Friday, August 8, 2025

Can Lithium be used to treat Alzheimer's disease?

Lithium deficiency in the brain could be a cause of Alzheimer's disease—and a new potential target for treatment. Ten years in the making, this is the finding of researchers at Harvard Medical School who have revealed how lithium plays an essential role in brain function and may provide resistance against brain aging and Alzheimer's.

Lithium is a chemical element, currently used as medicine to treat mood disorders like mania and bipolar disorder. "Most people associate lithium with psychiatric treatment. Our study shows, for the first time, that naturally occurring lithium plays a crucial role in maintaining brain health during aging—even at concentrations far below those used in clinical psychiatry," study authors Bruce Yankner and Liviu Aron told Newsweek.

The findings are based on a series of experiments in mice and on analyses of human brain tissue and blood samples from individuals in various stages of cognitive health. "We found that lithium is uniquely depleted in the brains of people with mild cognitive impairment—a precursor to Alzheimer's. This makes lithium deficiency one of the earliest biochemical signs of the disease, possibly years before clinical symptoms appear," the duo explained.

"We also saw that higher endogenous lithium levels were associated with preserved cognitive function even in individuals without Alzheimer's. So, this isn't just about preventing disease—it's about supporting healthy brain aging in general."

The new revelation helps to explain why some people with Alzheimer's-like abnormalities in the brain don't go on to develop the disease. While genetic and environmental factors play a role, scientists also haven't been able to suggest why some people with the same risk factors might develop it and others don't—until now.

The scientists unearthed that lithium loss in the human brain is one of the earliest changes leading to Alzheimer's. In mice, meanwhile, similar lithium depletion accelerated brain pathology (disease or abnormality) and memory decline.

They also found reduced lithium levels stemmed from binding to amyloid plaques (misfolded proteins found between nerve cells found in the brains of people with Alzheimer's) and impaired uptake in the brain.

In their final set of experiments, they found a new lithium compound that avoids "capture" by amyloid plaques restored memory in mice. "In people that start experiencing memory loss, the so-called mild cognitive impairment, lithium gets trapped by amyloid plaques—reducing its availability just when it's most needed to protect against inflammation and neurodegeneration," Yankner and Aron explained. "This creates a self-perpetuating feedback loop of worsening pathology and accelerating disease progression and memory loss."

This all ties together decades-long observations in patients and provides a new theory of the disease and strategy for early diagnosis, prevention and treatment, according to the researchers.

Recently developed treatments that target amyloid beta (a key component of the amyloid plaques) typically don't reverse memory loss and only modestly reduce the rate of decline. "The idea that lithium deficiency could be a cause of Alzheimer's disease is new and suggests a different therapeutic approach," said Yankner in a statement.

Researchers had previously found lithium to be the only metal that had markedly different levels across people with and without Alzheimer's at different stages. But Yankner added in a statement, "Lithium turns out to be like other nutrients we get from the environment, such as iron and vitamin C. It's the first time anyone's shown that lithium exists at a natural level that's biologically meaningful without giving it as a drug." 

Previous population studies have shown that higher lithium levels in the environment, including in drinking water, tracked with lower rates of dementia. Yankner's team demonstrated in mice that lithium depletion isn't just linked to Alzheimer's, it actually helps drive it.

This raises hope that one day lithium could be used to treat the disease in its entirety rather than focusing on a single factor like amyloid beta or tau (another Alzheimer's-associated protein), Yankner said.

Crucially, the researchers discovered that as amyloid beta begins to form deposits in the early stages of dementia in both humans and mouse models, it binds to lithium, reducing lithium's function in the brain. The reduced levels of lithium affect all major brain cell types and, in mice, lead to changes similar to those seen in Alzheimer's disease, including memory loss.

Treating mice with the most potent amyloid-evading compound, called lithium orotate, reversed Alzheimer's pathology, prevented brain cell damage and restored memory.

While the findings need to be confirmed in humans through clinical trials, they suggest that measuring lithium levels could help screen for early Alzheimer's. They also highlight the importance of testing amyloid-evading lithium compounds for treatment or prevention.

