Dr Caroline Leaf’s war on drugs

Today, Dr Leaf posted this on her social media feeds.  It’s clearly meant to shock and enrage her followers.

Screen Shot 2015-12-12 at 11.56.44 AM

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and a self-titled cognitive neuroscientist.  She’s also cast herself as an expert on mental health.

To the detriment of her followers, and sadly, to the rest of the Christian church, most people believe her.

Her most recent book, and her social media memes for the last couple of months, have made it clear that Dr Leaf is pursuing her own personal war on drugs … but prescription psychiatric drugs not the illicit kind.

Unfortunately, her attacks on prescription psychiatric drugs have amounted to nothing more than a hysterically illogical smear campaign under the guise of her concern for public safety.

Today’s offering follows the same pattern of narrow-minded hysteria.

Her main quote from was from Robert Whitaker, “Twenty years ago, our society began regularly prescribing psychiatric drugs to children and adolescents, and now one out of every fifteen Americans enters adulthood with a ‘serious mental illness’.”

Whitaker, like Dr Leaf, is an outspoken critic of modern psychiatric treatment with a poor understanding of how psychiatric medications actually work.  The statement that Dr Leaf quotes is remarkable for it’s poor logic.  The quote implies that the rise in childhood mental health is because of the rise in psychotropic medication use in children.  But correlation does not equal causation.  Even if one in fifteen Americans enters adulthood with a ‘serious mental illness’, and twenty years ago our society began regularly prescribing psychiatric drugs to children and adolescents, there’s no evidence that the psychiatric medications are actually causing the psychiatric problems.

Then there’s Dr Leaf’s emotionally charged statement that “They are even prescribing these psychoactive substances to infants!”

The New York Times article that she linked to discusses the case of Andrew Rios, a child suffering from severe epilepsy, having his first seizure at 5 months.  Though it’s clearly more complicated than just “simple” epilepsy – he’s pictured wearing a helmet which suggests that he has myoclonic epilepsy which is clearly uncontrolled. It’s also clear from the article that the child was having mood swings and violent behaviour before the anti-psychotic was given. The history of early seizures with ongoing poor control and violent behavior means that this unfortunate young boy likely has a severe and complicated neurological syndrome, quite possibly because of an underlying abnormality of his brain. And the symptoms he had which the mother claimed were from the antipsychotic were just as likely to have been night terrors, a common problem in two year olds.

In the end, who really knows?  But there’s certainly not enough in this article to clearly convict antipsychotics of being toxic or evil.

Neither is the use of antipsychotics for infants widespread.  20,000 prescriptions for antipsychotic medications sounds like a travesty, but according to the article, the real numbers are probably much less, or about 10,000, since not every prescription is filled.  Even 10,000 sounds like a lot, but that represents 0.0002% of all prescriptions in the US, and most of those scripts are not actually being taken by the child, but by their uninsured parent(s).

Indeed, as the article itself said, “In interviews, a dozen experts in child psychiatry and neurology said that they had never heard of a child younger than 3 receiving such medication, and struggled to explain it.”

So the prescribing of antipsychotics to infants is extremely rare, almost unheard of, and is only likely to be done in extreme cases where all other options have been exhausted.

That’s certainly not the impression you get from Dr Leaf’s post, which is just another misinformed smear against anti-psychotic medications.

Dr Leaf’s war against psychiatric medications is reckless.  When people who need psychiatric medications don’t take them, suffering increases, as do suicides.

It’s time Dr Leaf stopped spreading needless fear about these medications.  They help more people than they harm, people who already suffer from the stigma of having a severe mental illness.  They don’t need any more suffering stemming from Dr Leaf’s so-called “expertise”.

Does our attitude towards aging increase Alzheimer Dementia?

“I think I’m forgetting something …”
Does our attitude towards aging increase Alzheimer Dementia?

For the last few years, I’ve worked as a doctor for a number of my local nursing homes.  On my morning rounds, I would literally reintroduce myself to every second patient, because even though I’d seen them every week for the previous few months, they still couldn’t remember who I was.

And it’s not just because I have a less than memorable face.  Most of my nursing home residents had dementia.

While there are many different causes for dementia, the one first described by Mr Alzheimer in the (early 1900’s) is the best known and most feared.  It is also the most common, and is a significant drain on the nation’s economy as well as the quality of life in the twilight of years.

Recently, an article was published by a group of researchers from Yale University in the US which claimed to show that the attitude a person had towards aging contributes to their chances of Alzheimer Disease.  I first saw it yesterday on the social media feed of Dr Caroline Leaf, communication pathologist and self-titled cognitive neuroscientist.  Dr Leaf is known for her scientifically dubious assumptions that the mind changes the brain, not the other way around, and has previously publically stated that dementia was caused by toxic thinking.  This article seems to vindicate her assumptions.

Screen Shot 2015-12-10 at 6.08.55 PM

However, this article also made it onto Facebook’s trending list ands was picked up by news site all over the world (such as this article in the Australian http://goo.gl/RavbMl), so the interest wasn’t just from Dr Leaf, but also from the broader public.  And I can understand why.  No one wants to ‘grow old and senile’, or to ‘lose our marbles’.  Any potential cure or prevention for Alzheimer Dementia is worth paying attention to.

I admit, the headline intrigued me too, both personally and professionally.  I wasn’t aware that one’s attitude towards aging would contribute to Alzheimers, since Alzheimers is predominantly genetic, and the other associated risk factors have more to do with physical health (like diabetes, high blood pressure etc).  Psychological stress is a risk factor for Alzheimers in mice, but good evidence in humans has been lacking [1].

So, does negative attitudes to aging really cause stress which then leads to Alzheimers as the report suggested, or is there a much better explanation?

The scientific article that the news reports were based on is A Culture-Brain Link: Negative Age Stereotypes Predict Alzheimer’s Disease Biomarkers [2].  This study was done in two stages.  Volunteers were recruited from a larger study called the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging.  At entry point, the participants answered a questionnaire about their attitudes towards aging.  This was about 25 years before the participants were actively studied.

