Blog

  • Thousands get meningitis vaccine as experts wait to see outbreak peak

    The outbreak, which has killed two people, is thought to have originated at a Canterbury nightclub.
  • The Generative Fog of War

    The following story is co-published with Nolan Higdon’s Substack.

    “Tel Aviv, stripped of illusion, as you have never witnessed it,” read the caption above a viral March 2026 video showing missiles hammering the Israeli city as explosions burst across the night sky. To the casual scroller, it appeared to be a harrowing document of modern conflict. The problem, however, was that the video was a deepfake.

    Deepfakes are synthetic media edited or generated using artificial intelligence. According to The New York Times, a “cascade of AI fakes about war with Iran” have proliferated across social media since the United States and Israel reignited military actions with Iran on Feb. 28, 2026. Indeed, the digital landscape is increasingly saturated with synthetic fabrications, as false videos of boisterous celebrations, frantic airport evacuations, devastating bombings and graphic casualties flood users’ feeds in a relentless stream of misinformation.

    As these digital fabrications blur the line between reality and simulation, the necessity for critical artificial intelligence literacy (CAIL) has moved from an educational luxury to a vital requirement. We are currently navigating a landscape where the “fog of war” is no longer just a metaphor for confusion on the battlefield, but a literal description of an information environment choked by so-called AI slop. Indeed, one study found that more than 20% of the content on YouTube is AI generated. Without a robust, systemic effort to instill CAIL, the public remains defenseless against sophisticated psychological operations. We must understand not just how to use these tools, but the sociopolitical structures that own them and the inherent biases they encode.

    From Trojan horses to Tonkin

    The deployment of false information is not a modern phenomenon; it has been a foundational staple of conflict since the ancient world. From the Greeks’ legendary construction of a hollow wooden horse to infiltrate Troy, to Genghis Khan’s Mongol cavalry utilizing feigned retreats to lure enemies into fatal disarray, strategic deception has always defined the battlefield.

    In modern democracies like the U.S., leaders have frequently refined these tactics into “false news” designed to manufacture public consent for intervention. This pattern of deception is evident in the phantom attack in the Gulf of Tonkin used to escalate the Vietnam War and in the infamous false claims of weapons of mass destruction that prefaced the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Beyond initiating conflict, misinformation serves to artificially sustain public morale and project an illusion of progress. This was notoriously exemplified by the White House during the Vietnam War, where official reports continuously claimed the U.S. was winning even as internal assessments acknowledged a deepening quagmire. Similarly, President George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished“ declaration, delivered from the deck of an aircraft carrier just weeks into the 2003 invasion of Iraq, provided a false sense of finality to a war that would ultimately span decades.

    The architecture of synthetic media

    While the intent to deceive is ancient, AI and social media have complicated these issues by allowing anyone to create slick, convincing content at scale. Even before the recent escalation, the Russia-Ukraine war and the geopolitical tensions between Israel and Bahrain were already inundated with AI-generated misinformation.

    The proliferation of deepfakes does more than just spread lies; it erodes the very foundation of objective truth by fostering universal skepticism. This phenomenon allows genuine evidence of suffering to be dismissed as mere simulation. For instance, NBC News reported on an exhaustive investigation confirming that a video of starving Gazans awaiting food in May 2025 was entirely authentic; nonetheless, a barrage of social media users reflexively dismissed the footage as a deepfake. When the public can no longer distinguish between a sophisticated fabrication and a documented reality, the truth becomes a matter of partisan convenience rather than empirical fact.

    In high-stakes environments, the fog of war creates panic and visceral reactions where people feel their decision-making is a matter of life or death. If the information they consume is incorrect, it could be the difference between a peaceful protest and an individual becoming radicalized toward violence.

    For content creators and platform algorithms, the incentives are skewed toward chaos. Social media platforms are designed to amplify content that triggers intense emotional reactions. Because fake news is often more sensational than the nuanced truth, it spreads faster and wider.

    For content creators and platform algorithms, the incentives are skewed toward chaos.

    While the ideal response is for the public to wait and investigate before passing judgment, this is a tall order when individuals believe they are witnessing an active massacre. Some deepfakes can be debunked quickly, such as the video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu which showed him with six fingers. In many cases, verifying information takes time; one must geolocate footage, check metadata and often accept the uncomfortable conclusion that there is not yet enough evidence to be certain. AI has made this truth-finding mission exponentially harder for the average citizen who lacks the resources for deep digital forensics.

    Ironically, many people now rely on AI to tell them if content is AI-generated. This reliance illustrates a profound lack of AI literacy. What we commonly call AI today is more accurately described as large language models (LLMs). These are not “intelligent“ in any human sense; they are pattern-recognition engines that memorize and predict sequences of data. They are only as good as the data fed into them, and as a result, they reflect human biases, often amplified to a dangerous degree.