While other lithium compounds are already used to treat bipolar disorder and clinical depression, they are given at much higher concentrations that can be toxic to some people, the researchers flag. Yankner's team discovered lithium orotate is effective at one-thousandth that dose— enough to mimic the natural level of lithium in the brain. Mice treated for nearly their entire adult lives showed no evidence of toxicity, the study found.

If further studies confirm these findings, the researchers say lithium screening through routine blood tests may one day offer a way to identify individuals at risk for Alzheimer's who would benefit from treatment to prevent or delay disease onset.

"Our study adds to growing evidence that Alzheimer's may be preventable—with something as simple as keeping brain lithium at healthy levels as we age," said Yankner and Aron.

"Clinical trials [on humans] could test the impact of low-dose supplementation on cognitive health and dementia risk."

Before lithium is proved to be safe and effective in protecting against neurodegeneration in humans, Yankner emphasized that people should not take lithium compounds on their own.

References

Aron, L., Ngian, Z. K., Qiu, C., Choi, J., Liang, M., Drake, D. M., Hamplova, S. E., Lacey, E. K., Roche, P., Yuan, M., Hazaveh, S. S., Lee, E. A., Bennett, D. A., & Yankner, B. A. (2025). Lithium deficiency and the onset of Alzheimer's disease. Naturehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09335-x

-Hanna Millington, Newsweek


Thursday, August 7, 2025

Expert reaction to RFK Jr cancelling $500m of funding for mRNA vaccines

Scientists comment on Robert F. Kennedy Jr cancelling funding for mRNA vaccines.

Prof Adam Finn, Professor of Pediatrics, University of Bristol, said:

“mRNA vaccines are one of several important vaccine platforms available to us to combat future pandemics and develop new vaccines against existing infectious diseases against which we either have no vaccines or vaccines which could be improved. 

“They were used with vast success in the recent COVID19 pandemic. 

“They have the singular advantage that they can be designed and manufactured at scale extremely rapidly – making them very suitable to tackle new infections or rapidly mutating and evolving pathogens. 

“However much remains to be learned and understood about how best to design and use this platform to maximize its effectiveness and its safety, so that investment in further research is vital. 

“While mRNA vaccines are not the only type of vaccines we need and should use, we definitely should not be turned our back on them, given what we already know about them and given that we know beyond doubt that another pandemic is coming – sometime.”

Prof Peter Openshaw, Professor of Experimental Medicine, Imperial College London, said: “mRNA vaccine technology was vital during the COVID pandemic, leading to dramatic declines in mortality and saving many lives. A reliable analysis by Airfinity [1] of the lives saved by vaccines between the 8th of December 2020 and the 8th of December 2021 estimated that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine prevented about 6 million deaths, and the Moderna vaccine about 1.7m deaths.  This is an extraordinary achievement for vaccines that were developed at speed in the face of the pandemic.

“Vaccines were one of the main reasons that mortality from COVID declined; in Switzerland, [example 2] , the death rate of 13.82 per 100,000 people fell to 0.67 per 100,000 in those who were fully vaccinated.  The impact of vaccines in beyond question and confirmed by countless independent and meticulous studies [example 3].  By late 2021, intensive care admissions for COVID were virtually confined to those who had not been vaccinated (ICNARC data). mRNA vaccination also reduced the risk of Lond COVID by about 50% [4].

“Some of what RFK Jr reportedly said is technically correct but does not recognize the vast positive impact of RNA vaccines. It is true that immunity can drive mutations, but this is true of both post-infection and vaccine-induced immunity. Vaccine-induced immunity is especially important in protecting from serious disease and death, while post-infection immunity may also drive immune evasion by a slightly longer period of nasal and upper respiratory protection. Prevention of serious disease is the most important goal of vaccination (see John Burn-Murdoch’s post [5]).

“It is irrational and harmful to cut funds in this vital field of research and development. It would not be surprising if US investigators and companies developing vaccines look elsewhere to work, invest and build. I hope the UK can recognize the importance of supporting vaccine development and can provide a safe haven for those considering leaving the USA because of changes in policy and funding.”

