Seven Elements of Good Mental Health: 7. Create social networks – The Prospering Soul

Life shouldn’t just be about avoiding poor health, but also enjoying good health. Our psychological health is no different.

Before we take a look at poor mental health, let’s look at some of the ways that people can enjoy good mental health and wellbeing. This next series of posts will discuss seven elements that are Biblically and scientifically recognised as important to people living richer and more fulfilling lives.

These aren’t the only ways that a person can find fulfilment, nor are they sure-fire ways of preventing all mental health problems either. They’re not seven steps to enlightenment or happiness either.   But applying these principles can improve psychosocial wellbeing, and encourage good mental health.

7. Create social networks

Before 2004, everyone knew what social networks were. Now when you talk about ‘social networks’, people assume you’re referring to Facebook. It seems like virtual social networking has been around forever, whereas in contrast, real social networking actually has.

We know this, because we’re wired for social interaction, with specific areas of the brain devoted to social behaviour, such as the orbitofrontal cortex, and there are neurotransmitters and hormones that are strongly associated with bonding and maintenance of social relationships, like oxytocin and β-endorphins. Research has also shown that both humans and other primates find social stimuli intrinsically rewarding – babies look longer at faces than at non-face stimuli, for example [1].

People who engage in social relationships are more likely to live longer, some estimate by an extra 50% [2]. Certainly it appears that the opposite is true. Loneliness predicts depressive symptoms, impaired sleep and daytime dysfunction, reductions in physical activity, and impaired mental health and cognition. At the biological level, loneliness is associated with altered blood pressure, increased stress hormone secretion, a shift in the balance of cytokines towards inflammation and altered immunity. Loneliness may predict mortality [3].

So what is loneliness, and conversely, what defines good social relationships? Fundamentally, good or bad social relationships are related to the quality of the social interaction. This rule applies equally to real social networks [3] and their on-line equivalents [4]. So quality is fundamentally more important than quantity in terms of friendships, with that quality strongly determined by the connection within those social relationships. For example, loneliness “can be thought of as perceived isolation and is more accurately defined as the distressing feeling that accompanies discrepancies between one’s desired and actual social relationships” [3].

The corollary is that friendship can be thought of as perceived connection within social relationships, or the comforting feeling that accompanies the match between one’s desired and actual social relationships.

So healthy social relationships aren’t defined by the size of your network, but by the strength of the connections that your network contains, relative to what’s important to you. Just because you’re not a vivacious extrovert who’s friends with everyone doesn’t mean that your social network is lacking. It also means that you can have meaningful connections to friends through social media, just as much as you can have meaningful connections through face to face interactions. It’s not the way you interact, but the quality of the connection that counts.

What is it about other people that makes us more likely to be their friends? Connection between friends is often the result of attraction to individuals of similar personalities or skills, although recent research suggests that friendship may be related to a much deeper level. Brent et al notes that “Humans are especially predisposed toward homophily, with recent evidence suggesting this even extends to the genetic level; people are more likely to be friends if they have similar genotypes. Taken together, these findings advocate the need to consider not only an individual’s genome, but also their metagenome, when asking questions about the causes of friendship biases … Unrelated friends are more likely to be genetically similar, equivalent to the level of fourth cousins, compared to unrelated strangers.” [1]

As Christians, we’re encouraged to engage with other Christians on a regular basis, which in our modern world, is through regular church attendance. As the Bible says in Hebrews 10:23-25, “Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on towards love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another – and all the more as you see the Day approaching.” But as the research has shown, it’s not just being part of the crowd, but connecting with those in the church in a meaningful way. It’s very easy to be lonely in a crowded church.

Always remember: “Befriend, and be a friend” – that’s how you’ll find benefit to your spirit, soul and body.


[1]        Brent LJ, Chang SW, Gariepy JF, Platt ML. The neuroethology of friendship. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2014 May;1316:1-17.
[2]        Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS medicine 2010 Jul;7(7):e1000316.
[3]        Luo Y, Hawkley LC, Waite LJ, Cacioppo JT. Loneliness, health, and mortality in old age: a national longitudinal study. Social science & medicine 2012 Mar;74(6):907-14.
[4]        Oh HJ, Ozkaya E, LaRose R. How does online social networking enhance life satisfaction? The relationships among online supportive interaction, affect, perceived social support, sense of community, and life satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior 2014;30:69-78.

Dr Caroline Leaf and the tongues trivia tall tales trifecta

Screen Shot 2015-06-06 at 12.23.16 pm

I saw a Facebook factoid from Caroline Leaf today that said, “When we speak in tongues, research shows that the areas involved in discernment in the brain increase in activity, which means we increase in wisdom.”

