Psychosocial Risk Expert | Professional Speaker | Author. Managing Director @psychsafe. Cost-saving is a grow-through phase. Get across #ESG.

Joined October 2011
1,766 Photos and videos
Pinned Tweet
It’s a wrap 🎬 All done for a new documentary with the wonderful Kathie Melocco and crew. #watchthisspace #moralharm #trauma #psychhazards #psychriskmngt #psychosocial #psychsafety
5
6
6,820
Dr Rebecca Michalak retweeted
I’m a chemist. I need to say this - because it’s getting dangerous out there. The biggest health myth in the world isn’t about vaccines. Or GMOs. Or fluoride. It’s the root of all of them. It’s called chemophobia - and it’s killing science. Fear of “chemicals” now drives vaccine rejection, GMO bans, food hysteria, and entire political movements. From tampons to tap water, people have been taught to fear chemistry - the very thing that keeps us alive. Chemophobia tells us: “Natural is good.” “Synthetic is bad.” That’s a lie. Botulinum toxin is 100% natural and one of the deadliest molecules known. Aspirin is synthetic and life-saving. We’ve gone from banning harmful substances for good reason…to banning safe, well-tested molecules for emotional reasons. You’ve seen the slogans: “If you can’t pronounce it, don’t eat it.” “Paraben-free.” “Clean beauty.” They sound empowering. But they’re not science - they’re marketing. And they’re making the world dumber, poorer, and sicker. Your body doesn’t care if a molecule comes from a plant or a lab. Vitamin C is vitamin C. Formaldehyde is formaldehyde and your body makes more of it every day than any vaccine ever could. Dose matters. Source doesn’t. This fear isn’t harmless. It shapes public policy. It blocks innovation. It raises food prices. It slows down cancer treatments. Chemophobia is now mainstream and it’s costing lives. Scientists aren’t losing because we’re wrong. We’re losing because fear spreads faster than facts. Because influencers sell fear for clicks. Because lawyers monetize doubt. And because scientists are too tired to fight back. So here’s my message, as a chemist and as a citizen: Learn how toxicology works. Call out chemical fear-mongering. Support policies based on evidence, not emotion. Chemistry isn’t the enemy. It’s the reason you have clean water, safe food, and modern medicine. If we let fear win, we lose all of it.
174
639
1,741
37,292
Disappointed influential people well aware of research design principles, beta weights, spuriousness, & endogeneity v. exogeneity, inter alia, persist w. publicly supporting opinion akin to the *colour of undies you wore on Friday* is a key causal factor in #cancer. STOP IT.
Cancer diagnoses delayed by COVID: How pandemic lockdowns led to a surge in late-stage and incurable cases theage.com.au/healthcare/tho… This was predicted at the time due to tunnel vision of health depts for COVID.Same occurred & worse for 25% plus surge of new cases of mental illness
1
98
Dr Rebecca Michalak retweeted
Excuse me for a moment while I think out loud: We know that Covid infections increase your risk of developing secondary infections. The pile of supporting science and evidence is a mile high. But people often respond by accusing *vaccines* of causing the same problems...
16
82
517
13,249
As a risk expert, it’s my view C19 brain damage is not getting anywhere NEAR the attention it should. The impact on executive functioning, inc. ability to assess risk, manage impulsivity and problem solve all have serious downstream implications for #bizrisk #peoplerisk #WHS 🤔
As a neurologist, it is now patently clear to me that the vast majority of people on the planet are suffering from neuroinflammation or brain damage (likely both) The way people speak & behave has changed. Markedly so. Whether irl, or via messaging/social media. It’s noticeable
1
2
113
A good example of backfire effects with poorly designed, mandatory training. While I’m here, it’s good to see regulators in my space (#WHS, #HR) pushing back on relying on largely ineffective ‘training’ as #risk controls; PCBUs must shift their controls above-the-line.