    Studies consistently show that AI responses can be factually inaccurate about half the time. These models frequently “hallucinate,” fabricating information and citations that do not exist. A study by The Intercept highlighted this absurdity, showing how Google Gemini gave conflicting responses about whether a specific text was AI-generated, even when the text in question was something Gemini itself had produced. When news outlets cite AI detectors as definitive proof, they are often building their conclusions on a foundation of sand.

    The CAIL framework: Interrogating power

    This AI illiteracy compounds decades of neglected media literacy. While many nations have made media literacy a compulsory part of their national curriculum, the U.S. has largely left it to the discretion of local communities. Media literacy is the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, create and act using all forms of communication, from print to digital media. Without this foundation, the public is ill-equipped to handle the nuances of the algorithmic age.

    Critical AI literacy is an evolving framework that goes beyond simply knowing how to prompt a chatbot. It teaches students to interrogate ownership: Who owns the AI, and how does that ownership shape its bias, ideology and purpose? If a corporation owns the model, will it prioritize profit over democratic stability?

    A critical approach also examines representation. We must ask how AI-generated images reflect the biases of their training data, such as the white supremacist or extremist content occasionally surfaced by unmoderated models like Grok AI. Furthermore, it reminds us that Big Tech is often fundamentally anti-human in its philosophy, viewing human beings as buggy systems that need to be fixed or optimized by code.

    Choosing our reality: A mandate for the common good

    As researcher Gary Smith suggests, AI will only surpass human intelligence if humans continue to use it in ways that degrade our own cognitive abilities. Studies show that prolonged, uncritical reliance on AI and screens contributes to a decline in cognitive abilitiesmemory and focus. CAIL points out that humans are the smart ones; the platforms are merely tools.

    In a time of war, the absence of this literacy has deadly consequences. If deepfakes and hallucinating bots are shaping our emotions and our interpretations of international conflict, we are living in a state of perpetual, manufactured crisis. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of previous decades, where we naively assumed that simply having access to technology would make the world more connected and smarter.

    The goal of critical AI literacy is not to make us run from technology, but to understand it so it can be harnessed for the common good. We must decide if AI will be a partner in automating meaningless tasks to improve the human condition, or an exploitative force that dictates the citizenry’s reality. That is a decision for an informed public to make, not for Big Tech executives. If people remain AI illiterate, they will remain dependent on the very narratives designed to exploit them.

    The post The Generative Fog of War appeared first on Truthdig.

  • FCC Chair Carr’s Threats to Punish Broadcasters Are Unconstitutional

    EFF joined other digital rights and civil liberties organizations in calling out the unconstitutionality of Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr’s recent threats to punish broadcasters for airing statements he disagrees with. 

    Carr’s recent threats, like his past threats, are unconstitutional efforts to coerce news coverage that favors President Donald Trump. He wrongly claims that the FCC’s “public interest” standard allows him and the commission to revoke the licenses of broadcasters who publish news that is unflattering to the government is anathema to our country’s core constitutional values. 

    The First Amendment constrains the FCC’s authority to force broadcasters to toe the government’s line, even though broadcast licensees are required to operate in the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” Imposing restrictions on licensees’ speech, especially viewpoint-based limitations, are still subject to First Amendment scrutiny even if, in some circumstances, that scrutiny differs somewhat from that applied to non-broadcast media. And the “public interest” requirement, as it were, has never been interpreted to allow the type of viewpoint-based punishment that Carr has threatened here.  

    Everyone agrees that news reporting should strive for accuracy, but Carr’s threats have little do with that. Instead, his allegations of “falsity” are a proxy for retaliation based on (1) Carr’s subjective policy disagreements; (2) any criticism of Trump and the administration broadly; (3) treatment of anything that is not the official US government line about the Iran War as “false.” 

    We join the call for Carr to withdraw these threats.

     

  • The UN housing development which challenged 1940s’ segregated United States

    At a time when some state laws dictated where different races could live, Parkway Village, built to house some of the first UN staff in New York in 1947, led the way in eliminating racially segregated housing in the United States.
  • Weekly Roundup: March 20

    On Monday, Beau Baumann posed the question that too few are asking: What would a Russell Vought of the Left look like? On Wednesday, Hal Singer laid out one reason that antitrust enforcement has become so difficult: as courts have broadened the rule of reason and raised the evidentiary bar for proving market power, defendants increasingly force plaintiffs into costly disputes over how to define…

    Source

  • Lab-grown food pipe offers new hope for young patients

    UK scientists have grown fully functioning food pipes and successfully transplanted them into mini pigs, paving the way for human trials.
  • Data Centers Are Military Targets Now

    In retaliation for the ongoing U.S.–Israeli war, Iran responded with a novel form of counterattack. For the first time in military history, private sector data centers came under deliberate attack.

    In an era when companies known for e-commerce, social networks, and search engines have also become close collaborators with militaries, is bombing their servers fair game?