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and a self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. She has also proclaimed herself as an expert on science and the Bible.

In the opening of her “Scientific Philosophy”, for example, Dr Leaf says that, “God is the Creator of the Universe and is the Author of Science. Since God is the Author of the Bible, the Bible is therefore the ultimate authority in any scientific matters. The study of Science is therefore the study of God’s handiwork and is a way of admiring His Creation. God, the Creator, is the One to be worshipped, not the Creation. The Creation, however, reflects the Glory of God and points to His Divine attributes.”

In order to prove that the Bible is the ultimate scientific authority, Dr Leaf attempts to find scientific studies which support Biblical concepts. One example of this is her teaching on Glossolalia, the scientific term for the Biblical concept ‘speaking in tongues’.

Dr Leaf’s Facebook factoid on the neuroscience of speaking in tongues is at least the second time she has posted it. In November when I first saw Dr Leaf’s proclamation on the science of speaking in tongues, I was fascinated. I went to find the research for myself to see if the areas involved in discernment in the brain really increase in activity when speaking in tongues. As it turns out, there isn’t any.

The only study that I could find about brain functioning during speaking in tongues was by Newberg [1]. As I wrote in my previous blog, the study by Newberg showed the part of the brain that’s involved in both speaking in tongues and discernment, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, decreases in activity when praying in tongues, not increases, in direct contradiction to Dr Leaf’s meme.

In November, I concluded, “there are really only two reasonable explanations as to why the research contradicts Dr Leaf; either there is another piece of research which supports Dr Leaf’s assertion, or Dr Leaf is simply wrong.”

Today on Facebook, Dr Leaf demonstrated that she can not be swayed from her entrenched idea that speaking in tongues increases discernment … or can she? Her meme and her discussion on glossolalia in her ‘Scientific Philosophy’ seem contradictory.

For example, she writes in her scientific philosophy manifesto, “In 2006 Dr. Andrew Newberg at the University of Pennsylvania, using single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT), found that the frontal lobe of individuals who spoke in tongues was less active. This brain profile was in contrast to Franciscan nuns in contemplative prayer and Buddhist monks in meditation, in which frontal lobe activity is increased. Since the frontal lobe activity is increased when we are focused on what we are saying, this finding confirms self-reports of what people who spoke in tongues experienced, implying that the words spoken in glossolalia originate from a source other than the mind of the individual speaking in tongues.”

In this paragraph, Dr Leaf confirms that frontal lobe activity decreases when speaking in tongues, in keeping with her anecdotal evidence of “self-reports of what people who spoke in tongues experienced, implying that the words spoken in glossolalia originate from a source other than the mind of the individual speaking in tongues.” But this is in direct contrast with her social media meme, which suggests that speaking in tongues increases frontal lobe activity – the area of the brain common to glossolalia and discernment is the vmPFC, which decreases with glossolalia and increases with discernment.

Dr Leaf is a confusing enigma. She posts social media memes that are clearly wrong, even disagreeing with the scientific papers she has written about and her own conclusions in her own manifesto.

This only discounts her legitimacy. You can’t continue to contradict your own evidence. It’s like shooting yourself in the foot, or digging your own grave. What’s worse, Dr Leaf teaches this from real pulpits, not just on social media. How is her audience supposed to feel when they hear what she has to say and find it disagrees with her own scientific philosophy?

I sound like a broken record, but Dr Leaf desperately needs to review her teaching and social media memes. It’s bad enough to be contradicted by scientific evidence, but to be in disagreement with your own teaching is embarrassing, and does nothing to preserve trust with your audience.


[1]        Newberg AB, Wintering NA, Morgan D, Waldman MR. The measurement of regional cerebral blood flow during glossolalia: a preliminary SPECT study. Psychiatry research 2006 Nov 22;148(1):67-71.

Dr Caroline Leaf – Manhandling scriptures again

Screen Shot 2015-05-30 at 7.49.02 pm Screen Shot 2015-05-30 at 7.50.30 pm

I recently heard a great quote, “If you take the text out of context, all you’re left with is a con.” It’s a quote that seems to describe Dr Leaf’s social media pings quite nicely over the last twenty-four hours.

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and a self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. She is also a self-titled theologian.

Today she posted, “3 John 2 = Mental Health ‘Beloved, I wish above all things that thou may prosper and be in health, even as your soul prospers.’ Everything relies on your soul, which is your mind, prospering” (original emphasis).