The first study examined the change in volume of a part of the brain called the hippocampus (which plays an essential part in our memory system).  The second part of the study examined the volunteers’ brains at autopsy for markers of Alzheimer Dementia, namely ‘plaques’ and ‘tangles’.  The number of plaques tangles were combined to form a single composite score, which was then compared to the baseline attitude towards aging score.

In the first study, the researchers reported that those people who held negative views of aging were more likely to have a smaller hippocampus which more rapidly decreased in size over time.

In the second study, the researchers reported that those people who held negative views of aging were more likely to have more plaques and tangles in their brain.

On the surface, this seems to suggest that people who hold negative views on aging contribute to the development of Alzheimer Dementia, and certainly this is how the different news agencies seemed to interpret the outcomes of the study.  Though on deeper palpation, a number of questions arise about how the researchers did the study and chose to interpret the results.

For example, the aging attitude survey was only done once, which means there’s a 25 year gap or longer between the questionnaire and the active studies. That’s a long time, and the attitudes of the volunteers may have improved or worsened in that time, but that doesn’t seem to have been considered

Levy and her researchers also report that the average size of the hippocampus changed significantly when they averaged the size of the left and the right hippocampus.  But when they analyzed the two sides separately, there was no significant change over time.  So this makes me wonder about the validity of their analysis too – if the volume of each side separately doesn’t change much at all, then how can the average volume of the two sides change so much?

I’m not much of a statistician, but I wonder if the secret’s in their modeling.  They used a linear regression model to compare their data to their hypothesis, a legitimate statistical method, but which involves adjustment for other variables.  If you do enough adjusting, you can get a significant result statistically, but according to their numbers, their Cohen’s d was 0.29, which is considered a weak effect overall.

Then there’s the question of clinical significance.  Even if the hippocampus did shrink in those who thought aging was negative two decades ago, was the shrinkage enough to contribute to the cognitive impairment seen in Alzheimer Dementia?  When compared to other studies, probably not.  Looking at Levy’s graph, the “negative” attitudes group changed about 150mm3 over the 10 year follow up period, or about 5%.  A recent study also showed that the the hippocampal size of subjects with mild memory loss is about 12% less than a healthy age matched control [3].

The same problems are seen in study 2 – Levy and her researchers reported an increase in the number of plaques and tangles in the “aging is bad” group.  But her numbers are small, and not statistically strong.  And again, the question of clinical significance arises.  Plaques and tangles represent biomarkers of Alzheimer Dementia, not necessarily a diagnosis.  Normal aging brains without dementia also have plaques and tangles, and it’s the number of tangles that seem more significant for developing cognitive impairment [4, 5], not the combined score that they used in this study.

And when all is said and done, all Levy and colleagues have shown is a correlation between attitude to aging and changes in the brain.  But correlation does not equal causation.  Just because two things are associated does not mean that one causes the other.  There maybe another variable or factor that causes both observations to co-occur.

In Levy’s case, the common connecting cause could easily be neuroticism, which they discussed as a co-variant but did not say if or how they corrected for it.  The other thing they did not examine in this study is the ApoE gene subtypes, which contribute significantly to the onset of Alzheimer Dementia [6].  The action of ApoE subtypes in the brain may contribute to both negative attitudes and Alzheimers changes?

The bottom line is that Levy’s study shows a weak correlation between a single historical sample of attitude towards aging, and some changes in the brain that are known to be markers for Alzheimer Dementia some three decades later.

They’ve certainly NOT shown that stress, or a person’s attitude to aging, in anyway causes Alzheimer Dementia.  They did not correct for genetics in this study which is the major contributor to the risk of developing Alzheimers.  So the results mean very little as it stands, and further research is required to delineate the cause and effect relationship here.

So don’t stress.  It’s not definitely proven that how you view the aging process determines your risk of dementia.  There will be those like Dr Leaf who will trot out this cherry-picked little titbit of information in the future to try and justify their pretense that thought can change our brain and impact our mental health, but what the press release says and what the study shows appear to be two different things altogether.

References

[1]       Reitz C, Brayne C, Mayeux R. Epidemiology of Alzheimer disease. Nat Rev Neurol 2011 Mar;7(3):137-52.
[2]       Levy BR, Slade MD, Ferrucci L, Zonderman AB, Troncoso J, Resnick SM. A Culture-Brain Link: Negative Age Stereotypes Predict Alzheimer’s Disease Biomarkers. Psychology and Aging 2015;30(4).
[3]       Apostolova LG, Green AE, Babakchanian S, et al. Hippocampal atrophy and ventricular enlargement in normal aging, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer Disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2012 Jan-Mar;26(1):17-27.
[4]       Nelson PT, Alafuzoff I, Bigio EH, et al. Correlation of Alzheimer disease neuropathologic changes with cognitive status: a review of the literature. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 2012 May;71(5):362-81.
[5]       Jansen WJ, Ossenkoppele R, Knol DL, et al. Prevalence of cerebral amyloid pathology in persons without dementia: a meta-analysis. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association 2015 May 19;313(19):1924-38.
[6]       Liu CC, Kanekiyo T, Xu H, Bu G. Apolipoprotein E and Alzheimer disease: risk, mechanisms and therapy. Nat Rev Neurol 2013 Feb;9(2):106-18.

Dr Caroline Leaf and the Myth of the Chemical Imbalance Myth

Screen Shot 2015-10-27 at 2.49.38 am

There are lots of medical myths that people believe.

“I have acne because I eat too much chocolate, or my face isn’t clean enough”

“Stomach ulcers are because of stress”

“I coughed up some yellow phlegm, so I must need antibiotics right?”

“My baby’s fevers are because of teething.”

Is the “chemical imbalance” theory one of them?