    Three days after the U.S. and Israel began their joint bombardment, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched kamikaze drone strikes against Amazon-owned data centers in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain that provide an array of cloud computing services to customers throughout the Middle East. The impacts and subsequent fires “caused structural damage, disrupted power delivery to our infrastructure, and in some cases required fire suppression activities that resulted in additional water damage,” according to Amazon, resulting in service outages across the region.

    The motive behind the attack, according to Iranian state television, was not to block people from ordering groceries or posting to social media, but rather to highlight “the role of these centers in supporting the enemy’s military and intelligence activities.” Though only Amazon’s centers are known to have come under fire, a March 11 tweet from the quasi-official Tasnim News Agency listed dozens of regional facilities, including data centers owned by Microsoft, Google and others, deemed “Enemy Technology Infrastructure” suitable for targeting.

    It’s unclear if the Amazon data centers struck by Iranian drone strikes are used for military purposes or civilian purposes, or both. And it’s unknown if the attacks in any way hindered the militaries of the U.S., Israel, or their allies in the Gulf from using AI or other cloud-based services in their war efforts. But with Amazon, Google, and even Facebook parent company Meta are all eager partners of the Pentagon that augment the destructive power of the United States in Iran and elsewhere, server farms may now have the same status as factories building bombs and warplanes.

    Scholars of international law and the laws of armed conflict say that when a military runs on the cloud, the cloud becomes a legal military target. But the cloud is an abstraction, not a physical site — a global network of millions of chips in servers spread across hundreds of massive buildings across the planet, servicing both civilian apps and state tools used to surveil and kill. Separating the former from the latter is an extremely difficult task.

    “The legality turns on whether the specific facility, at the specific moment, is genuinely serving the military operations of a party to the conflict in a way that offers a concrete and definite advantage to the attacker,” explained León Castellanos-Jankiewicz, a lawyer with the Asser Institute for International and European Law in The Hague.

    Sometimes the split between military and civilian use is straightforward. Microsoft, for example, helps run the Joint Warfighter Cloud Capability, which the Pentagon says provides it with “greater lethality.” This work involves the processing of classified data, which the government does not want commingling with civilian tech. Cloud computing services are generally offered via geographically distinct “regions,” each made up of many physical data centers. Customers typically select the region that is closest to them to minimize lag time. Microsoft’s US DoD Central and US DoD East regions are “reserved for exclusive [Department of Defense] use,” according to the company, and are serviced by data centers in Des Moines, Iowa, and Northern Virginia, respectively.

    Amazon offers similar cloud regions exclusive for Pentagon use, though the location of these data centers is not public. Oracle, another JWCC provider, operates Pentagon-specific facilities in Chicago, Phoenix, and Virginia. Companies are understandably tight-lipped about where exactly on the map these facilities stand, in no small part because Iran, or any country at war with the U.S., would have reason to target them.

    “A data center that is used solely or primarily for military applications is targetable,” said Ioannis Kalpouzos, an international law scholar and visiting professor at Harvard Law, “and a center that supports the Pentagon’s JWCC falls in that category.”


    Related

    AI’s Imperial Agenda


    The march of data center construction has become a point of contention across the United States and around the world, with communities frequently — and sometimes successfully — rallying to block what they view as enormous resource-draining eyesores. But for those living in the widening shadow of data centers, planned or built, their status as military targets may be unsettling beyond concerns over water and energy consumption.

    And as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth aggressively shoehorns AI tools into the military wherever possible, the rapid expansion of data centers means the potential proliferation of legitimate military targets across the United States.

    With comparisons between the destructive power of AI-augmented warfare and nuclear weaponry becoming more common, the ever-expanding network of American data centers may recreate Cold War anxieties around intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, silo placement. The country’s nuclear launch capabilities were famously clustered in the relatively sparsely populated Upper Midwest, forming a so-called “nuclear sponge” that would draw Soviet nukes away from population centers and toward rural areas and farmland.

    But the legal calculus around most data centers will be less clear. Google, for example, says the Pentagon uses both its general purpose public cloud and smaller specialized air-gapped networks that don’t touch the public internet, depending on the sensitivity of the data involved. Even cloud work involving Top Secret military data “can operate within Google’s trusted, secure, and managed data centers.” The company also sells modular mini-data centers for use closer to battlefields or bases.

    These arrangements, shrouded in both military and trade secrecy, make it hard to assess whether a server is hosting a student’s homework or Air Force R&D, blurring the legality of attacking data centers that may host both. Google may have little control over how governments use its cloud tools; The Intercept has previously reported that Google executives worried internally they wouldn’t be able to tell how the Israeli military was deploying its cloud services.

    “The practical challenge is that cloud infrastructure is often technically opaque, even to providers themselves,” Castellanos-Jankiewicz said. “The services a given data center supports may not be readily ascertainable from the outside or even inside, which complicates the attacker’s legal obligations considerably.”