Except that her statement is blatantly false. The soul isn’t just the mind. A simple search of an on-line Bible dictionary reveals that there are a number of ways in which the word ‘soul’ is used, but more specifically to the meaning in 3 John 2, “the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life”. (

It should also be noted that the two words used in ancient Greek that referred to our inner reality were pneuma (‘spirit’) and psyche (‘soul’). According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, the words pneuma (‘spirit’) and psyche (‘soul’) were often used indiscriminately. The Apostle Paul distinctly used the word pneuma separately to the word psyche in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, but nearly every other New Testament writer wasn’t so precise.

Thus, John wasn’t referring to the mind at all, but probably our spirit, or at the very least, our generic soul, not specifically to our mental faculties or our thoughts. The scripture in 3 John 2 doesn’t have anything to do with our mental health.

Yesterday, Dr Leaf tried to merge one of her favourite authors views with scripture. She posted a quote from Dr Bruce Lipton, “Genes cannot turn themselves on or off. In more scientific terms, genes are not ‘self-emergent’. Something in the environment has to trigger gene activity.” Dr Leaf added, “That ‘something’ is your thoughts! Read Proverbs 23:7″.

So I did.   Proverbs 23:7 in the King James Version says, “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.”

So what is it with the second half of the verse? If this scripture is all about our thought life, then what’s the eating and drinking half of the verse got to do with our thought life?

The explanation is that this verse has nothing to do with our thought life at all. Dr Leaf has simply been misquoting it for years, and no one checked to see if she’s right. According to the Pulpit commentary found on the Bible Hub website, “The verb here used is שָׁעַר (shaar), ‘to estimate … to calculate’, and the clause is best rendered, ‘For as one that calculates with himself, so is he’. The meaning is that this niggardly host watches every morsel which his guest eats, and grudges what he appears to offer so liberally … He professes to make you welcome, and with seeming cordiality invites you to partake of the food upon his table. But his heart is not with thee. He is not glad to see you enjoy yourself, and his pressing invitation is empty verbiage with no heart in it.” (

The other half of her meme comes from Dr Bruce Lipton, an agnostic pseudoscientist who was a cell biologist before he flamed out, and now teaches chiropractic in New Zealand. He believes that there is a metaphysical link between our thoughts and our cell function [1]. He’s ignored by real scientists (

As for his quote, it’s a misdirection. Sure, genes aren’t self-emergent – they don’t think for themselves. DNA is just a long chemical string which just carries a code, the biological equivalent to your DVD discs. Like a DVD, DNA isn’t worth anything if it doesn’t have a machine to read it. In every cell, there are hundreds of proteins that read and translate DNA. Those machines respond to the external environment, but they also respond to the cells internal environment, and to other genes themselves. Simply put, DNA is decoded by intracellular proteins, but intracellular proteins are only made by the expression of DNA, which happens all the time. A single-celled embryo becomes a baby because of DNA self-copying and expression that happens a trillion times over by the end of pregnancy. So while a single gene can’t turn itself on and off, the genome as a whole is essentially self-controlling, only being partly modulated by the external environment. Genes are turned on and off all the time by other genes through the proteins those genes make. Lipton’s assertion that “something in the environment has to trigger gene activity” is simply nonsense.

So Dr Leaf uses a flawed quote from a pseudoscientist to try and back up her specious interpretation of an out-of-context verse of scripture.

Somewhat poor from an “expert” theologian and cognitive neuroscientist really.

These memes speak to the issues of trust and legitimacy. Dr Leaf can call herself whatever she likes, but how can church leaders continue to endorse her to their congregations as an expert when she consistently misinterprets science and scripture? Can they honestly look their parishioners in the eye and say that Dr Leaf’s teaching is accurate? Can they stand at their pulpits and confidently support her book sales at their back of their churches?

Dr Leaf needs to re-evaluate. She needs to re-evaluate her claims to be an expert in cognitive neuroscience and the Bible. She needs to re-evaluate the quality of information that she relies on. She needs to re-evaluate what she’s trying to achieve in posting to social media, and re-evaluate the accuracy of her memes.

Because ultimately it’s the truth that sets people free, not errant opinions and misinterpretations.


[1]        Lipton BH. The biology of belief: Unleashing the power of consciousness, matter and miracles: Hay House, Inc, 2008.

Addit: Dr Leaf’s social media post in between the two memes mentioned above was also a doozy. A repeat offender, as it were, since she has posted it several times before, and I have blogged about it here.

Dr Caroline Leaf – Where Angels Fear To Tread

Screen Shot 2015-05-24 at 10.23.44 pm

After a day-trip to Movie World, and then a slight distraction by Eurovision, I had a quick look at Facebook before going about my evening chores. Upon reading Dr Leaf’s latest social media meme, I was aghast!