-Science Media Center

1 – https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/07/07/covid-19-vaccines-saved-an-estimated-20m-lives-during-their-first-year

2 – https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

3 – https://x.com/PaulMainwood/status/1452607646570323970

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/selfreportedlongcovidaftertwodosesofacoronaviruscovid19vaccineintheuk/26january2022

5 – https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/141

 

Wednesday, August 6, 2025

Millions are under air quality alerts as wildfire smoke blankets large swaths of U.S.

 


Millions of people across the Upper Midwest and the Northeast are under air quality alerts Monday, as smoke from wildfires in Canada drift over the region.

Hazy skies are expected in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, northern Indiana, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Delaware and Maine, according to the National Weather Service.

Almost 200 wildfires are burning out of control in Canada, including 81 in Saskatchewan, 159 in Manitoba and 61 in Ontario. Figures from the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Center indicate that more than 16.5 million acres have been scorched so far this year in what will likely be the country’s second-worst wildfire season on record.

A high-pressure system parked over the Midwest is trapping the smoke in place, causing air quality issues to linger for several days, according to the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy.

The air quality index Monday across 14 states in the Midwest and the Northeast ranged from “moderate” to “unhealthy” for the general public.

Wildfire smoke is of particular concern because it contains small particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter — around 4% of the diameter of an average strand of human hair. This type of air pollution is dangerous because the particles are small enough to reach deep inside the lungs, which can exacerbate or increase the risk of asthma, lung cancer and other chronic lung diseases.

Exposure to high levels of air pollution can also cause inflammation and weaken the immune system. Infants, children, seniors and pregnant women are especially vulnerable to unhealthy air quality conditions.

Studies have shown that climate change is fueling conditions for more frequent and intense wildfires. Warmer temperatures can dry out vegetation, which can increase the likelihood of wildfires igniting and spreading rapidly.

Cities affected by poor air quality Monday include Milwaukee; Detroit; Buffalo and Albany in New York; Boston and New York City. Many alerts will remain in effect through Tuesday, according to the weather service.

In the West, several wildfires are causing separate air quality issues in the region. More than 65,000 acres have been scorched in California's Los Padres National Forest, where hot and dry conditions have fanned the growth of the Gifford Fire.

In Colorado, the air quality index showed "moderate" readings Monday across large swaths.

“If smoke is thick or becomes thick in your neighborhood you may want to remain indoors,” the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment said in its advisory. “This is especially true for those with heart disease, respiratory illnesses, the very young, and older adults. Consider limiting outdoor activity when moderate to heavy smoke is present.”

-Denise Chow, NBC News



Monday, August 4, 2025

Trump Seeks to Undo Press Protections

 


President Donald Trump is again attacking the American press – this time not with fiery rally speeches or by calling the media “the enemy of the people,” but through the courts.

Since the heat of the November 2024 election, and continuing into July, Trump has filed defamation lawsuits against “60 Minutes” broadcaster CBS News and The Wall Street Journal. He has also sued the Des Moines Register for publishing a poll just before the 2024 election that Trump alleges exaggerated support for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and thus constituted election interference and fraud.

These are in addition to other lawsuits Trump filed against the news media during his first term and during his years out of office between 2021 and 2025.

At the heart of Trump’s complaints is a familiar refrain: The media is not only biased, but dishonest, corrupt and dangerous.

The president isn’t just upset about reporting on him that he thinks is unfair. He wants to redefine what counts as libel and make it easier for public officials to sue for damages. A libel suit is a civil tort claim seeking damages when a person believes something false has been printed or broadcast about them and so harmed their reputation.

Redefining libel in this way would require overturning the Supreme Court’s 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, one of the most important First Amendment legal rulings in American constitutional history

Trump made overturning Sullivan a talking point during his first campaign for president; his lawsuits now put that threat into action. And they raise the question: What happened in Sullivan, and why does it still matter?

President Donald Trump discusses U.S. libel laws on Jan. 10, 2018, calling them a ‘sham’ and a ‘disgrace’ during comments to reporters at the White House.

What Sullivan was about

As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on free expression.

In 1960, The New York Times published a full-page advertisement titled “Heed Their Rising Voices”. The ad, which included an appeal for readers to send money in support of Martin Luther King Jr. and the movement against Jim Crow, described brutal and unjust treatment of Black students and protesters in Montgomery, Alabama. It also emphasized episodes of police violence against peaceful demonstrations.