Dr Leaf is a communication pathologist and self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. A couple of weeks ago she opened a proverbial can of worms by quoting the out-spoken Peter Gøtzsche, claiming that psychiatric drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer. This did not go down well, and Dr Leaf had to issue three separate statements on social media to try and justify herself and attempt to rescue her rapidly deteriorating credibility.

Not that she issued an apology, mind you, or retracted her statement.

Today, Dr Leaf published a blog on psychiatric medications … but again, not to apologise but to further justify why she’s right, and nearly every other doctor and scientist in the world is not. Worse than that, she went so far as to accuse doctors of deliberately prescribing “clearly dangerous” drugs, which she claims have no therapeutic effects, just because of some overcooked drug-company sponsored dinner and a few pens. More on that later.

Her post is a defiant deflection, a logically flawed and factually inaccurate criticism of modern psychiatry and psychopharmacology – not fueled by research, but largely based on the books of disgruntled fringe psychiatrists and researchers with an axe to grind.

Dr Leaf doesn’t discuss the actual science of the medications that she’s so against, but simply tries to create a smokescreen of distrust.

A good example of all that is wrong with this post is contained in the opening paragraph.

Today, it has become commonplace to say that people have chemical imbalances in their brain, most notably a disruption in the proper production of dopamine (for “diseases” like ADHD) and serotonin (for “diseases” like depression). These people, it is supposed, need drugs to “cure” these chemical imbalances, hence the terms “antipsychotics” or “antidepressants”.

The first thing to note is how Dr Leaf uses the term “cure”. No doctor ever uses the word “cure”, especially when talking about complex diseases. This is a pejorative term implying that modern medicine is only interested in permanently fixing things. But it’s a straw man fallacy, a false premise that Dr Leaf then uses to cast the medical model as impotent and futile. Nice try, but no one in medicine ever promises cure, and no doctor in their right mind would ever be so narrow-minded as to suggest that drugs are the only treatment for every condition. That doesn’t mean that drugs aren’t useful, nor that the medical model is broken. As we’ll discuss soon, medications are extremely helpful for certain conditions, when used carefully, as are non-drug treatments like CBT.

Dr Leaf also puts inverted commas around the word “diseases” as if to suggest that ADHD and depression aren’t diseases, an act which smacks of petulance and willful ignorance, and is insulting to those who have or who have ever suffered from ADHD and depression.   Last week, Dr Leaf was happy to share that her eldest daughter suffered from bulimia and depression, but now she’s suggesting that depression isn’t really a disease. So what is it then? Malingering? Personal weakness? Bad parenting?

It’s really surprising that someone claiming to be a cognitive neuroscientist would ignore strong scientific evidence.  For example, ADHD is associated with dopamine dysfunction as well as the dysfunction a number of other neurotransmitters [1-3]. And depression is associated with a decrease in the growth factor BDNF, (known as the neurotrophic hypothesis of depression) [4-6]. Schizophrenia, which Dr Leaf conveniently failed to mention, is clearly related to dopamine dysfunction in nerve cells of the pre-frontal cortex and the striatum, two parts of the brain that are incredibly important for how your brain processes incoming and outgoing signals [7-9].

There’s nothing to suppose here .. there’s ample evidence that psychiatric diseases are related to dysfunction within the brain, commonly with the function of neurotransmitters among other things. Call it whatever you like, the truth doesn’t change. “Chemical imbalance” is just an easy phrase for the general public to remember.

Dr Leaf then tries to suggest that psychiatric drugs don’t fix chemical imbalances but create them, citing the 1950’s observations of French researchers Deniker and Delay who noted that the first anti-psychotic, chlorpromazine, caused symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease. And indeed it did, but this wasn’t a new disease, just evidence that it worked.

Psychosis, a pathological state involving hallucinations and delusions, is because of an excess of the neurotransmitter called dopamine. Dopamine is the neurotransmitter that’s used by the nerve cells deep in the brain in a part called the basal ganglia, which acts like a central mail delivery centre for incoming and outgoing signals from other parts of the brain. The function of the nerves in one part of the basal ganglia are responsible for sending sensory signals to the frontal lobes of the brain. In another part, the signals are important for smooth movements of our muscles. Proper function depends on just the right amount of dopamine – too much and you get psychosis. Not enough and you get Parkinson’s disease symptoms.

The French researchers were simply noting the side-effects of too much medication blocking the action of dopamine in the basal ganglia – the psychosis had improved, but the blockade of dopamine was just too much in some patients, who had the opposite symptoms.

Again, Dr Leaf’s position is diametrically opposed to the published science [10, 11], and if anything, her claim contradicts her fundamental argument. After all, if chemical imbalances are myths, then how can chlorpromazine create a “new neurological syndrome” because of a chemical imbalance?

Dr Leaf then launches into a discussion on the history of the DSM and psychiatric medications. This is just the first in her ad hominem attacks on the medical profession –  playing the man, not the ball if you will. If she can discredit the doctors that prescribe the medication, then she indirectly discredits the medications.  This appears desperate and ultimately serves to weaken her case.

“It was just assumed that since these drugs affected brain chemistry in a certain way, the opposite reaction must be the result of the disease, notwithstanding the fact that this has never been adequately proven.”

The history of medicine is littered with cures being found without the disease being fully understood. Take Edward Jenner, for example, who is the founder of the modern technique of vaccination. He didn’t know why his smallpox vaccine worked, only that it did. Electron microscopes and a modern understanding of the immune system were centuries away, but Jenner saved billions of lives through his observation that prior vaccination with a small sample of cowpox virus would protect against smallpox [12].

When amphetamines, known to increase dopamine concentrations in the brain, caused psychotic symptoms and reserpine, a dopamine blocker, improved psychosis, it stood to reason that dopamine was a good candidate as a cause of psychosis and schizophrenia. Decades of research have gone on to further confirm and delineate the link [7]. Again, this is not “an overly simplistic explanation of chemical imbalances”. It is well proven, and rather complex.