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. Hiding in amongst her “Scientific Philosophy” was this juicy factoid: “Researchers found that intentional thought for 30 seconds affected laser light.” This is, apparently, also proof that prayer can change physical matter.

I actually thought it was God that changed physical matter if He agreed with our prayer requests, and not our prayers themselves, because if it was simply our prayer, then we wouldn’t need God. That’s probably a blog for another time. Still, it was her last statement that caught my attention. Intentional thought can change the properties of laser! I’d never heard that before! I had to find the references.

It turns out that the paper Dr Leaf is referring to is, “Testing nonlocal observation as a source of intuitive knowledge” [1]. In this experiment, Dr Dean Radin, a paranormal researcher, took 5 “experienced meditators” and 5 normal control subjects, and asked them to mentally interfere with a laser beam pointed at a light-reading CCD sensor inside a sealed box. He averaged out the intensity of the light pattern that was read by the CCD. He believed he found a difference in the amount of light that was read by the sensor when the meditators “blocked” the laser light compared to non-meditators and control runs.

In his original paper, Radin published the following graph of his results.

Screen Shot 2015-05-24 at 10.27.48 pm

The length of the bars represent a statistical value based on the results, not the actual results of the experiments. The simplest explanation is that the further down the bar goes, the greater the degree of interference to the laser light. Radin believed the effect was caused by the meditators literally interfering with the quantum mechanics of the photons in the laser beam, “observing” them from outside of the box, thus causing their wave function to collapse and stopping them from reaching the sensor.

However, notice that the first few experiments show a large effect, but that this diminishes as the experiments go along, and towards the end, the control groups and the meditator group is actually about the same, with no interference to the laser light at all. This effect is called the Decline Effect, and is common problem amongst studies of the paranormal. It’s a result of a phenomenon called ‘regression to the mean’, or in other words, the more times you perform an experiment, the more likely the results will line up with the true average. I think in Radin’s case, it also had a lot to do with his own expectations.

Radin himself was honest enough to discuss the effect in his paper. In his own words, “Although I had employed numerous design features to avoid artifacts (sic), and only four of the 10 control sessions conducted to that point had gone in the predicted direction, I still found it difficult to believe that the experimental effect was as easily repeatable as the results were suggesting. I knew that if I had trouble believing it, I could hardly expect anyone else to accept these results. So I found that my intentions for the experiment changed – I no longer hoped to observe results solely in the predicted direction, but rather I found myself hoping that some of the remaining sessions would go against the prediction, to validate that the methodology was not biased.” [1]

So, Radin probably caused the effect by wanting to see it. He excluded data that didn’t suit his hypothesis, citing a technical issue with the equipment, and instead focussed on the data set that still seemed to fit. He also performed the analysis of the data, which he biased with his own pre-conceived notions.

The other nail in the coffin for this paper is that it was a pilot study that was done by one researcher, which no one has since tried, or succeeded in, replicating. Indeed, the methodology for this research was based on a series of experiments done by a real physicist with better equipment, Professor Stanley Jeffers, a professor of physics at York University in Toronto, Canada, who performed the experiment about 74 times and found no effect [2].

So, Dr Leaf has cited this isolated, error prone, biased and unconfirmed paper of Radin’s as proof of the ability of thought to change physical matter, and indeed, as prayer’s ability to change physical matter.

This is simply more proof that Dr Leaf is prone to rush in where angels fear to tread, and latch on to any “research” that supports her ideas, no matter how tenuous or unscientific. She did the same thing when she cited a conference poster from a paranormal conference in the early 90’s, and claimed it was definitive proof that our thoughts can change our DNA. In actual fact, the paper was so full of flaws [3: Ch 13, The “ingenuous” experiment] that the only thing it could show was how desperate Dr Leaf is to try and justify her unscientific pet theories.

This tendency for Dr Leaf to rely on such poor science, and link it to fundamental Biblical concepts, dishonours science, the truth of the Bible, and her audience.

I think Dr Leaf would be wise to review her scientific philosophy and the “research” that she uses to justify it, rather than continuing to utilise tenuous and inaccurate articles from studies of the paranormal.


[1]        Radin D. Testing nonlocal observation as a source of intuitive knowledge. Explore 2008 Jan-Feb;4(1):25-35.

[2]        Alcock JE, Burns J, Freeman A. Psi wars: Getting to grips with the paranormal: Imprint Academic Charlottesville, VA, 2003.

[3]        Pitt CE. Hold That Thought: Reappraising the work of Dr Caroline Leaf. 1st ed. Brisbane, Australia: Pitt Medical Trust, 2014.

