with more gun control these homicides would be significantly reduced? What does more gun control do to prevent an event like Tucson or Virginia Tech (also explicitly mentioned by Obama)?
He claims “Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson.” This is just baloney.
The US President Is In Denial
Not one word in his more than 1,000 words long piece mentions that the shooter was most likely mentally ill. In Obama’s euphemistic words “a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies” and “an unbalanced man”. He is in denial and therefore his exploitation of the assault in Tucson is a shame. His ideological blindness also prevents the US President from recognizing that more needs to be done to treat or to commit involuntarily to a mental institution or to research better treatments for the mentally ill. The US President does not have the guts to face a societal stigma and taboo like mental illness.
The Tucson Shooter Was Not A Criminal

“I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few - dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example - from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.” This man is incredible. Really, he is willing to bet? Never mind that the NRA and probably countless police officers for decades have advocated just that. The Tucson shooter was not a criminal.

Tragedies Like The Killing Of Six People In Arizona By A Mentally Ill Individual Are Preventable – Mental Illness Must Not Be A Taboo Or A Stigma

Introduction


This blog post was previously posted not long after the shooting occurred, but then withdrawn.


Original Blog Post
The killing of a six people and the attempted killing of a member of Congress as just happened in Tucson, Arizona is preventable. The mind is a terrible thing to waste. The current ongoing debate over a more civil discourse in society is a gigantic red herring.
First, I would like to recommend a great article that appeared on 1/12/2011 in the Wall Street Journal’s excellent Opinion section by E. Fuller Torrey titled “A Predictable Tragedy in Arizona”. If this author is right, then such a tragedy is also preventable. This article as well as others that were published these days list a dozen or more similar cases of a mentally ill person committing horrible acts (e.g. Virginia Tech University). Moreover, it appears that a significant percentage (perhaps as high as 10%) of all homicides in the US are committed by “individuals with seriously mental illnesses”. Thus, Dr. Torrey concludes if serious mental illnesses remain untreated “[i]t is not a question of if such tragedies will occur but rather when and how often.”
Key Issues Related To Mental Illness
In my opinion, following key issues need to be addressed:
1) The centuries old taboo about mental illness in our society
2) Mentally ill individuals ought not to be stigmatized
3) About 40 years ago, scientists, doctors, and society thought it was human progress to discharge mentally ill people in large numbers from mental institutions and to close down mental institutions.
4) It is possible that there is still a widespread perception among people that the treatment for seriously mental illness are crude/harsh/brutal and mind/personality altering.
5) Has psychiatry deteriorated into a pseudo science?
6) Does mental illness run in families?
Mental Illness - A Huge Taboo And Stigma In Our Society
Yes, we live in the 21st century with all its scientific, medical, and technological advances; equal rights and opportunities for women; the best care in the world for injured soldiers; ending of racial discrimination; the non-discrimination and acceptance of homosexuals; recognition of and assistance for physically and mentally disabled individuals etc. However, as far as mental illness is concerned we still hold rather medieval and superstitious beliefs or fears about it.
This taboo of mental illnesses in our society is pervasive, severe, and unhealthy. People feel ashamed or uneasy to talk about it. People try to deny or conceal any mental issues they may have for fear of repercussions. Why do we call a psychiatrist a ‘shrink’? A person known or perceived to have mental health symptoms is stigmatized and ostracized. What about parents with a mentally ill child? Do such parents readily admit to that or hide it? How do e.g. neighbors respond if they know of such a child?
I would also venture to guess at this point that because of this deep-rooted societal taboo funding for research into the causes and treatment of mental illness is probably disproportionately insufficient.
Failed Mental Health Policies
I remember well how it was almost celebrated in the 1970s or so when, e.g., mental institutions in Italy were closed and its patients were discharged to live among the population. Since the Dark Ages, mental institutions were seen as dungeons to permanently lock up people with mental issues. Yes, it was time that people with rather harmless, mild mental illnesses were integrated to live a normal life within our society. However, as it happens so often in human history, the proverbial pendulum swung too far and the cognizance and correction of the negative consequences takes far too long. Significant numbers of seriously mentally ill persons appear to be among the homeless and among the prison population and they are untreated.
In the case of the Arizona Shooter, it is reported that Arizona is among the worst states when it comes to public mental health services: Too few hospital beds and outpatient clinics to treat mentally ill people.
For now 40 years, it has been mistakenly ignored or neglected that a significant percentage of mentally ill people, if untreated or insufficiently treated, are potentially violent or dangerous to others or themselves. Of course, not every seriously mentally ill person is a potential killer and it is probably only a minority of seriously mental ill persons who eventually commit horrible acts.
Seriously mentally ill people, who deny, refuse or neglect treatment, may need to be monitored closely or need to be kept in a mental institution. Court-ordered mental evaluations or treatments may need to be issued more often.
Psychiatry A Pseudo Science
There are people who argue that. One of their arguments is, e.g., that the criteria for diagnosing mental illness as stated in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders are overly broad and vague that almost anyone could be considered to be mentally ill to some degree.
It is a well-known tendency by doctors to expand the numbers of real and potential patients. This is good for business.
Mental Illnesses Run In Families