Dr Leaf also makes the astounding accusation that psychiatrists inflicted suffering and caused “a public health disaster” by creating the DSM. The DSM, the ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual’ is an agreed-upon standard classification for psychiatric diagnoses. It is nothing more than a system of classification. It allows psychiatrists and researchers to speak a common language and attempt some coherence among their diagnoses.

Dr Leaf wrote, “… institutions like the American Psychiatric Association and the DSM would define what is normal, in turn telling us what it means to suffer and, essentially, what it means to be human. They medicalized misery, and today millions are suffering because of their actions, creating a public health disaster.”

That’s like saying that classifying the different types of cancer causes cancer. And that millions of people are suffering from cancer because doctors know to call it ‘cancer’. People have been suffering long before the DSM came along. The DSM doesn’t tell people they’re suffering, and it certainly doesn’t define what it is to be human. Such statements are disingenuous and melodramatic.

But wait, there’s more. “Today a psychiatrist can be praised for drugging a depressed person with mind-altering substances and, if these do not work, institutionalizing them and shocking their brain with ECT (electroconvulsive therapy). It is even an acceptable and commonplace practice to imprison mentally ill persons, drug them and lock them in solitary confinement, compelling them to live their days marinating in their own excrement.”

Dr Leaf is again playing to the fears of the public who have watched too many movies and only think of ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’, ‘Shutter Island’ or scenes from ’12 Monkeys’. There are more oversight boards and lawyers than there are psychiatric patients, and the only people who are institutionalised are those who are clearly a danger to themselves or others. And while institutionalised, they are not subjected to random bouts of electrical shock as if some doctor is wandering around with a medical grade cattle prod, zapping people and laughing maniacally. Nor is anyone locked in solitary confinement and forced “to live their days marinating in their own excrement”.

The paranoid accusations continue some more. Dr Leaf accuses all psychiatrists of ignorance, and then accuses primary care physicians of negligence, by claiming that we prescribe medications that we do not understand because of the bribes and a pretty smile from a pharmaceutical rep.

Again, Dr Leaf contradicts her own argument:

Despite the recognition amongst many psychiatrists and medical health professionals that the chemical imbalance theory is not valid, drug companies like Eli Lilly still claim that ‘antipsychotic medicines are believed to work by balancing the chemical found naturally in the brain’.

Except that antipsychotic medications DO balance the naturally occurring chemical in the brain (dopamine) as we discussed earlier. What the … a drug company telling doctors how their drug works! How dare they tell the truth!

I find it disturbing that Dr Leaf would stoop so low as to insult the entire medical profession, especially every GP and family physician the world over.

Hey, I’m not above criticism. It’s important to have a good long look at ourselves from time to time, to review our practice, and make sure we’re treating our patients in the best possible way. The RACGP, the peak body of Australian GP’s, invited Prof Gøtzsche to present his opinions on anti-depressant medications so that GP’s could decide for themselves if they should adjust their prescribing.

But to suggest that primary care physicians are stupid, ignorant, incompetent and money hungry … that we would sell our soul for a drug company branded pen … is insulting. Though the irony of her statement, “we do not ask ourselves if these doctors really understand all the implications of using these substances. Not even the psychiatrists understand these drugs” is clearly lost on Dr Leaf.  It’s certainly clear from the rest of her essay that Dr Leaf has no idea how these medications work or what benefits they have for those who suffer from mental ill-health.

There’s a lot more to discuss in response to Dr Leaf’s diatribe, but for the sake of brevity, I’ll try and discuss just a couple of other important themes.

Dr Leaf continues to try to make the medications sound useless and poisonous. She has several paragraphs on the placebo effect, making the false argument that the effect of the medications is just because someone tells you it will work. Of course, the placebo effect is part of the therapeutic effect, but that’s the same for all treatments, even Dr Leaf’s programs … “So, if the pastor or cell-group leader says that these programs are safe and will fix your toxic thinking, even though they get most of their information from the author, we believe wholeheartedly in what he or she may say and are more inclined to believe the program will work for us. These beliefs, which ignore actual scientific results, are buttressed by a flood of distorted and biased news reports, press releases and scientific journal articles on supposed toxic thoughts, and have transformed the theory into church dogma. So, obviously, if we experience negative side effects and do not feel the program is working, it must be something wrong with us, not the program.” Is that a fair statement?

Dr Leaf then plays the fear card again by listing all of the potential side effects from psychiatric medications. Dr Leaf is right in saying that psychiatric medications have serious proven long term side effects, and we should be careful.

For instance, if you knew that thrombocytopenia, anaphylaxis, cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions including skin rashes, angioedema and Stevens Johnson syndrome, bronchospasm and hepatic dysfunction were the potential side effects for a medication, would you take it? Most people wouldn’t.  Reading the list makes that drug sound really dangerous.  We should be up in arms about such a potentially harmful drug being put up for sale … except that this list of side effects isn’t a psychiatric drug at all, but’s actually the side effect profile of paracetamol (acetaminophen in the US). People take paracetamol all the time without even thinking about it.

Saying that we shouldn’t take medications because of potential side effects is a scarecrow argument, a scary sounding straw man fallacy. All drugs have serious proven long term side effects. Licencing and prescribing a medication depends on the overall balance of the good and the harm that a medication does. And no one has ever hidden these side effects from the public as if there is a giant conspiracy from the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies. They’re right there in the product information (here is the product information for fluoxetine. See for yourself).

Whilst it’s true that these side effects do happen, we know that they happen infrequently, just like we know that people win lotteries infrequently. Even so, the medications are not just doled out like sweets at a candy store. You require a minimum of ten years of university level education to be able to prescribe them.

Patients ALWAYS have a right to ask questions about possible benefits and side effects, and in my practice, I tell my patients the pros and the cons before prescribing, and I give them the choice of whether they want them or not. No one is ever forced into taking them.