Aspartame. Is it more ‘Die’ than ‘Diet’?

A link came around tonight on my Facebook feed about aspartame: “Aspartame is linked to Leukemia and Lymphoma in new Landmark Study on Humans” (

I’ve seen these sorts of articles come around on social media before, usually in the form of an alternative health website hysterically exaggerating an irrelevant or pseudoscientific study, trying to prove some point about the evils of western medicine or society, or get more internet traffic through sensationalist click-bait.

And I’d heard the whole aspartame-causes-cancer thing before. I’d heard that there was maybe some evidence in animal studies, but that there was no definitive link in humans.

So just from the title, before I’d even read the article, my sceptical mind was primed to expect the opposite of the articles eye-catching headline.  I started searching the literature to see if there was any evidence to prove me right.

The first research article I came across that wasn’t on rats was from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2012, “Consumption of artificial sweetener – and sugar-containing soda and risk of lymphoma and leukemia in men and women” [1]. It was an impressive study in terms of its numbers and its quality. It was drawn from the data of the Nurses Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which were both prospective studies (which follow a large number of subjects over a long time to see who gets the disease in question, rather than starting with who has the disease in question and trying to work backwards trying to ascertain causes, which is much less reliable). Both studies also had a large number of subjects which increased their statistical power, and made their findings more robust.

The results didn’t look very good for aspartame. There was a clear-cut increase in the risk of Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma for men who consumed two or more serves per day of diet drinks containing aspartame (Relative Risk: 1.69; 95% Confidence Interval: 1.17, 2.45; P-trend = 0.02) and Multiple Myeloma for men who consumed one or more serve per day of diet drinks containing aspartame (RR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.20, 3.40). However, there was no change in the risks for women who consumed aspartame.

The results certainly caught me a little off guard. Perhaps there was some truth to the alternative website’s assertions after all. Interestingly enough, the study that the site reviewed was the same article I’d found. I was guilty of making a snap judgement, and I had to remind myself not to always jump to conclusions.

Still, even though the article wasn’t sensationalist click-bait, some unanswered questions remained. Why was the risk only found in men? Was there a real association, and if so, why the difference. Should we extrapolate this finding like did and justifiably ask “will future, high-quality studies uncover links to the other cancers in which aspartame has been implicated (brain, breast, prostate, etc.)?”

In terms of the gender difference, the authors of the original study did have a theory: “We hypothesized that the sex differences we observed may have been due to the recognized higher enzymatic activity of alcohol dehydrogenase type I (ADH) in men, which possibly induced higher conversion rates from methanol to the carcinogenic substrate formaldehyde.” In support of this theory, they looked at the risk of leukaemia and lymphoma in those aspartame users who were drinkers vs the aspartame users who weren’t. Ethanol stops the metabolic conversion of aspartame to formaldehyde, so if their theory was on the right track, those aspartame users who also drank alcohol would have a lower risk. As it turns out, their data was supportive, with aspartame non-drinkers having an increased risk for Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma (RR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.46, 3.76; P-trend = 0.004) compared with aspartame users who also drank (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.48, 1.90; P-trend = 0.99) [1].

However, despite the findings of Schernhammer et al, a more recent large prospective trial published in the Journal of Nutrition last year found there was no association between soft-drinks of any variety and blood cancers, including those containing aspartame [2].

So the jury is still out on aspartame. Based on what we currently know, if you’re a woman, then there’s no risk of developing leukaemia or lymphoma from drinking diet drinks. If you’re a man, there’s also probably no risk, but a glass or two of alcohol a day would probably make sure of that. Although the best advice is probably to not bother drinking diet drinks at all. The best diet drink is still plain old water, which has virtually no associated risks, is much cheaper, and probably tastes a whole lot better.


  1. Schernhammer, E.S., et al., Consumption of artificial sweetener- and sugar-containing soda and risk of lymphoma and leukemia in men and women. Am J Clin Nutr, 2012. 96(6): 1419-28 doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.030833
  2. McCullough, M.L., et al., Artificially and sugar-sweetened carbonated beverage consumption is not associated with risk of lymphoid neoplasms in older men and women. J Nutr, 2014. 144(12): 2041-9 doi: 10.3945/jn.114.197475

Why all the anger?

One of the latest vaccination memes to go viral on social media is an article by Arizona “paleo-cardiologist”, Dr Jack Wolfson.

Dr Wolfson did an interview with one of his local TV stations in January, during which he gave his opinion about the outbreak of measles centred around Disneyland.