The ad was not entirely accurate in its description of the behavior of either protesters or the police.

It claimed, for instance, that activists had sung “My Country ’Tis of Thee” on the steps of the state capitol during a rally, when they actually had sung the national anthem. It said that “truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear-gas” had “ringed” a college campus, when the police had only been deployed nearby. And it asserted that King had been arrested seven times in Alabama, when the real number was four.

Though the ad did not identify any individual public officials by name, it disparaged the behavior of Montgomery police.

That’s where L.B. Sullivan came in.

As Montgomery’s police commissioner, he oversaw the police department. Sullivan claimed that because the ad maligned the conduct of law enforcement, it had implicitly defamed him. In 1960 in Alabama, a primary defense against libel was truth. But since there were mistakes in the ad, a truth defense could not be raised. Sullivan sued for damages, and an Alabama jury awarded him US$500,000, equivalent to $5,450,000 in 2025.

The message to the press was clear: criticize Southern officials and risk being sued out of existence.

In fact, the Sullivan lawsuit was not an isolated incident, but part of a broader strategy. In addition to Sullivan, four other Montgomery officials filed suits against the Times.

In Birmingham, public officials filed seven libel lawsuits over Times reporter Harrison Salisbury’s trenchant reporting about racism in that city. The lawsuits helped push the Times to the edge of bankruptcy. Salisbury was even indicted for seditious libel  and faced up to 21 years in prison.

Alabama officials also sued CBS, The Associated Press, the Saturday Evening Post and Ladies’ Home Journal – all for reporting on civil rights and the South’s brutal response.

Four men in suits standing together and smiling.

Montgomery, Ala., Police Commissioner L.B. Sullivan, second left, and his attorneys celebrate his $500,000 libel suit victory in a county court on Nov. 3, 1960. Bettman/Getty Images

The Supreme Court decision

The jury’s verdict in favor of Sullivan was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 1964.

Writing for the court, Justice William Brennan held that public officials cannot prevail in defamation lawsuits merely by showing that statements are false. Instead, they must prove such statements are made with “actual malice”. Actual malice means a reporter or press outlet knew their story was false or else acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The decision set a high bar.

Before the ruling, the First Amendment’s protections for speech and the press didn’t offer much help to the press in libel cases.

After it, public officials who wanted to sue the press would have to prove “actual malice” – real, purposeful untruths that caused harm. Honest mistakes weren’t enough to prevail in such lawsuits. The court held that errors are inevitable in public debate and that protecting those mistakes is essential to keeping debate open and free.

Nonviolent protest and the press

In essence, the court ruling blocked government officials from suing for libel with ulterior motives.

King and other civil rights leaders relied on a strategy of nonviolent protest to expose injustice through public, visible actions.

When protesters were arrested, beaten or hosed in the streets, their goal was not chaos – it was clarity. They wanted the nation to see what Southern oppression looked like. For that, they needed press coverage.

If Sullivan’s lawsuit had succeeded, it could have bullied the press away from covering civil rights altogether. The Supreme Court recognized this danger.

Public officials treated differently

Another key element of the court’s reasoning was its distinction between public officials and private citizens.

Elected leaders, the court said, can use mass media to defend themselves in ways ordinary people cannot.

“The public official certainly has equal if not greater access than most private citizens to media of communication,” Justice Brennan wrote in the Sullivan ruling.

Trump is a perfect example of this dynamic. He masterfully uses social media, rallies, televised interviews and impromptu remarks to push back. He doesn’t need the courts.

Giving public officials the power to sue over news stories they dislike could well create a chilling effect on the media that undermines government accountability and distorts public discourse.

“The theory of our Constitution is that every citizen may speak his mind and every newspaper express its view on matters of public concern and may not be barred from speaking or publishing because those in control of government think that what is said or written is unwise,” Brennan wrote.

“In a democratic society, one who assumes to act for the citizens in an executive, legislative, or judicial capacity must expect that his official acts will be commented upon and criticized.”

Why Sullivan still matters

The Sullivan ruling is more than a legal doctrine. It is a shared agreement about the kind of democracy Americans aspire to. It affirms a press duty to hold power to account, and a public right to hear facts and information that those in power want to suppress.