Our HR department just migrated all our mandatory compliance training to a new gamified learning management system. I received an automated email stating I had 48 hours to complete a module on data privacy or my badge would be deactivated. I logged into the portal and was greeted by a cartoon badger named Barnaby. Barnaby told me I was about to embark on a security quest. I'm 44 years old. I don't want to go on a quest. The first module was a video about phishing scams produced like a high-budget daytime soap opera. The actors were inappropriately attractive for a simulated accounts payable department. The main character, Chad, left his laptop open at a coffee shop while he ordered a matcha latte. A guy in a black hoodie immediately sat down and downloaded the entire corporate mainframe to a USB drive in four seconds. Then the video paused and asked me to identify Chad's critical mistake. The multiple choice options were leaving the device unsecured, using public Wi-Fi, or failing to foster a culture of vigilance. I clicked the first one. Barnaby the badger popped up and told me I was technically correct, but I lacked a holistic security mindset. He deducted 10 "synergy tokens" from my digital wallet. I didn't even know I had a digital wallet. The next scenario involved a complex ethical dilemma about accepting gifts from vendors. A supplier offered the protagonist a branded corporate fleece. The video framed this as the first step toward international corporate espionage. I was asked if accepting the fleece was a violation of the anti-bribery statutes. I clicked yes. Barnaby congratulated me and awarded me a bronze digital badge of integrity. I tried to fast-forward through the next video because it was 45 minutes long. The player immediately froze and a warning message appeared saying Barnaby notices you are rushing. The video restarted from the very beginning. I sat there for 45 minutes watching a dramatization of password hygiene while staring blankly at my monitor. At the end of the quest, I had to take a 50-question final exam. One question asked how long a visitor badge is valid under the new global security matrix. I guessed 24 hours. Barnaby appeared with a sad face and told me it was 12 hours. I failed the module with an 84 percent. The passing grade was 85 percent. Barnaby informed me that my quest must start over. I considered throwing my company-issued laptop out the window. Instead, I sent an email to HR asking for an extension. I got an automated reply saying the HR representative was out of the office on a corporate wellness retreat. I clicked replay on the video. Chad is about to leave his laptop at the coffee shop again. This time I hope the hacker deletes my employee profile entirely.
111
A colleague researched what I still affectionately refer to as TIKAA theory; Technology Impaired Knowledge Acquisition and Application. Very relevant in AI space right now. His work was (loosely) on reliance on tech tools to conduct financial audits. @MichealAxelsen
I’m a Novid. Apparently there’s a dying breed of NoAIs, too. I can’t say I’m one of them. I’ve used AI to assist with coding and a few other tasks. But writing? Writing is one of the few things that I genuinely enjoy. It’s therapeutic. It’s a passion. It puts me into flow. Like a jazz musician improvising. Like an athlete in the zone. Like water finding its path downhill. That’s why I find the current moment so strange. People see a well-written email and assume AI. A grant proposal? AI. A manuscript? AI. A social media thread? AI. It’s as if the arrival of ChatGPT erased the possibility that some people spent decades learning to write. I’ve written funded grants before AI. Published papers before AI. Written hundreds of thousands of words before AI. Have you ever actually read my writing? It’s one of the things I’m known for. Why would I suddenly need a machine to do the part I enjoy most? The irony is that many of us who spent years learning to think, teach, write, persuade, and communicate now have to convince people we still can. Maybe that’s related to being a Novid. I never felt much pressure to do what everyone else was doing. Meanwhile, I still have to reconcile the proliferation of data centers, the environmental costs, and the fact that the foundation of this entire revolution rests on a lot of intellectual property that was never freely volunteered in the first place. So no, I’m not a NoAI. But I’m also not ready to outsource the fun part. Just remember: Not every paragraph was written by a machine. Some of us are still running on carbon.
1
135
Malicious envy.
If you’ve ever heard a narcissist say, “you think you’re better than everyone“, (when you really don’t), what they’re saying is, “I’m afraid you’re better than me and I don’t like it.“…
1
61
Indeed. When I was profiling likely targets for various forms of workplace abuse, there was a profile aligned to the below: highly competent, well-liked, high-performing and generally successful workers; very different to the *vulnerable* target #criminology #victimology
Malignant narcissists are vandals. But they don’t vandalize property — they vandalize people. When they encounter someone with genuine value — real heart, real integrity, real character — they feel threatened by it. That kind of authentic goodness exposes what they are by contrast. And they can’t tolerate that. So they do what vandals do. They deface it. They trash it. They mark it up until it looks like something that deserves to be discarded. That’s the smear campaign. That’s all it is. It’s not a conflict. It’s not a dispute. It’s a vandal spotting something of value and defacing it — because genuine value offends them, and destroying it is the only way they know how to respond to feeling inferior. So they take it away from everyone. The person they target didn’t do anything wrong. They were just too good to leave alone.
80
Dr Rebecca Michalak retweeted
Here are a few unusual red flags for narcissists, psychopaths…. 1. Lengthy staring. Dark personalities/human predators do not experience discomfort in the same way as others because they don’t feel fear. They are therefore very comfortable with lengthy eye contact and often use staring as a positive influencing tactic. This could be eye staring or following you around a room. They also use lengthy staring as a means to intimidate, to make someone feel uncomfortable, to control. 2. Watching your hands as you speak. Human predators do not experience emotions as we do because of brain anomalies (other than a pathological anger response). They therefore often look at people’s hand movements as they are speaking to try and understand what their emotional vulnerabilities are. When we speak of subjects we are more invested in we generally move our hands more in discussion. Human predators are always interested in our vulnerabilities in order to leverage these to cause us pain or harm when they choose. 3. Smirking. Dark personalities smirk out of an arrogant sense of ‘I have fooled them all and I am amazing’. They also smirk when they hurt someone because they find it deeply satisfying. The smirk can sometimes be just a tiny upward movement on one side of the mouth. 4. Charity. Human predators often engage with charities as part of their facade of being a good person. If a media story about a charity contains information about a person in relation to the charity that is a big red flag. People who are genuinely philanthropic rarely include much information if any about themselves in relation to charities they support. Human predators on the other hand use charities to promote themselves. 5. Peering. Where a situation might be difficult for a human predator to understand, for example a situation which might elicit a lot of emotion in other people, they may squint and lean forward almost as if studying the situation to try and understand it. 6. Housework. Oddly, there seems to be a trend that housework is not something many human predators are willing to do. Their strong sense of entitlement probably precludes it. They may therefore use intimidating behaviour around housework as a means to ‘train’ others to do it.