He said, “We should be getting measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, these are the rights of our children to get it. We do not need to inject chemicals into ourselves and into our children in order to boost our immune system. I’m a big fan of what’s called paleo-nutrition, so our children eat foods that our ancestors have been eating for millions of years. That’s the best way to protect.” (

His follow up article, the one going viral, is titled, “Why All the Anger?” Uh … how about because you’re a douche?

Let’s start by looking at his comments in January on Arizona’s Channel 12 News:

  1. “We should be getting measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, these are the rights of our children to get it”.
    Or in other words, by stopping our children getting sick, we’re depriving them of their rights. That’s a patently stupid statement. Our children have a right to expect care. We give them shelter, protection, education and good nutrition so that their lives can flourish. Vaccinations are part of that care. Sure, there are side effects of vaccines, but they are nothing compared to the abject cruelty of the diseases they prevent.
  1. “We do not need to inject chemicals into ourselves and into our children in order to boost our immune system.”
    Our immune systems do an amazing job at keeping us alive. Our immune systems will eventually fight off measles, chicken pox, or any other number of pathogens, but vaccines stop the “collateral damage”, the children who are overwhelmed by the full-blown infection and die, or are permanently disabled by it. Even for the children that come through ‘unscathed’ (i.e. not dead), illnesses like measles inflict weeks of suffering with high fevers, aching joints and muscles, severe fatigue, and any other number of symptoms, then there are the ongoing illnesses like shingles and the associated severe chronic nerve pain from viruses like chickenpox, all of which can be prevented by routine childhood vaccinations.
  1. “I’m a big fan of what’s called paleo-nutrition, so our children eat foods that our ancestors have been eating for millions of years. That’s the best way to protect.”
    Really? The Palaeolithic population were hunter-gatherers, and we know that the mortality of hunter-gatherer children is in the order of 40% ( That’s not what I would call ‘protective’. Besides, palaeontologists have shown that the food promoted as ‘paleo’ is nothing like the food that our ancestors ate ( so paleo-nutrition is just another baseless fad.

I’m guessing that the response he received after publically sharing his heterodox views wasn’t particularly favourable. In reply, he offered this article, which is the article now going viral on social media (

It seems to me like he has unsuccessfully tried to dig himself out of his own grave. Sure, those people who are also currently drinking the antivaccine-paleo Kool-Aid will take his side and point to this brave martyr standing up to the establishment, but ultimately his come-back is nothing more than diversionary blame-shifting.

Here’s what he had to say about who the real enemies are:

“1. Be angry at food companies. Sugar cereals, donuts, cookies, and cupcakes lead to millions of deaths per year. At its worst, chicken pox killed 100 people per year. If those chicken pox people didn’t eat cereal and donuts, they may still be alive. Call up Nabisco and Kellogg’s and complain. Protest their products. Send THEM hate-mail.
2. Be angry at fast food restaurants. Tortured meat burgers, pesticide fries, and hormone milkshakes are the problem. The problem is not Hepatitis B which is a virus contracted by drug users and those who sleep with prostitutes. And you want to inject that vaccine into your newborn?
3. Be angry at the companies who make your toxic laundry detergent, fabric softener, and dryer sheets. You and your children are wearing and breathing known carcinogens (they cause cancer). Call Bounce and Downy and let them know. These products kill more people than mumps, a virus which actually doesn’t cause anyone to die. Same with hepatitis A, a watery diarrhea.
4. Be angry at all the companies spewing pollution into our environment. These chemicals and heavy metals are known to cause autism, heart disease, cancer, autoimmune disease and every other health problem. Worldwide, these lead to 10’s of millions of deaths every year. Measles deaths are a tiny fraction compared to pollution.
5. Be angry at your parents for not breastfeeding you, co-sleeping with you, and stuffing your face with Domino’s so they can buy more Tide and finish the laundry. Breastfeeding protects your children from many infectious diseases.
6. Be angry with your doctor for being close-minded and not disclosing the ingredients in vaccines (not that they read the package insert anyway). They should tell you about the aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, aborted fetal tissue, animal proteins, polysorbate 80, antibiotics, and other chemicals in the shots. According to the Environmental Working Group, newborns contain over 200 chemicals as detected by cord blood. Maybe your doctor feels a few more chemicals injected into your child won’t be a big deal.
7. Be angry with the cable companies and TV manufacturers for making you and your children fat and lazy, not wanting to exercise or play outside. Lack of exercise kills millions more than polio. Where are all those 80 year olds crippled by polio? I can’t seem to find many.
8. In fact, be angry with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates for creating computers so you can sit around all day blasted with electromagnetic radiation reading posts like this.
9.Be angry with pharmaceutical companies for allowing us to believe living the above life can be treated with drugs. Correctly prescribed drugs kill thousands of people per year. The flu kills just about no one. The vaccine never works.