    Amazon and Google’s Project Nimbus similarly provides cloud computing services across the Israeli government, including both civilian agencies and the Ministry of Defense, along with state-owned weapons companies.

    “The picture becomes more legally complex when a data center functions as a so-called ‘dual-use’ object,” simultaneously hosting military data or capabilities alongside civilian services,” Castellanos-Jankiewicz told The Intercept. “Once a facility is found to make an effective contribution to military action, the entire physical object can, under the dominant legal view, qualify as a military objective.”

    The embrace of commercial cloud computing by the U.S. and others has muddled an already murky legal picture, Castellanos-Jankiewicz explained. “A military’s decision to store classified data or run AI-enabled military systems on commercial cloud infrastructure shared with civilian services could itself raise legal concerns — particularly if the commingling of military and civilian uses makes a strike more likely or increases the foreseeable harm to civilians when one occurs.”


    Related

    OpenAI on Surveillance and Autonomous Killings: You’re Going to Have to Trust Us


    Determining whether a given data center can be legally attacked under international humanitarian law — itself comprised of various treaties that not every country adheres to — relies on a complex series of balancing tests that rarely produce concrete answers. To begin with, every object and person is generally presumed civilian and exempt from attack under this framework. Before launching a strike, a country is supposed to have a verifiable reason to believe a data center contributes to the enemy war effort, and reason to believe an attack will appreciably harm that effort. What “effectively contributes to military action” will, of course, be a source of disagreement.

    Anthropic’s Claude large language model was reportedly used to accelerate American airstrikes against Iran; Claude, in turn, was built in part using 500,000 chips housed in an $11 billion Amazon data center in Indiana. If Claude is now arguably a weapon, is this Indiana site the data equivalent of a bomb factory? Kalpouzos, the Harvard Law visiting professor, told The Intercept it depends on the facts at the moment the bomb hits, not past usage. “If the facility is currently used in the training of the LLM that is used in the conduct of military operations — for example, by fine-tuning object classification or user-interaction features — then this could render it targetable,” he said.

    In a recent article for Just Security, Klaudia Klonowska and Michael Schmitt said that the law calls for proportionality and restraint even against military targets. An attack against a data center that provided both military and civilian computing would need to be precise enough to destroy the former while minimizing harm to the latter, they argued. But international law may call for a degree of carefulness that militaries have little interest in. “If it were possible to attack only the area of the data center where servers hosting military data are located without destroying the entire center, the attacker would need to do so,” they wrote.

    These requirements can be hard to observe in reality. The U.S. and Israel both tout the extreme precision of airstrikes that regularly slaughter civilians. And neither country, nor Iran, is a signatory to some of the relevant legal frameworks that make up the so-called “laws of armed conflict” in the first place.

    Indiscriminate warfare practice by U.S. and Israel has also, ironically, been instrumental in reshaping how these laws are interpreted and effectively loosened. Throughout the Israeli genocide in Gaza, Israel’s military and the Pentagon both made clear it’s acceptable to destroy an apartment block or hospital if one first claims there is a genuine military target inside.

    The second Trump administration in particular has been keen to more tightly integrate Silicon Valley into the global American killing apparatus, a plan to which the industry has shown itself to be largely amenable. Even after being thoroughly maligned by the administration following the collapse of its Pentagon deal over purported disagreements around safety guardrails, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei issued a public statement making clear he still wanted in on military spending: “Anthropic has much more in common with the Department of War than we have differences. We both are committed to advancing US national security and defending the American people, and agree on the urgency of applying AI across the government.” That attitude, now commonplace across the tech sector, will see the further commingling of consumer tech and warfare both in the abstract and under sprawling data center rooftops across the country.

    “These [data centers] are further melding military and civilian infrastructure,” said Kalpouzos, “and together with the increasingly permissive rules of engagement adopted by the U.S. and Israel, are potentially drawing in larger sectors of the economy and society in what is targeted and destroyed.”

    The post Data Centers Are Military Targets Now appeared first on The Intercept.

  • New medical training chair to bring system from “dial up” to modern era

    The new chair of a major review into medical training has pledged to bring the “dial up” system into the modern era. Professor Dame Jane Dacre has been appointed by NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care to implement the Medical Education and Training Review, delivering change to UK’s creaking medical training […]
  • Vaccines Work. Here’s Why We Care About Your Unvaccinated Child.

    While normal people don’t want any child to suffer or die because their parents were tricked by disinformation, the leaders of the anti-vaccine movement, who profit by lying about vaccines, don’t care at all.