Finally, Dr Leaf makes a number of irrational statements and flawed arguments in her final page of ranting. Let me quickly go through some of the honourable mentions:

* “Most people recover from depression without antidepressants” – true, because most cases of depression are mild. That doesn’t mean to say that antidepressants shouldn’t be used for severe depression, just like most people recover from upper respiratory infections without antibiotics, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t use antibiotics for severe tonsillitis or pneumonia.
* “Antidepressants are no better than placebos” – It’s a controversial topic right now. There are many pushing the barrow that SSRI medications are no better than a sugar pill. But Dr Leaf has conveniently ignored several Cochrane reviews (the best of medical evidence) that shows anti-depressants work for a variety of disorders [13-15], but that psychological therapy might not [16].
* Equating antidepressants and antipsychotics with illicit drugs, and claiming that “more people die from overdoses of psychiatric drugs than illicit drugs” – This is Reductio ad absurdum – the logical conclusion from this argument is that illicit drugs are safer than psychiatric drugs. And therefore we should not give people psychiatric drugs since we don’t give people the ‘safer’ illicit drugs. But that conclusion is absurd, and when you think about it, the whole thing is based on hidden false premises – people rarely die of illicit drug overdoses because they’re illegal and are hard to come by. And also, people who use illicit drugs are not usually suicidal, whereas those given psychiatric medications sometimes are suicidal, and sometimes use them to try and commit suicide. But modern psychiatric drugs are much less dangerous in overdose than their old counterparts.  It should also be noted here that more overdose suicide attempts are with paracetamol or ibuprofen than with psychiatric medications [19], but I don’t see paracetamol or ibuprofen being demonised.
* Psychiatric medications are part of a neo-liberal capitalist plot to keep the rich, richer and the poor, poorer – To me, this looks like Dr Leaf clutching at straws. Her statement, “By emphasizing that the problem lies within an individual’s biology, we are less inclined to look at their experiences and the social context of why they are feeling the way they feel. We look at the mythical chemical imbalance instead of economic exploitation, violence and inept political structures” is false.   Schizophrenia is often seriously discussed in terms of neurodevelopment and not just ‘chemical imbalances’ [17, 18]. So it’s just plain wrong to suggest that researchers don’t look at the “economic exploitation, violence and inept political structures”. Oh, and Dr Leaf suggests that foster children are abused because they’re all forced to take psychiatric medication, and implies that ADHD children are abused by being force-fed Ritalin because they “move a lot in class”. Again, these are emotional over-generalisations that have no basis in reality.

Dr Leaf seems lost.  She’s ignored solid published medical and scientific evidence in coming to an opinion based on the discontented rumblings of a few vocal but outspoken critics. In order to make her arguments, she has had to resort to borderline-slanderous ad hominem attacks on scientists and the medical profession, and purely emotional arguments based on fear and mistrust.

And this was only part one.  If Dr Leaf’s promised second part is anything like the first, we’re in for a real treat.

Though as if that wasn’t enough, by suggesting that psychiatric drugs cause changes in your brain, cause chemical imbalances, and cause that slew of negative side effects, Dr Leaf is admitting that it’s your brain that changes your thought life, which directly contradicts her most recent teachings. After all, if thought was the dominant force in your neurology and your mind controlled your brain, then the medications would have no effect since they’re physical and aren’t connected to our mind.

So which is it? Because if the brain controls our mind, then her best-seller needs to be pulped and refunds offered to the hundred of thousands of people who bought it. But on the other hand, if the mind really does control the brain, then her entire argument against psychiatric medications implodes.

Dr Leaf has painted herself into a corner and there’s still part two to come.

References

[1]        Prince J. Catecholamine dysfunction in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: an update. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2008 Jun;28(3 Suppl 2):S39-45.
[2]        Del Campo N, Chamberlain SR, Sahakian BJ, Robbins TW. The roles of dopamine and noradrenaline in the pathophysiology and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biological psychiatry 2011 Jun 15;69(12):e145-57.
[3]        Cortese S. The neurobiology and genetics of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): what every clinician should know. European journal of paediatric neurology : EJPN : official journal of the European Paediatric Neurology Society 2012 Sep;16(5):422-33.
[4]        Haase J, Brown E. Integrating the monoamine, neurotrophin and cytokine hypotheses of depression–a central role for the serotonin transporter? Pharmacol Ther 2015 Mar;147:1-11.
[5]        Bus BA, Molendijk ML, Tendolkar I, et al. Chronic depression is associated with a pronounced decrease in serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor over time. Molecular psychiatry 2015 May;20(5):602-8.
[6]        Sousa CN, Meneses LN, Vasconcelos GS, et al. Reversal of corticosterone-induced BDNF alterations by the natural antioxidant alpha-lipoic acid alone and combined with desvenlafaxine: Emphasis on the neurotrophic hypothesis of depression. Psychiatry research 2015 Sep 1.
[7]        Howes OD, Fusar-Poli P, Bloomfield M, Selvaraj S, McGuire P. From the prodrome to chronic schizophrenia: the neurobiology underlying psychotic symptoms and cognitive impairments. Curr Pharm Des 2012;18(4):459-65.
[8]        Williams GV, Castner SA. Under the curve: critical issues for elucidating D1 receptor function in working memory. Neuroscience 2006 Apr 28;139(1):263-76.
[9]        Der-Avakian A, Markou A. The neurobiology of anhedonia and other reward-related deficits. Trends Neurosci 2012 Jan;35(1):68-77.
[10]      Leucht S, Tardy M, Komossa K, et al. Antipsychotic drugs versus placebo for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2012 Jun 2;379(9831):2063-71.
[11]      Torniainen M, Mittendorfer-Rutz E, Tanskanen A, et al. Antipsychotic treatment and mortality in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia bulletin 2015 May;41(3):656-63.
[12]      Riedel S. Edward Jenner and the history of smallpox and vaccination. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) 2005 Jan;18(1):21-5.
[13]      Arroll B, Elley CR, Fishman T, et al. Antidepressants versus placebo for depression in primary care. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2009(3):CD007954.
[14]      Soomro GM, Altman D, Rajagopal S, Oakley-Browne M. Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus placebo for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2008(1):CD001765.
[15]      Kapczinski F, Lima MS, Souza JS, Schmitt R. Antidepressants for generalized anxiety disorder. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2003(2):CD003592.
[16]      Jakobsen JC, Lindschou Hansen J, Storebo OJ, Simonsen E, Gluud C. The effects of cognitive therapy versus ‘treatment as usual’ in patients with major depressive disorder. PloS one 2011;6(8):e22890.
[17]      van Os J, Linscott RJ, Myin-Germeys I, Delespaul P, Krabbendam L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychosis continuum: evidence for a psychosis proneness-persistence-impairment model of psychotic disorder. Psychological medicine 2009 Feb;39(2):179-95.
[18]      Howes OD, Murray RM. Schizophrenia: an integrated sociodevelopmental-cognitive model. Lancet 2014 May 10;383(9929):1677-87.
[19]     Prescott K, Stratton R, Freyer A, Hall I, Le Jeune I. Detailed analyses of self-poisoning episodes presenting to a large regional teaching hospital in the UK. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2009 Aug;68(2):260-8.