The ruling protects the right to criticize those in power and affirms that the press is not a nuisance, but an essential part of a functioning democracy. It ensures that political leaders cannot insulate themselves from scrutiny by silencing their critics through intimidation or litigation.

Trump’s lawsuits seek to undo these press protections. He presents himself as the victim of a dishonest press and hopes to use the legal system to punish those he perceives to be his detractors.

The decision in the Sullivan case reminds Americans that democracy doesn’t depend on leaders who feel comfortable. It depends on a public that is free to speak.

by -The Conversation


Sunday, August 3, 2025

"On Friday, Donald Trump did what every good (bad?) dictator does":



He shot the messenger. The monthly jobs report showed just 73,000 jobs in July, with big reductions to May's and June's numbers, so Trump fired Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, casting aspersions on her in a social media post, calling her a “Biden appointee” and claiming, falsely, that she played games with the numbers.

The message to every single government employee is clear. If the numbers, the outcomes, or anything else look bad for Trump, fudge it or risk losing your job. It’s all about personal loyalty, which comes as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. Still, this is 1984-level stuff.

McEntarfer is an economist, a data person, with a Ph.D. The New York Times reported that she had broad bipartisan support when the Senate confirmed her to the position in 2024 in an 86-8 vote, which included yeas from then-Senators JD Vance and Marco Rubio.

She had worked in the Census Bureau during both Republican and Democratic administrations for 20 years before going to Treasury. That’s not the resume of an ideologue. But Trump doesn’t care about people who’ve worked hard to build their careers as public servants. He just wants to look good, whether he’s doing good or not. So McEntarfer had to go.

If you’ve already started reading George Orwell’s 1984 for our book club this month, this story really resonates. Our timing with reading the book is impeccable. It’s almost as though Trump is reading the book too, but reading it as a guidance manual, not a cautionary tale.

The Washington Post reported on Thursday that “The Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History in July removed references to President Donald Trump’s two impeachments from an exhibit display. A person familiar with the exhibit plans, who was not authorized to discuss them publicly, said the change came about as part of a content review that the Smithsonian agreed to undertake following pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director.”

Rewriting history is Orwellian to the core. Breathtakingly, shockingly so. The fact remains that even though the Senate refused to convict on either occasion, Donald Trump was impeached twice, the only president that has happened to during a single term in office.

The first time was for attempting to use much-needed security aid that Congress had voted to send to Ukraine as a quid pro quo to obtain an announcement from that country’s brand-new leader at the time, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, that Joe Biden was under investigation in that country for corruption. The second impeachment was in connection with January 6. That is the history of our nation, which nothing can change.

But in the novel 1984, facts are not a barrier. Rewriting history is a central tenet of the totalitarian regime, carried out by the Ministry of Truth. I won’t spoil it for you if you haven’t read that far yet, but life seems to be imitating art right now, and it’s a compelling sign that Trump does not mean to limit himself to the powers the Constitution assigns to a president. This is a time to be driving that point home with friends who still haven’t caught on, and we are going to have a lot to talk about as we read the book. I’m signing up some great guests to join us throughout the month.

But there’s a little good news, or at least a silver lining in this. The Washington Post reported that following its story, the Smithsonian issued a statement that said, “a future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments.”

Their excuse for why the removed mention of Trump for an exhibit that referred to the impeachments of Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson, along with a mention that Richard Nixon would have been impeached had he not resigned, was nonsensical: “Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance.” But it’s plain that coverage by the press and outrage by the media still matter.

So, as Trump prepares to erase the truth and write his own version of the country’s past and present, our job is to stay informed and express our anger and disgust. Orwell wrote, “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past." Trump controls the present and is trying to change the past. He’s also, as with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, trying to change the present in hopes he can continue to control the future. It’s a dark moment.

When Trump took control of the Kennedy Center, firing the Board and appointing himself, art and theater fought back. If you haven’t seen it already, watch “One Gay More.” We can all fight back, too. Trump’s efforts to change the past and the present are transparent, and the right answer is the one these artists took: to make fun of it, to laugh at it, to ridicule it, and to ridicule the man who thinks we will fall for it. Today it’s jobs numbers; tomorrow it will be the Epstein files or whatever else Trump fears at the moment. Let’s be loud. There are no alternative facts when it comes to American history.