    The post Vaccines Work. Here’s Why We Care About Your Unvaccinated Child. first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

  • Mourning on Schedule: How Grieving Became a ‘Mental Illness’

    Mourning on Schedule: How Grieving Became a ‘Mental Illness’

    I wrote this poem five months after Ginny’s passing:

    Waking Up

    Every day
    I wake up
    And remember she’s not there
    5 times a night
    I wake up
    And lose her yet again
    Sometimes
    In my dreams
    She comes to me
    It seems so real
    And I rejoice
    Until I wake up
    And lose her yet again
    Joy becomes pain
    Yet I still want her to come
    Even if it’s just a dream
    She still loves me
    Like she always has
    Until I wake up
    And remember.

    My wife, Ginny, died last April. Ten months ago.

    I still cry almost every day. I often wish she were still here. I have dreams about her. I sometimes talk to her as if she can hear me. Things remind me of her, all the time, and when it gets to me, I cry again. It’s hard to get out of bed some mornings. I feel unmotivated, forgetful, and unable to think straight. I’m frequently tired but wake up multiple times a night and have trouble going back to sleep. I move and think much more slowly than normal for me.

    I have sometimes wished I were dead. No plans to do anything, more the feeling that my life no longer seems worth living.

    It would appear I have a “mental disorder.”

    I meet the criteria for “Major Depressive Disorder”: depressed mood, sleep disturbance, loss of energy, cognitive impairment, and thoughts of death. Five of nine criteria for more than two weeks. I’m ill!

    In another two months, unless things radically change, I will have a new mental disorder: “Prolonged Grief Disorder”! Here is the description: “A distinct mental disorder where the intensity and duration of grief symptoms are disabling and exceed social, cultural, or religious norms.”

    According to the DSM, the “social, cultural or religious norm” for grieving in the USA is a year. Twelve months. Oh, only six months if you’re a child. I guess kids are supposed to “get over it” more quickly. Because they’re resilient, right?

    Who decided that and how? We will find out a little later in this piece.

    My Love Story

    I grew up with a very hard-working, very emotionally distant mother, four brothers close in age, and a father who was away at work most of the time. I learned early on that love and affection were scarce commodities and that I’d better get used to fending for myself. I spent a lot of my early childhood alone, and pretended I liked it that way. But I was miserable and hated myself. I was incredibly shy and terrified of talking to a girl I liked, let alone asking her on a date!

    Ginny and I met on our second day of college on a bike ride. It took me five more weeks to figure out she liked me and ask her out. She had to make it pretty obvious. I was pretty dumb about girls!

    Ginny changed all that. She loved me for who I was. She was my safe place, my true love, the person I could count on. We were together for 49 years. Married for 44. Raised three boys, went camping, backpacking, biking, played tennis, ping pong, card games, board games, watched movies together, laughed a lot, cried a lot, snuggled a lot, sometimes argued but always sorted it out by bedtime. We said we loved each other probably five times a day or more. When I needed love and support, I went to Ginny. She did the same with me.

    Ginny taught me to have fun. She taught me to love myself. She made it safe for me to love others fully. She was my life.

    She died of cancer at age 66.

    To say that I miss Ginny is the grossest of understatements. We used to talk all the time about being like her Auntie Til and Uncle Al — riding our bikes around into our 80s, seeing our grandkids have kids of their own, driving our RV around the country, visiting Canyonlands, Yellowstone and other parks around the country, and visiting our relatives on the East Coast (we lived in Olympia, WA). To lose her not only meant losing our companionship. It meant losing our vision of what our future would look like. It meant losing a huge part of my identity. It meant losing a big part of my purpose in being alive.

    We never expected that Ginny would be the one to die first. We talked about it often. All the men in my family, both sides, died in their 60s or sooner of heart attacks, except my dad, who survived a heart attack at 40 and changed his lifestyle, and managed to make it to 85. But notwithstanding his amazing recovery story, we both figured I’d die first. On the other hand, the women in her family all lived into their 90s. There was no cancer on either side of the family. I was completely unprepared to still be here when she was gone. That was not how the story was supposed to go!

    When Ginny died, I also lost my safe haven. I thought I had dealt with the attachment difficulties I noted above, but apparently, I had set them aside with the idea that I’d never have to deal with them, because I’d always have Ginny, and she’d always love me! When she died, a huge rush of these feelings unexpectedly came back on me with a vengeance. Now I was alone again, just like I was as a child. Fortunately, I’ve learned a lot of skills since then and have a pretty good network of genuine friends who have helped me move through this very painful time. And I was fortunate to find a very compassionate and competent grief counselor who has been seeing me for the better part of eight months now. But I am still alone much of the time, and it is very, very hard. I feel sad, angry, frightened, lonely, and sometimes wonder why I am still here and what it is I’m supposed to be doing. And I get tired. Existentially tired. Exhausted.

    So does this make me “mentally ill?” Or am I just a person who misses someone they loved very much, and has to deal with the sadness of moving on alone? And how long am I permitted to take with that? When am I supposed to be “done” with grieving? How long is “too long”?

    What is “Normal?”