Disclaimer

  1. Do not abruptly stop any medications that you are taking. Talk to your licenced physician first. They’re not all money-hungry, imbecilic drug-company bitches. Most of them actually know what they’re talking about.
  2. For the record, I declare that I have no connection with any pharmaceutical company. I do not accept gratuities of any form from any sales representative. I don’t eat their food, I don’t take their pens, and I don’t listen to their sales pitches

The significance of thoughts

Screen Shot 2015-10-13 at 8.53.20 pm

A few days ago, I posted a rebuttal to one of Dr Leaf’s favourite memes, “Thoughts are real and occupy mental real estate.”

In short, I wrote that thoughts are real, but the issue hasn’t ever been whether thoughts are real, but what thoughts really are. The conclusion was that thoughts are just a projection, a function of the brain. They are not independent of the brain and they do not control the brain.

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and a self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. Dr Leaf tried to refine her meme today, saying:

“Your thoughts produce proteins, which form real structures that change the landscape of your brain.”

So, is that true? Do thoughts produce proteins which change the structure of the brain? To answer that, we need to have a look at some basic neurobiology.

The brain is made of nerve cells. Nerve cells have three unique structures that help them do their job. First are dendrites, which are spiny branches that protrude from the main cell body, which receive the signals from other nerve cells. Leading away from the cell body is a long thin tube called an axon which helps carry electrical signal from the dendrites, down to the some tentacle-like processes that end in little pods. These pods, called the terminal buttons of the axon, and then convey the electrical signal to another nerve cell by directing a burst of chemicals towards the dendrites of the next nerve cell in the chain.

In order for the signal to be successfully passed from the first nerve cell to the second, it must successfully traverse a small space called the synapse.

Despite being very close to each other, no nerve cell touches another. Instead, the spray of chemicals that’s released from the terminal button of the axon floats across a space of about 20-40nM (a nanometre is one billionth of a metre).

Combining nerve cells and synapses together creates a nerve pathway, where the input signal is received by specialised nerve endings and is transmitted down the nerve cell across a synapse to the next nerve cell, across the next synapse to the next nerve cell, and on and on until the signal has reached the destination for the output of that signal.

And that’s it. The entire nervous system is just a combination of nerve cells and the synapses between them.

What gives the nervous system and brain the near-infinite flexibility, and air of mystery, is that there are eighty-six billion nerve cells in the average adult (male) brain. Each nerve cell has hundreds to thousands of synapses. It’s estimated that there are about 0.15 quadrillion (that’s 150,000,000,000,000) synapses throughout the average brain [1]. Each of these cells and synapses connect in multiple directions and levels, and transmit signals through the sum of the exciting or inhibiting influences they receive from, and pass on to, other nerve cells.

The brain is a highly plastic organ. When biologists talk about plasticity, they aren’t talking about the chemical plastic that we make everything out of, like plastic cups or bottles, but the ability for the cells, tissues or organs to change or adapt. And the brain does this all of the time. Every stimulus changes one or more of the billions of branches and synapses that the brain has. Branches can be pruned back, or new ones grown. Existing branches can be strengthened or weakened. Each change to the branches of the nerve cells helps the brain to adapt to the ever-changing internal and external stream of signals that the brain is required to process.

So returning to Dr Leaf’s statement: The key part of the meme is, “Your thoughts produce proteins”. This is where Dr Leaf’s statement is wrong. The error is deceptively subtle, but it’s still wrong. When changes are required, new branches are formed, which do indeed require new proteins. But most brain function, including our thoughts, is simply electrical current running along the pathways already formed by the branches of our nerve cells.

Even then, our stream of conscious thought is only a tiny fragment of the billions of nerve impulses our brains produce each and every second of our lives. As I described in my previous post, thought is not dominant. Our thoughts do not control our brains, it’s our brains that control our thoughts. Thoughts are real, but they’re real like an image on a screen is real, but isn’t the real thing.

Thoughts are only significant when they are considered for what they truly are. Our stream of consciousness is simply a selective place of refinement for highly salient parts of our non-conscious information that need further processing before further action is taken with that information. They are like the dials on your dashboard, which give selective important information about the car but they don’t control the car. Thoughts do not control our brains growth, or alter our brains architecture.

Dr Leaf should have said something along the lines of, “The landscape of the brain is created by real structures called neurons and synapses, which have many functions including our thoughts.”

As it is, Dr Leaf’s meme creates a false impression that our thoughts are the critical factor in determining our brains structure and function, when the reality is the exact opposite.

References

[1]        Sukel K. The Synapse – A Primer. 2013 [cited 2013 28/06/2013]; Available from: http://www.dana.org/media/detail.aspx?id=31294

Dr Caroline Leaf – Thoughts are real. So what?