I suspect this could be a little known fact that there is an increased probability if a parent has a mental illness that an offspring might acquire one too. Why does the general public not learn more about this? How much do psychiatrists know about this?
There is, e.g., a suspicion that the father of the Tucson shooter is perhaps mentally ill as well.
One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest Or Horrors Of Psychosurgery
The deterrence effect on the general public of radical medical methods used in the not so distant past to treat mentally ill should not be underestimated.
Older generations may remember this famous and remarkable 1975 movie starring Jack Nicholson titled “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest”. This movie was filmed at a real psychiatric hospital. This film featured first a horrible electroconvulsive therapy and then an even scarier lobotomy applied to Jack Nicholson, who in fact was not even mentally ill. Both therapies were common in the 1940s and 1950s. The inventor of lobotomy even received a Nobel Prize. Thus, this film illustrated both horrible medical therapies resulting in the actor becoming ultimately an unresponsive idiot and the danger of the wrong person receiving such an irreversible treatment. Such perverse therapies like lobotomy were also applied to a number of prominent people, e.g. the sister of John F. Kennedy and an older sister of Tennessee Williams.
Recent movies in which mental illness played a central role, i.e. Beautiful Mind (2001; starring Russel Crowe; 4 Academy Awards) and The Aviator (2004; starring Leonardo DiCaprio; 5 Academy Awards) depict an unfavorable outcome of what medicine can achieve. In Beautiful Mind the protagonist, a first rate mathematician and Nobel Prize winner in economics, on his own aided by his wife defeats his demons. In the Aviator, a biographical drama of the life of Howard Hughes, one of the wealthiest man at the time and a very intelligent man was not able to overcome his mental illness.
Even the treatment with current pharmaceuticals is not without controversy, because of its sometimes profound (side)effects on the patient. Refusal to take the medication is not uncommon, e.g. John Nash of Beautiful Mind fame is said not to have taken any medication for decades, because they interfered with his intellectual capacity and emotional life.
Thus, it is of paramount importance to have public campaigns to inform the general public that therapies for mentally ill have since then come a long way. It is also for this reason, why mentally ill individuals or parents may hesitate to seek help.
Public Campaigns To Increase Awareness Of Mental Illness Are Long Overdue
Acute awareness and education about mental illnesses need to be widespread among young and old. There are so many effective public campaigns out there about all kinds of non-mental illnesses, e.g. how to recognize stroke symptoms and that immediate medical attention can save the victim; drug abuse and much more. There are automated external defibrillator devices now installed almost everywhere in public spaces and people are encouraged to learn how to use them, because a life can be saved. Why are there no public campaigns for mental illnesses?
Public campaigns about mental illness would most likely also help mentally ill persons to become more aware of their condition and may persuade a mentally ill person to voluntarily seek help. Is there actually something like an Alcoholics Anonymous for mentally ill persons?
Maybe we need an AIDS or Green Peace like campaigns to heighten awareness. Is there any prominent Hollywood actor who would come out like the death of Rock Hudson helped in the AIDS awareness or the struggle and death of the Superman actor Christopher Reeve and so on?
Why do we not have 5 K runs for mental illness? Why is there no Susan G. Komen Foundation for mental illness (Susan, pardon me for singling you out)? The First Lady Michelle Obama campaigns against obesity, why not mental illness?
Mental Illness Is A Long Process
I would guess, as with other diseases, the earlier an individual with a mental illness can be helped or treated the better.
Mentally ill serial killers or other killers do not happen overnight. As we have learnt from many previous cases, seriously mental ill individuals show warning signs for others to notice often long preceding the commitment of horrible acts. Unfortunately, with mentally ill persons, I believe, they are sometimes not aware of their situation (Anosognosia), thus they are unable to seek help for themselves. If true, this would suggest it is the responsibility of anyone who encounters or who is close to a mentally ill person to try help in some way. Of course, there are the issues of denunciation of or vengeance against an innocent/healthy person in a free society. How to balance the respect for individual freedom and how to respond to a possibly mental ill person is difficult, but there is a need to debate the issue.
The Arizona shooter was a 22-year-old man who still lived with his parents. What did the parents know about the condition of their son? Did the parents not notice that something was wrong with their son? Were the parents too afraid to contact mental health services (perhaps they even felt threatened by their son)? Did the parents ever seek help for their son? Were the parents even aware of any available help like mental health services?
A college that the Arizona Shooter attended suspended him, but allowed him to return if he had received a mental health evaluation. Was this enough? Did the college notify mental health services or did the college offer any mental health service to the Shooter or parents.
Police officers need to be trained to recognize possible mental illness when they deal with a person. Perhaps, police officers also need to consider whether they bring in a trained mental health service professional if they sense mental health issues. Police officers are sometimes the first to encounter a person and to recognize a possible mental health issue.
Happy End
If we rid society of this huge taboo and stigma about mental illness, if we offer appropriate mental health services to mentally ill and their relatives, friends etc., then killings like the one occurred last weekend in Tucson, Arizona will become very rare or almost extinct.
I have full confidence in the acceleration of medical progress we are already seeing. Perhaps in a few years, we will have novel treatments of mental illnesses as our understanding of brain chemistry, genetics, neurology etc. rapidly advances.
I am convinced, we are on the verge to be able to cure mental illnesses.