-Joyce Vance




Saturday, August 2, 2025

The Great Salt Lake

 

                                    Photograph by Glen Brown in 1974

The Great Salt Lake is rapidly shrinking due to a combination of factors including climate change and excessive water diversions for agriculture and other uses. This drying trend poses serious ecological and public health risks. 

Here's a breakdown of the situation:

Causes:

Climate Change:

Utah is experiencing hotter, drier conditions, leading to reduced snowfall and increased evaporation. 

Water Diversions:

Significant amounts of water that would normally flow into the lake are being used for agriculture, industry, and municipal needs. 

Lack of Upstream Water Protection:

Some reports indicate that the state hasn't taken sufficient action to protect the upstream water sources feeding the lake. 

Consequences:

Ecological Damage:

Bird Die-offs: The shrinking lake threatens the millions of migratory birds that rely on it as a vital stopover point along the Pacific Flyway

Salinity Changes: As the lake shrinks, its salinity increases, potentially impacting the brine flies and shrimp that are a critical food source for birds. 

Island Changes: The shrinking lake is causing some islands to become peninsulas, exposing nesting sites to predators like coyotes. 

Public Health Risks:

Dust Storms: The exposed lakebed releases toxic dust particles, impacting air quality and potentially causing respiratory problems. 

CO2 Emissions: The drying lakebed is also releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. 

Economic Impacts:

Ski Industry: The Great Salt Lake influences weather patterns, including lake-effect snow, which is vital for Utah's lucrative ski industry. 

Mining: The lake's salinity is crucial for the mining industry, which extracts minerals from the lake water. 

Efforts to Address the Problem:

Conservation Efforts:

Water conservation is seen as a promising solution, but it needs to be quantified, measured, incentivized, and legally protected, according to a study by Utah State University. 

Legislative Action:

State and federal legislation is being considered to address the crisis, but some argue it's inadequate. 

Research and Monitoring:

There's a need for more research and data collection to understand the lake's dynamics and inform effective solutions. 

Water Management Plans:

Developing a comprehensive, long-term water resource plan for the watershed is crucial. 

Public Awareness:

Increased public awareness and engagement are essential for driving change. The situation with the Great Salt Lake is critical and addressing it will require a multi-faceted approach involving conservation, policy changes, and a deeper understanding of the lake's ecology. 

 AI



Friday, August 1, 2025

The Loss of Pets

 

                                                                   Zoe

I saw it firsthand after my cat Murphy died earlier this year. She’d been diagnosed with cancer just weeks before. She was a small gray tabby with delicate paws who, even during chemotherapy, climbed her favorite dresser perch – Mount Murphy – with steady determination. The day after she died, a colleague said with a shrug: “It’s just part of life.”

That phrase stayed with me – not because it was wrong, but because of how quickly it dismissed something real. Murphy wasn’t just a cat. She was my eldest daughter – by bond, if not by blood. My shadow.

Why pet grief doesn’t count    

More than two-thirds of U.S. households include pets. Americans tend to treat them like family with birthday cakes, shared beds and names on holiday cards.

But when someone grieves them like family, the cultural script flips. Grief gets minimized. Support gets awkward. And when no one acknowledges your loss, it starts to feel like you weren’t even supposed to love them that much in the first place.

I’ve seen this kind of grief up close – in my research and in my own life. I am a psychologist who studies attachment, loss and the human-animal bond.

And I’ve seen firsthand how often grief following pet loss gets brushed aside – treated as less valid, less serious or less worthy of support than human loss. After a pet dies, people often say the wrong thing – usually trying to help, but often doing the opposite. Many Americans consider pets family members.

When loss is minimized or discounted

Psychologists describe this kind of unacknowledged loss as disenfranchised grief: a form of mourning that isn’t fully recognized by social norms or institutions. It happens after miscarriages, breakups, job loss – and especially after the death of a beloved animal companion.

The pain is real for the person grieving, but what’s missing is the social support to mourn that loss.