Screen Shot 2015-10-05 at 12.53.02 pm

Today’s meme from Dr Leaf is one of her favourite, often repeated phrases:

“Thoughts are real and occupy mental real estate.”

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and a self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. Her entire preaching empire rests on her assumption that our thinking is the driving force of not just our mental health but also our physical health, and even physical matter!

No one’s denying that thoughts are real. The key issue is not whether thoughts are real, but what thoughts really are.

Professor Bernard J. Baars is an Affiliate Fellow at The Neurosciences Institute in La Jolla, California. He is a real cognitive neuroscientist. In the late 1980’s, Professor Baars built on Baddeley’s model of working memory by proposed the Global Workspace theory [1]. Together with Professor Stan Franklin, also a real cognitive neuroscientist (and a mathematician and computer scientist) at the University of Memphis, they took the Global Workspace theory further with the Intelligent Distribution Agent model [2]. Central to this model is the “Cognitive Cycle”, a nine-step description of the underlying process from perception through to action. In the model, implicit neural information processing is considered to be a continuing stream of cognitive cycles, overlapping so they act in parallel. The conscious broadcast of our thought stream is limited to a single cognitive cycle at any given instant, so while these thought cycles run in in parallel, our awareness of them is in the serial, sometimes disparate, streams of words or pictures in our minds. Baars and Franklin suggests that about ten cycles could be running per second, and since working-memory tasks occur on the order of seconds, several cognitive cycles may be needed for any given working memory task, especially if it has conscious components such as mental rehearsal [2].

In recent years, the Global Workspace/Intelligent Distribution Agent hypothesis has been updated to help facilitate the quest to create different forms of artificial intelligence. The LIDA (“Learning Intelligent Distribution Agent”) model incorporates the Global Workspace theory with the concepts of memory formation to create a single, broad, systems-level model of the mind.

Franklin et al summarise the process, “During each cognitive cycle the LIDA agent first makes sense of its current situation as best as it can by updating its representation of its current situation, both external and internal. By a competitive process, as specified by Global Workspace Theory, it then decides what portion of the represented situation is the most salient, the most in need of attention. Broadcasting this portion, the current contents of consciousness, enables the agent to chose an appropriate action and execute it, completing the cycle.” [3]

Information within the cognitive cycle is broadcast to our consciousness in order to recruit a wider area of the brain to enhance the processing of that information [2, 4]. It’s the broadcasting of this portion of the information flow that renders it “conscious”.

So thought is nothing more than a broadcast of one part of a deeper flow of information. In the same way that a projection on a movie screen is a real series of images of a historical or fictional event, but not the actual event, so thoughts are a real but are just a projection of the deeper information stream within the brain.

This is very important, as it means that thought is not an instigator or a controlling force. It’s not a case of, “I think, therefore, I am”, but, “I am, therefore, I think.

So Dr Leaf is right, thoughts are real. So what? Thoughts are just a projection, a function of the brain. They are not independent of the brain and they do not control the brain. And they definitely don’t control physical matter.

In posting things like todays meme, Dr Leaf is proving just how far her assumptions are from the work of real cognitive neuroscientists, while misdirecting her audience, duping them into believing that her tenuous speculation is scientific fact.

References

[1]        Baars BJ. A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
[2]        Baars BJ, Franklin S. How conscious experience and working memory interact. Trends in cognitive sciences 2003 Apr;7(4):166-72.
[3]        Franklin S, Strain S, McCall R, Baars B. Conceptual Commitments of the LIDA Model of Cognition. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence 2013;4(2):1-22.
[4]        Baars BJ. Global workspace theory of consciousness: toward a cognitive neuroscience of human experience. Progress in brain research 2005;150:45-53.

Dr Caroline Leaf and the Mental Monopoly Myth (Mark II)

 

Screen Shot 2015-10-02 at 9.27.19 pm

In my last post, I asked the question, “What’s more important to a person’s health and well being?” and I showed that Dr Caroline Leaf proposition that the mind dominates ones mental health and well-being is patently false.

Not to be outdone, Dr Leaf countered today with a tweak to her initial proposition: “Mind-action is actually THE predominant element in mental well-being.”

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. She’s also started calling herself an expert in mental health, despite never having trained in medicine or psychology, or working in counselling.

Dr Leaf may have tightened up her wording from her previous statement, but her claim that mind-action is the predominant element in mental well-being is still wrong, because her fundamental assumption is wrong.

What fundamental assumption? That the brain doesn’t control the mind, but the mind controls the brain.

As I discussed in the last post, this idea of the mental monopoly dominates every one of Dr Leaf’s works, and most of her social media memes. Take her most recent meme for example, published just today, “The brain is not a chemical stew that is missing a key spice! The brain is hugely complicated and complex and is controlled by the even more hugely complex and eternal mind!”

Screen Shot 2015-10-02 at 9.26.07 pm

The premise that the mind controls the brain is wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. It is precisely the opposite of what science tells us. The mind is a function of the brain, just like breathing is a function of the lungs. No lungs, no breath. No brain, no mind. (see my posts here, here and here, and others for further discussion)

consistencydemotivator

It’s been said, “Consistency: It’s only a virtue if you’re not a screwup.” Perhaps that’s a little harsh, but it does illustrate the point that just because you say something often enough, doesn’t make it true. So no matter how many times Dr Leaf repeats herself, the fact that the brain controls the mind isn’t going to change.

Even without appealing to the plethora of scientific information out there, Dr Leaf’s claim that mind-action dominates mental well-being is wrong, since mind-action is simply brain-action, which in turn, is influenced by the complex interplay of our genes, our physical health, our uncontrollable external environment, our social networks and our spirituality. Our mental well-being is no different to our general well-being in this regard. It is still part of the complex interplay that is represented by the biopsychosocial (and spiritual) model.