    So what is “normal grieving?” Let’s take a look at some social, cultural and religious norms for grieving around the world.

    Here are some examples of what is considered normal grieving in different cultures:

    • In Egypt, tearfully grieving after seven years would still be seen as healthy and normal.
    • In traditional Vietnamese culture, mourning lasts two years, reflecting the deep respect for the deceased. During this time, family members may wear white or subdued clothing, avoid celebratory events, and offer daily prayers. A special ceremony is held after the two-year mark to signify the end of the mourning period.
    • In Jewish tradition, shiva lasts seven days — an intensive mourning period where the community supports the bereaved. This transitions to shloshim (30 days) and eventually a year of saying Kaddish for close relatives. This graduated approach acknowledges that grief changes rather than simply ends.
    • Chinese mourning traditions historically prescribed 100 days of intensive grief followed by a three-year mourning period for immediate family members.
    • In Victorian England, widows were expected to observe strict mourning for two years, with specific clothing requirements that gradually relaxed as time passed.
    • In Greek Orthodox tradition, a service is held on the first day after the funeral, the third day, the 9th day, the 40th day, every three months for the first year, and annually thereafter.
    • Many Indigenous American tribes view grief as an ongoing relationship with the deceased rather than a process with a definitive endpoint.
    • Similarly, in Mexican Day of the Dead celebrations, grief transforms into an annual reconnection with departed loved ones, suggesting that grief doesn’t end but evolves into meaningful connections that continue throughout life.

    As we can see, expected grieving periods and rituals vary dramatically by cultural tradition. These expectations can vary from months to years to forever! So if you come from Egypt, does “Prolonged Grief Disorder” ensue at the one-year point? Or do you have to exceed seven years before you qualify?

    How Long is “Too Long”?

    Given this wide range of cultural practices and expectations, which is explicitly identified in the definition of Prolonged Grief Disorder above, how did they come up with the supposed norm of one year (and six months for those resilient little kids)? They held a “consensus conference.”

    They couldn’t agree on the criteria, so they got together in a big committee, and then they reached a consensus. In other words, one year (and six months for children) is an agreement reached by a group of “mental health professionals” sharing their opinions and arguing about it until they agreed. Kind of like figuring out what movie we’re going to see or where we’re going to go for pizza tonight. Consensus. They might have voted on it.

    I also have to wonder who the “stakeholders” were that were invited to the “consensus conference.” I’d bet my life savings there was no one there representing actual human beings who were going through this grieving process themselves.

    So as far as I can make out, in two months, if things continue as they are, I will have a new “mental disorder,” because a bunch of psychiatrists got together at a conference in New York and decided, “OK, we’ve decided a year is long enough to grieve. A year? Everyone good with that? Any objections? OK, all in favor, say ‘Aye!’”

    I shared this issue with my good friend Laurie, and she brought up an interesting question:

    “If it’s a leap year, do you get an extra day?”

    This question points out the utter absurdity of these “criteria.” Why would I suddenly stop missing Ginny or wishing she were here at the magical one-year mark? Why don’t people just get to be sad as long as they need to? And these poor kids! Their mom dies, or their dad or their sister, and they’re supposed to be substantially “over it” in six months?

    Psychiatry’s explanation for this comes down to “being able to provide treatment” — in other words, to satisfy insurance companies that they ought to pay for services to help these people. From Miriam Solomon’s critique of “Prolonged Grief Disorder” being added to the DSM:

    “… prolonged grief has symptoms (yearning for and preoccupation with the deceased) that are not shared by other disorders AND there is a new, targeted, grief therapy, developed by Katherine Shear (2005; 2014) that offers superior relief to those dealing specifically with prolonged grief.”

    But why shouldn’t we just provide the necessary services, if desired, and bill the insurance company for an “adjustment disorder” or something more benign that doesn’t stigmatize the grieving process? Or better yet, change the whole approach so that a DSM code is not a requirement to receive “targeted grief therapy” or other forms of assistance?

    Drs. Joanne Cacciatore and Allen Frances appear to agree with me:

    “It would be preferable if US-based insurers did not predicate payment for supportive grief counselling on a medical code; this would be much more respectful of grievers. Many people, recognising that bereavement can be an intense exogenous stressor, want to leave grief, and grievers, safely out of the reach of well-meaning but intrusive doctors and treatments. Grief warrants strong social support and compassionate connection, not medicalisation.” [Emphasis added.]

    The other thing to keep in mind is that most people are not offered Katherine Shear’s “new, focused grief therapy” once they are diagnosed. They are most commonly offered psychiatric drugs to “take the edge off” or “help them cope.” This, to me, adds insult to injury — not only are you telling me my feelings are abnormal and unacceptable, you’re telling me that there’s nothing I can do about them other than to take drugs to make me feel better. (Because that is the goal — to feel better! Not to find a new way to live your life, but to make those “bad feelings” go away. Talk about toxic positivity!) And we also know that such interventions often have unintended consequences that the grieving person has not been prepared for.