Finally, be angry with yourself for not opening your eyes to the snow job and brainwashing which have taken over your mind. You NEVER asked the doctor any questions. You NEVER asked what is in the vaccines. You NEVER learned about these benign infections.

Let’s face it, you don’t really give a crap what your children eat. You don’t care about chemicals in their life. You don’t care if they sit around all day watching the TV or playing video games.

All you care about is drinking your Starbuck’s, your next plastic surgery, your next cocktail, your next affair, and your next sugar fix!”

Yes, it’s all your fault. You’re all too selfish to see how you’ve been conned by centuries of scientific evidence, and that only those who follow the doctrines of paleo-nutrition are truly enlightened.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious. This so-called man of science would have us believe that measles, chickenpox, diphtheria, polio and other vaccine preventable diseases are benign. Tell that to the 2.5 million children who die every year from vaccine-preventable diseases around the world (De Cock, Simone, Davison, & Slutsker, 2013).

“At its worst, chicken pox killed 100 people per year.” According to the CDC, his figure is correct – the average number of deaths from chickenpox from 1990-1996 was about 103 per year in the USA though he failed to mention the 11,000 hospitalisations per year caused by chickenpox ( Measles, on the other hand, kills two people for every thousand that are infected by it ( The 2013 US road toll was 0.107/1000 (, making measles 18 times more deadly than road transportation.

“Where are all those 80 year olds crippled by polio? I can’t seem to find many.” Well, it’s hard to find anything when you’re closed minded. Polio caused paralysis in about 1 in 100 cases, and death in up to 30% of those ( Again, those figures are worse than the road toll.

“Be angry with your doctor for being close-minded and not disclosing the ingredients in vaccines (not that they read the package insert anyway). They should tell you about the aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, aborted fetal tissue, animal proteins, polysorbate 80, antibiotics, and other chemicals in the shots”. Guess what, your doctor doesn’t tell you about aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, aborted fetal tissue, animal proteins, polysorbate 80, antibiotics etc in vaccines because they’re either not there, or they’re there in amounts so tiny that you would have a greater exposure to them by simply eating. For example, Thiomersal (which contained mercury) has been removed from childhood vaccines since the year 2000 as a precautionary measure, even though there was never any evidence it caused any harm. Aluminium from vaccines is lower than everyday exposure from intake from diet or medications, such as antacids, and is well below the levels recommended by organisations such as the United States Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. And there is no aborted foetal tissue in vaccines (

And the rest … more of the usual rhetoric of the paleo-minded – sugar, “tortured meat” burgers, “pesticide” fries, and “hormone” milkshakes, laundry detergent, pollutants that “cause autism, heart disease, cancer, autoimmune disease and every other health problem”, computers that bombard you with electromagnetic radiation … he even goes a little Freudian by blaming mothers for not breast feeding and co-sleeping enough. It’s all a bit of a stretch.

So why all the anger? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that people are sick and tired of so-called experts trying to debase solid science with some tarted up pseudoscientific fad. The public know more than what most snake-oil salesmen think they do, and they’re sick of being treated like idiots. People know that immunisation works, and trying to sell the idea that ‘paleo-nutrition’ is better than vaccination just makes you look like a douche.


De Cock, K. M., Simone, P. M., Davison, V., & Slutsker, L. (2013). The new global health. Emerg Infect Dis, 19(8), 1192-1197. doi: 10.3201/eid1908.130121

Dr Caroline Leaf – Scientific heresy

Screen Shot 2015-03-30 at 7.54.04 pm

Imagine that this Easter, the guest speaker at your church stands up from the pulpit and calmly mentions during the sermon that Jesus wasn’t really buried in a tomb, but was kept by his disciples in a house until he recovered enough from his wounds to go on his merry way.

What would you think of that speaker? Would you smile and nod, or even shout an ‘amen!’, buy their book, and encourage your pastor that they should be invited back again?

One would hope that there would be a polite but resounding outcry. Even if the rest of the message was perfect, you wouldn’t want someone to come back to your pulpit if they couldn’t get the basics of their subject right, even if they were considered a popular speaker or self-declared expert.

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. Dr Leaf preaches every day from both physical pulpits all over the globe, and a virtual pulpit through the power of Instagram and Facebook.

Dr Leaf used her position of social media prominence today to share this little jewel, “The brain cannot change itself; you, with your love power and sound mind, change your brain.”

Um … that’s not true … at all … in any way.