26
74
483
21,449
Sideline to Point 1, AU audiences should know if they both end up being relevant, #WHS law effectively trumps Anti-Discrim law. The safety & health of many basically takes precedence over ind. *right to employment* inc. #WHS risk due to mental health issues.
I gave evidence to the Nottingham Inquiry on Friday. In my view the Inquiry will shape mental health care for the next decade, as did the inquiry into the killing of Jonathan Zito in 1992. I made 3 points: That in mental health we have a social responsibility…..
102
Dr Rebecca Michalak retweeted
I gave evidence to the Nottingham Inquiry on Friday. In my view the Inquiry will shape mental health care for the next decade, as did the inquiry into the killing of Jonathan Zito in 1992. I made 3 points: That in mental health we have a social responsibility…..
15
82
321
57,049
Presumptive legislation exists in AU for good reason. This worker group face extreme #jobdemands, #trauma, #aggression, #violence & #fatigue-related hazard exposures every shift. HST, It’s a prob. only PTSD-specific; creates diagnostic bias/exclusion of common differentials. #WHS
61
Just got off a flight on which a person a couple rows back sounded like they could cough up a lung the entire flight. @Qantas makes you sign this declaration when checking in - what’s the point when you can be that overtly sick and still board??? Ludicrous 😡 #WHSfails #PHfails
49
16
124
12,718
Walking into T3 Qantas Domestic Sydney this afternoon was like a scene from Stephen King’s The Langoliers….. Stark but handy reminder of why I don’t frequent this terminal.
164
Dr Rebecca Michalak retweeted
Replying to @MAHA_Action
Every food is made of chemicals. An apple is chemicals. Coffee is chemicals. Breast milk is chemicals. Your body is chemicals. A single strawberry contains thousands of different molecules: Water Sugars Acids Vitamins Aromatic compounds Natural pesticides made by the plant itself Coffee alone contains over 1,000 identified chemical compounds. A banana contains dozens of volatile chemicals that create its smell and flavor. Even “organic,” “natural,” or “chemical-free” foods are chemically complex mixtures. The real scientific question is not: “Are there chemicals in food?” The real question is: “What chemicals? At what dose? And do they present a risk?” Because toxicology is about exposure and dose - not whether something has a scary-sounding name. Botulinum toxin is natural. Water can kill you at high enough doses. Vitamin A becomes toxic if you consume too much. Meanwhile, many synthetic food additives are used at tiny concentrations and are extensively tested for safety. “Chemical-free food” is not a scientific concept. It’s a marketing slogan.
23
63
294
4,209
Good air in @VirginAustralia BNE lounge despite it being lunchtime and busy-ish 👏 see you soon Sydney 😊 #WHS #cleanair #health
2
3
177
Then one min into a jammed gangway, and two mins on board 🙄 In the @flo_mask Pro as always.
1
1
10
525
Hmmm. They still fear selectively (eg., if any trauma origins get unpicked), but the pt I take you to be making is they don’t fear societal rules - inc. but not limited to #law. E.g., Psychopaths know right from wrong but consider themselves elite; above the rule-applies group.
Malignant narcissists are not scared of anybody. They are not in the least bit scared of being exposed. Their brains don’t register fear. Plus, they are profoundly convinced of their own superiority & ability to out-manipulate any situation. People claiming malignant narcissists/psychopaths experience fear, are generally narcissists fantasising about their power to make others fearful or narcissists trying to make their kind sound more human. I’ve seen quite a number of cases like this.
1
1
7
1,438
And critique over blind trust/acceptance is an inherent part of being scientific. A contrary data point in cases of overwhelming evidence with scientific consensus should not be framed as disproving anything; it’s simply another data point adding to the wider body of knowledge.
Skepticism means asking for evidence. Conspiracy thinking means rejecting every answer you don’t like.
1
138
Those aiming to support aot thwart scientific process by encouraging critique and examination of counter data/theory/consensus should do so in ways that don’t deliberately or otherwise lead anyone to their a priori position. Because real scientists are now a bit jack of that.
56