Depression... in babies?!

Apparently, symptoms of depression have been observed in babies as young as six months.

These include:

-> Lack of interaction with others.
-> Staring/averted gaze or sad facial expressions.
-> Lack of interst in their environment.
-> Slow movements.
-> Sleeping and eating problems.

etc.

If these persevere for longer than three months and no physical reason can be found, then it could be depression (diagnosed via a psychological assessment. How you psychologically assess a baby is beyond me- but then what the hell do I know about psychology?).

A baby is more likely to present with these symptoms if they have a depressive mother- this could be because of genetic or environmental factors.

Dr. Shatkin (director of education and training at New York University's Child Study Centre) estimates this figure to be about 1 in 6 babies.



Ok. Whoa. I know that there are genes which make depression more likely- but for the illness to present in an infant not even a year old? Wow. I always associated depression with maturity, for some reason. Maybe because so many artists and intelligent figures had depression at some at point; depression has stemmed so many stunning pieces of work.

Some people who had depression:
-> William Blake.
-> Charles Beaudelaire.
-> Woody Allen.
-> Agatha Christie.
-> Beyoncé.

and many more great people.

Buuuut, science does not know its debt to imagination. The more we know, the more we can do to counter it.

Anywy, let's have some pictures of happy babies to even this horrible news out:















Awwww! :)

You've gotta love BoJo

Oh, Bojo.

Pope's aide: the UK is a "third world country".

Why?
Because the UK is marked by "a new and aggressive atheism".

So the UK is a third world country... because we have atheists.

But wait a minute, that's not what I meant, cries the aide! Instead he was referring to "Britain's multi-cultural society". Much better...

basically.

.

9/11. RIP.

It strikes me as sad how, with everything, the story is presented, it maybe lingers for a bit- then it's forgotten. Chances are, the people involved in the incident won't be able to forget so easily. A murder, for example. I can't imagine that the suffering of the family/friends would ever cease and yet no one remembers the name of anyone involved for longer than a week or two.

And with 9/11, even though it initially seems like the opposite has happened, I think the same trend has been followed. The incident hasn't been forgotten, yes, but it has been engulfed in conspiracy theories, wars and extremism. Behind all of this lies human suffering (both on 9/11 and as a consequent of it) which isn't so addressed. It's not forgotten, true, but you have to look behind a smoke screen to be able see it.

9/11 should be a reminded of how fragile human life and relations can be. It shouldn't be a site of religious hatred and intolerance. I doubt it's what any of the dead would have wanted. I doubt it's what anyone wants.