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Republic Wireless - Competition Is A Wonderful Thing

Posted: 11/27/2013 Updated: 4/4/2015

More Than One Year Later

I am still very happy with my choice nearly 1.5 years ago. The phone is great and reliable. I have no complaints about the service from Republic Wireless. I would do it again anytime.

Trigger

Walter Mossberg of Wall Street Journal just reviewed the Moto X (1st generation) offered by Republic Wireless here. I was immediately intrigued and hooked.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Today (11/27/2013), I purchased the Motorola Moto X for $299 signed up for a $25 per month plan. It will be delivered in one week or so.


Republic Wireless is actually backed up by Sprint’s cellular network. Data included is 5 GB per month.

Currently, I am paying about $80 per month on a plan (650 minutes) with Sprint with a 2 year old phone. This, really sucks!  I called Sprint this week whether I could buy the new exciting LG Nexus 5 at the same price as a new customer for $50, but they would not listen these fools!

Rip Off!

I think, the plans currently offered by the major wireless carriers are mostly ripoffs. They try to bilk the customer with $70 - $100 per month plans.

If I ask my friends in Germany what they pay for unlimited data my jaw drops with a loud bang.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Soviet-style FDA Orders And Threatens 23andMe To Stop Marketing $99 Genomic Test Kit

Update As Of 12/7/2013

The Wall Street Journal on 12/4/2013 published a letter to the editor written by the Commissioner for Food And Drugs Administration, Ms. Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D.