It’s time for Dr Leaf to update her teaching, and abandon her unscientific presuppositions and philosophies.

Dr Caroline Leaf – Better graphics, same content

Screen Shot 2015-09-04 at 2.08.15 pm

In the world of marketing, visual media is king. Humans are sight based creatures. About thirty percent of our brains cortex is dedicated to vision , compared to 8 percent for touch and 2 percent for hearing http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/brain-games/articles/brain-games-watch-this-perception-facts/)

It’s no wonder then that sites like Pinterest and Instagram have so rapidly become such dominant sites on the social media landscape. And why billions of dollars are invested in visual advertising on TV and billboards.

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and self titled cognitive neuroscientist. In the last few weeks, she’s gone for a new look for her Instagram and Facebook posts – gone are the simple lines, plain text and stand alone logo. Her posts have gone glam, with backgrounds of her photo treated with coloured layering and shading, overlaid with Dr Leafs favourite text. Sometimes the text is pretty easy to read. Other times it looks like a 4th grade class got to take turns picking the font and text size for each different word. But hey, it’s edgy, it’s happening, it’s so hot right now.

It’s a real shame that she only chose to update the look and not the actual content of her social media memes. Take today’s offering as an example: “The mind processes. The brain reflects this processing.” (The unsaid conclusion being that, “The mind controls the brain.”)

I’ve written about this meme a few times (here, here, here and here, as a small sample). But let’s relook at it again, since Dr Leaf is unwilling to reconsider the statements lack of validity.

Does the mind really control the brain, or does the brain control the mind? Well, if the mind was separate from the brain and controlled the brain, then the mind would be able to function independently of the brain. And also, if the mind was separate to the brain, then changes to the brain would not influence the function of the mind.

It’s difficult to show that a person has a mind without a brain. You can’t really remove someone’s brain and then put it back again, so not many people are keen to volunteer for that study. But anecdotally, have you ever heard of a person who has woken from a coma having spend all that time in deep thought?

What IS much easier to study, and has been proven over the course of centuries, is the change to our cognitive function when our brain is changed, physically or functionally.

The mind changes when the function of the brain is changed by medications.
The mind changes when the function of the brain is changed by illicit drugs.
The mind changes when the function of the brain is changed by electrical stimulation.
The mind changes then the structure of the brain is changed by tumours or injuries.

In 1848, a man named Phineas Gage was packing gunpowder in some rock when an accidental detonation blasted a foot-long iron rod through the left face and forehead, severely damaging the left frontal lobe of his brain. History records that his personality changed from polite, well mannered, and well spoken to fitful, irreverent, impatient of restraint or advice, obstinate and capricious [1].

Whilst Phineas Gage was is most famous, other brain injuries can also change the way in which someone thinks. For example, lesions of the parietal lobe of the brain changes the way people see their own bodies. Baars writes, “Patients suffering from right parietal neglect can have disturbing alien experiences of their own bodies, especially of the left arm and leg. Such patients sometimes believe that their left leg belongs to someone else (often a relative), and can desperately try to throw it out of bed. Thus, parietal regions seem to shape contextually both the experience of the visual world and of one’s own body.” [2]

Some might argue that the mechanism of injury might be the variable that could change someone’s personality. After all, if an iron rod was blasted through my skull, I might be a little antsy too. But other structural change to the brain, not associated with a sudden traumatic event, can also result in personality changes – it’s well recognised that personality changes can be the first presenting symptom of brain tumours, for example.

Though the brain doesn’t have to be horribly distorted for the mind to change. In the last couple of decades, a tool has been developed called TMS – short for transcranial magnetic stimulation. A magnetic pulse is delivered over a part of the skull, passing through the bone to reach the brain, causing changes to the electrical current running through the nerve cells. Stimulation of different intensities can either turn off the nerve cells or excite them. TMS has become a great tool for studying cognitive neuroscience because it directly changes the function of the brain in a well localised and temporary manner. It’s also easy for scientists to blind the subjects to whether they’re receiving the treatment or a sham treatment, so the results are reliable. Research shows that when the frontal lobes of the brain are changed by the electrical signals, their executive function also changes [3].

Changes to the function of the brain are known to change the function of the mind and have been known to do so for centuries. From religious hallucinogens to Woodstock hippies, drugs of various forms have been used to alter mood, thought, and perceptions of reality. But there’s a drug that’s much more common, that’s known for its ability to alter our brains thinking ability the world over, and even Dr Leaf enjoys it.

Like most people, my morning doesn’t really start until after my first cup of coffee. Sure, I’m functional, but barely. Fifteen minutes after the first short black is in my system, I find that I’m much more alert and my thinking is clearer.

What’s changed? Is it my mind changing the function of my brain, or is it the coffee, specifically the caffeine in it, that’s changing my brain which is in turn is making my mind clearer and sharper? I think the answer is obvious. Caffeine is the most commonly used recreational drug in the history of mankind, and every cup of java (real coffee that is, not the travesty that is decaf) is more proof against Dr Leaf’s dogmatic misrepresentation of basic science.

So, if the mind is changed by alterations to the structure and/or function of our physical brain, it follows that our mind must be a function of our brain. Therefore, the mind does not process, while the brain simply hangs on for the ride. Rather, the brain processes, and our mind reflects this processing.

Dr Leaf can tart up her memes all she likes, but until she changes the content of her memes to match some actual science, it’s all just smoke and mirrors. The truth doesn’t need visual pimping. It is simply the truth.

References

[1]        Fumagalli M, Priori A. Functional and clinical neuroanatomy of morality. Brain : a journal of neurology 2012 Jul;135(Pt 7):2006-21.
[2]        Baars BJ. Global workspace theory of consciousness: toward a cognitive neuroscience of human experience. Progress in brain research 2005;150:45-53.
[3]        Guse B, Falkai P, Wobrock T. Cognitive effects of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: a systematic review. J Neural Transm 2010 Jan;117(1):105-22.