For a start, the most prolific period for brain development is actually pre-birth, and then the first year of life. But foetal brains don’t have their own thoughts. It’s not like the movie “Look Who’s Talking” inside the average uterus. The brain of an unborn baby is growing and changing at an exponential rate without any thoughts to guide them [1].

Screen Shot 2015-03-30 at 9.32.16 pm

Number of synapses per constant volume of tissue as a function of pre- and postnatal age. (Stiles, J. and Jernigan, T.L., The basics of brain development. Neuropsychol Rev, 2010. 20(4): 327-48 doi: 10.1007/s11065-010-9148-4)


In our adult years, our brain still continues to develop. But that development isn’t dependant on our thought life. Significant consolidation of our brain’s neural pathways occur when we’re asleep [2], but our thought life isn’t active during sleep.

Model of sleep stage-specific potentiation and homeostatic scaling. Gronli, J., et al., Sleep and protein synthesis-dependent synaptic plasticity: impacts of sleep loss and stress. Front Behav Neurosci, 2013. 7: 224 doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00224

Model of sleep stage-specific potentiation and homeostatic scaling. (Gronli, J., et al., Sleep and protein synthesis-dependent synaptic plasticity: impacts of sleep loss and stress. Front Behav Neurosci, 2013. 7: 224 doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00224)

Indeed, real cognitive neuroscientists have shown that our stream of thought is simply a tiny fraction of our overall neural activity, a conscious glimpse of the brains overall function [3-5]. So you don’t change your brain at all. “You” can’t, because it’s your brain’s directed activity which causes the growth of new synaptic branches to support it, all of which is subconscious.

Therefore, suggesting that our brain can only change with our conscious control is patently false, and so clearly against the most fundamental principles of neuroscience that such a claim is the neuroscientific equivalent of saying that Jesus didn’t die on the cross, he just swooned.

Dr Leaf has committed scientific heresy.

At this point, supporters of Dr Leaf often suggest that she wasn’t speaking literally, but metaphorically. She didn’t really mean that the brain can’t change itself, just that our choices are really important.

Somehow I doubt that. Dr Leaf wasn’t being metaphorical when she claimed that her patients in her research projects grew their intelligence when they “applied their minds”:
“Now with a traumatic brain injury, basically IQ generally goes down around twenty points because of the kind of damage with traumatic brain injury. Well her IQ was 100 before the accident, it was 120 after the accident. So here with holes in her brain, and brain damage, she changed … she actually increased her intelligence. Now I’m pretty convinced at this stage, cause I’ve been working … besides her I’ve been working with lots and lots of other patients, seeing the same thing, when these students applied their mind, their brain was changing, their academic results were changing.” [6]

Dr Leaf believes that your mind can literally change your brain. It was the subject of her entire TEDx talk in February.

It sounds innocent enough until you consider the broader implications of this way of thinking – those with brain damage haven’t recovered fully because they just haven’t applied their minds enough. The same for those with learning disabilities or autism, ADHD, Downs syndrome, cerebral palsy, dyslexia, or any other neurological disorder … because you only need to “apply your minds” to change your brain. “You have a powerful mind. You have a sound mind. You have a mind that is able to … to achieve what you’re dreams are. You are as intelligent as you want to be.” [6]

Or, in other words, don’t blame it on your brain if you’re intellectually disabled, mentally ill, or vacuous. You simply haven’t applied your brain well enough. Stop sitting around and think better.

As a church, we can, and should, be doing a lot better for those amongst us who suffer from neurological and mental disorders. It starts by being more judicious with who is allowed at that privileged position of the pulpit. We need to be eliminating scientific heresy from the pulpit, not clapping and shouting ‘amen!’


  1. Stiles, J. and Jernigan, T.L., The basics of brain development. Neuropsychol Rev, 2010. 20(4): 327-48 doi: 10.1007/s11065-010-9148-4
  2. Gronli, J., et al., Sleep and protein synthesis-dependent synaptic plasticity: impacts of sleep loss and stress. Front Behav Neurosci, 2013. 7: 224 doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00224
  3. Baars, B.J., Global workspace theory of consciousness: toward a cognitive neuroscience of human experience. Progress in brain research, 2005. 150: 45-53
  4. Baars, B.J. and Franklin, S., An architectural model of conscious and unconscious brain functions: Global Workspace Theory and IDA. Neural Netw, 2007. 20(9): 955-61 doi: 10.1016/j.neunet.2007.09.013
  5. Franklin, S., et al., Conceptual Commitments of the LIDA Model of Cognition. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence, 2013. 4(2): 1-22
  6. Leaf, C.M., Ridiculous | TEDx Oaks Christian School | 4 Feb 2015, 2015 TEDx, 20:03. https://