Bill Schubart: The Mental Health Crisis and the ‘Phantom Four’

In my previous column, “The Health Care Crisis and the ‘Ghost Quartet,'” I explored the profit-making model of using the chemical/agricultural complex and the ultra-processed food industry to make us sick and then paying off the pharmaceutical and health care businesses for do us good.

In Part 2, I’ll explore a similar business model, but from a mental health perspective. And this time, the enablers are mobile phones, social media and, in the future, artificial intelligence.

“More than 1 in 5 US adults live with a mental illness,” according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Over 1 in 5 young people (ages 13-18) either currently or at some point in their lives have had a seriously debilitating mental illness.”

According to an article from the Children’s Hospital Association, “Approximately 2 million teenagers attempt suicide each year. Among pediatric deaths in the US, more than a quarter are by suicide. It is the second leading cause of death in children and young people aged 10-14, causing more deaths than any single disease and second only to unintentional injuries.”

We adults are not well and neither are our youth. Why?

Survey data tells us that 42% of American children have a smartphone by age 10, while 91% own one by age 14. Research studies show that young women aged 16-24 spend seven and a half hours a day on internet-connected devices, while boys of the same age spend seven hours on such devices.

By comparison, when television first entered our home in 1955, we were strictly limited in terms of what we could watch. As kids, we could watch “The Mickey Mouse Club” every day at 5:00 PM As we entered our teens, we were allowed to watch “GE Theater with Ronald Reagan” and then “Alfred Hitchcock Presents.”

Otherwise, the TV was off unless my parents were watching a news and weather show, although we usually got our practical information from WDEV Radio AM in Waterbury or the local News & Citizen. The only other communication technology at the time, landlines, were used for essential calls, as well as keeping in touch with friends and family – which included some gossip – and, by us kids, for fun as we were at a party of five line.

But the past is history and, as I noted in a previous column, the issue of cell phones being introduced into our schools is rapidly coming to the fore. Approaches to limiting children’s screen time vary widely. Most agree that they have become a serious distraction from classroom learning. While some schools adopt a laissez-faire attitude, others believe that prohibition is the best cure – zero access, or strictly supervised. Most are somewhere in between.

To further complicate matters, parents and teachers may disagree. Teachers and school boards debate the issue, but most psychologists agree that uncontrolled screen time online is harmful to young people’s well-being.

Human engagement with others is the natural order of things, especially when it comes to child development. The importance of unsupervised play among children has long been understood as a positive factor in the development of a healthy adult. The game allows children to use their creative instincts while developing their imagination; dexterity; and physical, cognitive, and emotional strengths. It is vital for healthy brain development. Through play, children engage and interact with the world around them.

Cell phones are not only isolating, they are the gateway to a world of harm for children. In February, the Vermont Women’s Group hosted Laura Marquez-Garrett with Jonathan Haidt’s research assistant, Zach Rausch. Their presentation laid out chapter and verse all the dangers to young people from unrestricted access to the Internet.

Among the most terrifying is the availability on the Internet of a guide showing how to make money using scams and blackmail, according to the BBC. The abuse and its results are explained in a recent article in the Guardian.

A recent issue of Rolling Stone published an in-depth article by Paul Solotaroff on Snapchat claiming that the app is fueling an epidemic of drug overdoses among teenagers across the country.

Meanwhile, many schools in Vermont are grappling with the issues of cell phones and social media and the harm they cause to their students and classroom culture. S.284 would have banned cell phones and access to social media on school property. Inexplicably, Health Commissioner Mark Levine vetoed the bill.

Levine’s national counterpart, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, announced on June 17 that his office would require a warning label for all social media platforms, similar to the warnings on cigarette packaging.

Adding insult to injury, Gov. Phil Scott vetoed H.121, a bill that would have further expanded “consumer privacy and age-appropriate design.” On June 17, the House voted to override, but the Senate sustained Scott’s veto.

The beating continues.

Next in the “phantom four”, we have questions that arise about artificial intelligence. The jury is out on whether generative artificial intelligence will do more harm than good to our families, economies and societies. It’s an open and vexing question.

Based on nearly 200 interviews over the past 12 months with senior executives at major AI companies, cybersecurity researchers, WMD experts and national security officials, a report commissioned by the State Department calls the risks to US national security “catastrophic” and warns that “time is running out for the federal government to avert catastrophe.”

He concludes that, at worst, “AI could pose an extinction-level threat to the human species.”

At the human level, AI is creating digital companions for the lonely. A recent article in The Guardian explored the full extent of how profoundly AI can replace human interaction. The stories are terrifying for this writer, who believes in the positive power of human engagement.

From that piece: “Along with the high cost of ownership, the problems with generative AI are well documented. Cybercrime experts warn that combining AI with dating apps could lead to increased phishing, usually for a sense of connection or financial gain. There is also the risk that overuse of these systems could impair our human-to-human interaction skills or create a space for people to develop toxic or abusive behavior. A 2019 study found that female-voiced artificial intelligence assistants like Siri and Alexa can perpetuate gender stereotypes and encourage sexist behavior. Reports have documented cases where the accompanying AI technology has worsened existing mental health problems. In 2023, for example, a Belgian man killed himself after Chai Research’s chatbot Eliza encouraged him to do so. In an investigation, Business Insider generated encouraging suicide responses from the chatbot.

Joyful stuff!

To the pharmacy. The National Institutes of Health published an analysis of the influence of pharmaceutical companies in promoting their products to treat mental health issues, noting that research data shows that person-to-person psychotherapy is significantly more effective in treating anxiety. and depression than antidepressants. medications.

The study by Harvard Medical School and Dr. Christopher Palmer of McLean Hospital questions the definition of “mental illness” as currently used, but fully accepts the “symptoms” of mental illness, distinguishing between symptoms and diagnoses.

Research focuses on metabolic and mitochondrial dysfunctions that result in symptoms of mental disorders. This calls into question the pharmacy dictionary definition of mental health disorders that empowers lucrative markets for new – and often dubious – drugs rather than interpersonal counseling.

Meanwhile patients with symptoms such as anxiety disorder, depression and even bipolar disorder have seen improvement when their diet is changed, hinting at a relationship between what is conventionally called “mental illness” and widespread use of the supplements soil chemicals that are at the root of an industrial ultra. -Processed food system. This research has created the science of psycho-nutrition.

The fourth element in our “phantom quartet: part 2” remains the health care industry, which will try to make you well again if you can use it or afford it. Prices range from $10,000 to $60,000 per month for most psychiatric care facilities, Medicare and Medicaid do not cover the cost for most residential treatment facilities. The average cost to see a psychotherapist is $100 – $200 per hour.

It’s safe to say that the profitable recovery business done right is beyond the financial capacity of the average American, who earned just $60,000 a year in 2023.

So here we have the “phantom quater” again – charge them to get sick, then charge them again to get better.

I apologize for the dark and apocalyptic vision presented here and in Part 1, but as a society, we must decide how to balance power and profits with the well-being of our people and communities. We can have both, but it will require us to initiate regulatory policies that balance and enable both.