Even well-meaning people struggle to respond in ways that feel supportive. And when grief gets dismissed, it doesn’t just hurt – it makes us question whether we’re even allowed to feel it.

Here are three of the most common responses – and what to do instead:

‘Just a pet’

This is one of the most reflexive responses after a loss like this. It sounds harmless. But under the surface is a cultural belief that grieving an animal is excessive – even unprofessional.

That belief shows up in everything from workplace leave policies to everyday conversations. Even from people trying to be kind. But pet grief isn’t about the species, it’s about the bond. And for many, that bond is irreplaceable.

Pets often become attachment figures; they’re woven into our routines, our emotional lives and our identities. Recent research shows that the quality of the human-pet bond matters deeply – not just for well-being, but for how we grieve when that connection ends.

What’s lost isn’t “just an animal.” It’s the steady presence who greeted you every morning. The one who sat beside you through deadlines, small triumphs and quiet nights. A companion who made the world feel a little less lonely.

But when the world treats that love like it doesn’t count, the loss can cut even deeper. It may not come with formal recognition or time off, but it still matters. And love isn’t less real just because it came with fur. If someone you care about loses a pet, acknowledge the bond. Even a simple “I’m so sorry” can offer real comfort.

‘I know how you feel’

“I know how you feel” sounds empathetic, but it quietly shifts the focus from the griever to the speaker. It rushes in with your story before theirs has even had a chance to land.

That instinct comes from a good place. We want to relate, to reassure, to let someone know they’re not alone. But when it comes to grief, that impulse often backfires. Grief doesn’t need to be matched. It needs to be honored and given time, care and space to unfold, whether the loss is of a person or a pet.

Instead of responding with your own story, try simpler, grounding words:

You don’t need to understand someone’s grief to make space for it. What helps isn’t comparison – it’s presence. Let them name the loss. Let them remember. Let them say what hurts. Sometimes, simply staying present – without rushing, problem-solving or shifting the focus away – is the most meaningful thing you can do. Pets frequently make a showing in family photos and holiday cards. 

‘You can always get another one’

“You can always get another one” is the kind of thing people offer reflexively when they don’t know what else to say – a clumsy attempt at reassurance.

Underneath is a desire to soothe, to fix, to make the sadness go away. But that instinct can miss the point: The loss isn’t practical – it’s personal. And grief isn’t a problem to be solved. This type of comment often lands more like customer service than comfort. It treats the relationship as replaceable, as if love were something you can swap out like a broken phone.

But every pet is one of a kind – not just in how they look or sound, but in how they move through your life. The way they wait for you at the door and watch you as you leave. The small rituals that you didn’t know were rituals until they stopped. You build a life around them without realizing it, until they’re no longer in it.

You wouldn’t tell someone to “just have another child” or “just find a new partner.” And yet, people say the equivalent all the time after pet loss. Rushing to replace the relationship instead of honoring what was lost overlooks what made that bond irreplaceable. Love isn’t interchangeable – and neither are the ones we lose.

So, offer care that endures. Grief doesn’t follow a timeline. A check-in weekly or months later, whether it’s a heart emoji, a shared memory or a gentle reminder that they’re not alone, can remind someone that their grief is seen, and their love still matters.

When people say nothing

People often don’t know what to say after a pet dies, so they say nothing. But silence doesn’t just bury grief, it isolates it. It tells the griever that their love was excessive, their sadness inconvenient, their loss unworthy of acknowledgment.

And grief that feels invisible can be the hardest kind to carry. So, if someone you love loses a pet, don’t change the subject. Don’t rush them out of their sadness. Don’t offer solutions.

Instead, here are a few other ways to offer support gently and meaningfully:

  • Say their pet’s name.
  • Ask what they miss most.
  • Tell them you’re sorry.
  • Let them cry.
  • Let them not cry.
  • Let them remember.

Because when someone loses a pet, they’re not “just” mourning an animal. They’re grieving for a relationship, a rhythm and a presence that made the world feel kinder. What they need most is someone willing to treat that loss like it matters.

-The Conversation, Brian N. Chin, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Trinity College


 
                              Apollo

Zoe and Apollo were my two cats years ago: 

https://teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/2023/10/cats.html