    What is the US Cultural Norm?

    The DSM is mainly used in the USA, so the assertion of one year as the “cultural norm” on which “Prolonged Grief Disorder” is based should be the US standard. But what do people in the USA regard as a normal course of grieving?

    According to a recent Mad in America article, a study of grieving people stated that “Nearly every participant (98%) believed their response to loss was normal and understandable.”

    I belong to several online support groups, including two Facebook groups for widows and widowers. There was a post recently on one of them about Prolonged Grief Disorder, entitled “Some people get stuck in grief — now scientists think they know why.” The reception from the grieving widows/widowers toward this posting was not very warm!

    Some comments included:

    • Almost 6 years since I lost my wife, so I guess I must have their disorder. I call it love…
    • Grief has three stages…
           1. The beginning.
           2. The middle part.
           3. The rest of your life.
      Your person may be gone, but not the love. As long as you love your person, so long will you grieve. Period. Nothing strange, no disorder, just reality.
    • Prolonged grief happens when someone very close to you passes that you interacted with on a daily or routine basis. That’s why… deep love means deep grief.
    • Grief has no expiration date. I’ve never thought “I can’t wait until I no longer grieve for my son or my parents.” I grieve because I love them and I’ll forever miss them being present in my life.
    • Grief is the price of love.
    • Grief is not a disorder. It’s not getting stuck in grief, we carry grief with us. It becomes part of our lives. We learn to live with it and it’s different for everyone.
    • I wonder if any of the scientists doing this research have ever experienced grief! Based on my own grief and all of these comments, seems we all feel like our grief is “normal.”

    These commenters were mostly in the United States. This is what our cultural and social norms really are, at least among people who are actually grieving! Not a few weeks, not a few months, not a year — grieving takes however long it takes for that person, and for some, it is a lifetime. It’s not something you get over or move past, like losing that car you really loved or having to move to a new house. A part of you is gone, and you have to learn to create a new life for yourself that includes the fact that they are no longer there. As a wise young man recently said to me, “If your arm were amputated, other people could hand you things. But they can’t give you back your arm.” The grieving person cannot “return to normal.” A part of them is missing that can’t be replaced.

    While the Facebook groups of people who are actually experiencing grieving seem to show a complete willingness to accept that grieving is an ongoing process that may take years or never be “done,” the general population in the USA has increasingly been inundated with the message from the mental health system that grieving is a “mental health issue” (hence not something they are qualified to deal with), and that people really should “recover” from grief in a “reasonable” timeframe. Additionally, as there is no formal grieving process generally recognized in the USA, there is a lot of uncertainty as to what IS normal. This often leads to discomfort discussing the subject, and it’s a very human tendency to avoid uncomfortable discussions, because they are, well, uncomfortable! This unfortunately dovetails all too well with recent efforts to market the concept of “Prolonged Grief Disorder” and is making it harder for folks to have simple and honest discussions about what grieving is really like, especially when the grieving person continues to struggle months or even years into the process.

    In the next section, we’re going to take a look at how to challenge some of these assumptions and to become more in tune with what is actually helpful to a person who has experienced a major loss in their life.

    Grief Education

    We all should do our best to provide what love and support we can to a grieving person, knowing that however much we give, it won’t be enough to make it all better. But this support is very much needed and will still be appreciated.

    Here are some things we can do that might really help:

    1. Listen, ask questions, and connect with them. You can’t fix it, but you don’t need to and shouldn’t try. Efforts to “help them feel better” generally come off as invalidation or “toxic positivity” (the need for them to be “positive” in order to make you feel better). Instead, let them tell you how the experience has been for them, and acknowledge them for having the courage to share their feelings with you.
    2. Expect a wide range of emotions. We all expect sadness, but some unexpected emotions are anger (at their partner for leaving, at themselves, at the world, at God), relief (usually if someone was suffering, but sometimes because of a conflicted relationship), guilt (especially for being angry and/or feeling relieved!), or confusion (Why did this happen? Did I cause it? Could I have prevented it? Did I deserve it?). Really, any human emotion can come up, and all are OK for a person to experience.
      It is also very common for mourners to think about dying as a way to escape the pain or to rejoin their loved one in the afterlife. This is normal and not a cause for alarm! Make it safe for them to tell you about what they are experiencing, and do your best to let them know how totally understandable their feelings are.
    3. In almost every case of serious grieving I’ve seen, including my own, an interesting phenomenon occurs. At first, everyone wants to offer their help: “What can I do?” “Call me any time!” “You know I’m there for you!” But as time goes along, the mourner’s support network gradually shrinks. Not because people don’t care, but because people’s lives get in the way, and compassion fatigue takes over, and sometimes it’s just hard to keep hearing that this person you care about continues to suffer and what you have done doesn’t seem to be enough. There is a tendency to stop checking in, to drift away assuming or hoping things are “better,” or to move again into toxic positivity, because it would feel so much better if the person you care about would just be happy again! And this often happens just as the hard reality of the permanency of this loss is beginning to truly sink in. Don’t drift away after six months — they may need more support now than they did immediately afterwards! Take some extra time to check in with them now that the initial outpouring of support has passed.
    4. As time has gone along, I have sometimes gotten subtle spoken and unspoken messages from some people that this topic is making them uncomfortable and that I need to “be more positive” or “give my pain to God” or “find a way to be happy.” This has led me to be more cautious about sharing what’s going on, as I am beginning to have the expectation that my actual answer to “How are you doing today” is not going to be welcome! So the grieving person, when asked, might say, “I’m doing OK” or “I’m fine,” even if they are struggling mightily, because our culture seems to be telling us that it’s time to be done or at least handle this stuff by yourself now — people are getting tired of it! Don’t accept this kind of answer at face value. If someone says, “I’m doing OK,” please invite them to expand on that. “What’s OK looking like for you right now?” or “I can imagine things are still rough for you sometimes. I’m here to listen if you want to share.” Make it easy for the person to hear that you are OK with them continuing to feel sad or angry or whatever is going on, and that you don’t expect them to be OK!
    5. Be affectionate, to the degree that the person is comfortable with it. One question often raised on the Facebook support groups is, “Where do you go to get a hug?” If the person was in a very affectionate relationship (as I was), this lack of contact can be very painful, and a well-timed hug or a holding of hands or a firm shoulder grab can show solidarity in a way no words can convey. Of course, some people are uncomfortable with affection from other people for various reasons, and that has to be respected, but for many, the more hugs, the better!
    6. This is a time when new spiritual realities may awaken in a person. I have had several lucid dreams (where I know that I am dreaming but don’t awaken) where Ginny has come to visit me. Before this, I experienced lucid dreaming once every five to ten years or so. After her death, I experienced lucid dreaming with Ginny five to six times in a few months! In one such dream, I asked her what it was like. She said it was really nice, they had groups and classes and everyone ate meals together, but the best part was that everyone seemed to get along, no one was ever upset with each other. 
      I truly believe it was her visiting me from whatever afterlife she was experiencing. This has dramatically altered my view of what we are as spiritual entities.
      Some might say I’m psychotic for believing this. But it’s common for people to have visitations in one form or another. And it’s very common for people who have lost someone important to need spiritual guidance to make sense of the situation. Don’t be afraid to get into this area of discussion with them, and don’t be surprised if they put forward some new beliefs or difficult questions that they may not have concerned themselves with before. It can be challenging to incorporate the implications of this kind of loss into our spiritual worldview.
    7. And for God’s sake, don’t diagnose them or tell them “you should get some help!” By no means should you expect them to be “done grieving” at a year, or at any given time. Their loss will be with them for the rest of their lives, and there is nothing “mentally ill” about it. It’s certainly OK and sometimes very helpful to get some more formal support, such as a support group or a grief counselor, but everyone is different, and let’s be honest, not all counselors are equipped to really provide the kind of support I’m describing here. So don’t prescribe solutions  ask them what they think will be helpful, and listen carefully to the answers!

    Bottom line: it is not reasonable or rational to expect a grieving person to “return to normal.” Normal is no longer possible. The best we can do is to start to develop a new “normal” that includes the painful knowledge that the person we loved so much is no longer going to be present in the same way.

    Remember also that grief occurs for many, many reasons besides the death of a life partner. Any time someone appears to be in distress, don’t be afraid to ask and find out what is going on, and keep in mind that grief and loss are often at the bottom of many “mental disorder” manifestations. It’s a big part of what makes us human.

    I wrote this poem nine months after Ginny’s death. I think it communicates how regardless of the support one might receive from friends and community, the personal experience of loss remains excruciatingly painful.

    Leftovers

    You get to have the stuff
    Nobody else wants
    The bones, the gristle
    The skin, the fat

    No one wants the chicken’s neck
    Or the cow’s hoof
    Or the ox’s tail
    (maybe in some soup)

    You can have what no one has a use for
    Your life is leftovers
    Just enough to live on
    Enough to keep you alive
    Though why, no one can say

    So you wait for crumbs of love to
    Fall from the table
    Gobble them up hungrily,
    Knowing it’s all you get

    You used to have big
    Sumptuous meals
    All the love you can eat
    The good stuff every day

    But one day
    Somehow
    It was taken away from you

    Now you are supposed to be happy
    With the leftovers

    I’m hungry!!!

    ****

    Editor’s note: first published on Mad in America March 12th 2026

    Mad in the UK hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.

    The post Mourning on Schedule: How Grieving Became a ‘Mental Illness’ appeared first on Mad in the UK.