Here is a salient excerpt (Emphasis added):
The agency's desire to review these particular tests is solely to ensure that they are safe, do what they claim to do and that the results are communicated in a way that a consumer can understand. Without FDA review, any safety concerns are unknown and could potentially lead to patient harm, such as a consumer receiving a false positive or negative result that leads to an unnecessary treatment or delays care.

So without doctor Hamburg’s review any safety concerns are unknown. What a nonsense! As if the private sector is completely incapable or unwilling to do such reviews as well. Such hypocrisy and pretense!

Big Government Paternalism In Action


An antiquated, Soviet-style agency, the FDA, has come out against 23andMe. See, e.g. here (Subscription only, Wall Street Journal). I could not verify it quickly, but I believe the germane letter from FDA to 23andMe is not published yet.


Authoritarian agency of the Progressive Era (early 20th century) collides with 21th century company!


Hundred thousands of the People of Declaration Of Independence fame have ordered such tests and why not! It is our right!


However, “public health experts worry about inaccurate results or the misuse of data outside of the guidance of doctors and genetic counselors” (emphasis added; see above Wall Street Journal article). Let them worry! This is so laughable in a country of the brave and free where individual liberty and responsibility combined with self-government is supposedly the highest ends of the U.S. Constitution as envisioned by the Founders.


The letter from FDA to the company stated something like “the company doesn’t have proper clearance to market the DNA testing kit, and that 23andMe hasn’t sufficiently worked with the agence [bully] to secure such approval. … [FDA] could take more serious regulatory action including product seizure” (emphasis added; see above Wall Street Journal article). The FDA should be shut down ASAP and a start over is necessary!


Scientific American In Defense Of The Nanny State


Just read this article titled “FDA Was Right to Block 23andMe”. What a sycophant (actually “the editor in charge of health and medicine features for SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN”)  has written this article and Scientific American published it? Of course, everybody is entitled to their opinion!


Quotes from the above article (emphasis added):
  1. “A few techno-libertarians are up in arms over the FDA’s letter warning the genetics company 23andMe to stop selling its personalized genome services kit. But a quick search of the Food and Drug Administration’s … website shows federal regulators have been targeting various low-cost genetic testing ventures to provide the necessary analysis that goes along with a proper genetic screening for at least the past three years.”
  2. “At present, getting raw data about your personal genome is worse than useless, as Nancy Shute pointed out in a Scientific American article that I edited back in 2012.”
  3. Cheap sequence data from 23andMe and other gene testing companies has much greater potential to harm without the proper interpretation of the results, which is still quite difficult and expensive in most cases.”


What an incredible condescension “a few techno-libertarians” or “Cheap sequence data”!


Oh, the editor wrote an article back in 2012 which we are to believe is her qualification for her conclusion. 2012 is already stone age in terms of the Internet Age or genome science.



Genetic Testing Without Analysis


This is obviously a non sequitur argument!


I have no doubt that companies like 23andMe would provide any possible and reasonable analysis (perhaps at an extra price) any time.


Why can I as a customer not find someone to interpret the results for me? Why can I not try to interpret/analyse the results myself, because I am not a physician?


Too Many False Positives


This could possibly frighten or confuse customers so the pseudo justification by the FDA. First of all, is it really true? Sounds like typical paternalism to me!


New Territory And Trial And Error


Genetic sequencing and analysis is still in its infancy. This is only the beginning!


We are here in unprecedented, unknown territory with such affordable genetic tests. However, the more tests we have, the better, the cheaper, the higher the quality, the greater the probability we will be able to analyse them.


This is obviously a trial and error process! Big Government stay out of it as much as possible! Let the People decide!


It is probably imminent that computers will be able to analyse those test result for us!


As An Aside


23andMe is a company co-founded by two women. Someone may tell European politicians that gender quotas are stupid!