Dr Caroline Leaf and Her House of Cards

Dr Caroline Leaf has built herself an empire like a house of cards.

Not like the Netflix drama, “House of Cards”.  Dr Leaf is nothing like Frank Underwood, although some of President Underwood’s best quotes might be applicable to her ministry … “The road to power is paved with hypocrisy, and casualties” and “There’s no better way to overpower a trickle of doubt than with a flood of naked truth”.

Rather, Dr Leaf’s empire resembles a giant house of cards.  It might look majestic and inspiring, but it only takes one puff of scrutiny and the entire thing collapses on itself.

Many people have asked me over the years, in person and on comments on the blog, whether I have ever spoken to Dr Leaf, Matthew 18-style, about the concerns that I have with her ministry.  Did I approach Dr Leaf privately first, then approach leadership, before going public?  Have I given Dr Leaf the right of reply?  Am I just being critical for criticisms sake?

To mark the auspicious occasion of Dr Leaf’s arrival in Australia for her 2016 tour, I’ve decided to definitively answer those questions.  Knowledge is power, so I think it’s important that Dr Leaf’s followers, and those who read my site looking for answers, can see the process that has taken place.  That way, people can judge for themselves whether my actions and Dr Leaf’s responses are justified or not.

I heard Dr Leaf preach for the first time in early August 2013.  I had heard her name bandied around, but didn’t know anything about her, so while she was in Australia that year I decided I would find out who she was and what she had to say.  I attended her service at Kings Christian Church on the Gold Coast, and I left with very strong concerns about her scientific and scriptural accuracy.  How was I to respond?

In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus gives us the following template for resolving issues between believers,

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

The verse talks about sin here, though for the record I’m not saying Dr Leaf ‘sinned’ when she spoke, although some of what she said certainly flirted with heresy.  Still, it was important enough that I felt it needed to be addressed.  So I followed the biblical pattern as best as I could.

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you.”
That’s a bit hard because Dr Leaf chooses to avoid the rank and file members of the congregations she visits.  Certainly on that day I first heard her preach, she was nowhere to be seen after the services.

“… take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’”
Again, that’s a bit hard when Dr Leaf disappears after the service, and moves from church to church.

However, I tried to do the next best thing, in that I e-mailed the pastor of Kings Christian Church to voice my concerns.

“If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church …”
I also took step number three.  I took my concerns to the church worldwide via my very first blogs on Dr Leaf’s ministry.

As it panned out, the senior pastor at Kings offered to pass on my concerns to Dr Leaf.  A short time later, I got a reply from Dr Leaf’s team, not privately in response to the e-mail, but publically as a comment on my blog.  Mac Leaf, Dr Leaf’s husband, didn’t address any of the significant issues that I raised, but asserted that his wife was completely justified and I was clearly out of touch.

And so I replied to his ad hominem dismissal, and my reply has become the most read of all of my posts.  As part of that blog, I gave an open invitation for Dr or Mr Leaf to respond.  The offer was met with stone cold silence.

I’ve made other offers since.  I offered to meet with Dr Leaf in any city in Australia, at my expense, to discuss my concerns and give her the opportunity to respond.  More silence.  I expanded the offer to include any city in New Zealand as well.  Still no response.

In August last year, Dr Leaf came to preach at Nexus Church in Brisbane.  This was only the second time I had an opportunity to hear her speak live.  Her teaching hadn’t improved any, but I thought that I would at least introduce myself and shake her hand as I considered that the honourable thing to do.  However, I was physically blocked by her presidential style detail – she was literally surrounded by eight people and there was auxiliary guard posted at the door to block anyone from approaching her human shield.  I doubt even President Obama would have more people surrounding him.  Ironically, Dr Leaf’s main text that morning was of the woman with the issue of blood.  At least that woman got to talk to Jesus.  I didn’t get anywhere near Dr Leaf.

After another year of silence, Dr Leaf is again flying south for the winter.  For the first time, Dr Leaf has planned a workshop in Australia on this trip, the “Think and Eat Yourself Smart” workshop in Sydney on the 20th of August.  When I first learned of her workshop in April, I thought it was too good an opportunity to pass up.  There was no question and answer time on the program for the day, but that didn’t bother me.  The sound of Dr Leaf’s silence was deafening, and I wasn’t going to waste my time trying to foist myself on her.  But I wanted to attend to get a deeper perspective on Dr Leaf’s food fantasies to better deconstruct them.  I booked my ticket on-line on the 12th of April and when the ticket was confirmed, I booked my flights and accommodation.

On the 27th of May, six weeks after booking my place at the workshop, I received the following e-mail: “We have cancelled your registration for the Think and Eat Yourself Smart Conference in Sydney, Australia.  Here is your refund advice. Blessings, Dr Leaf Team.”

No reason was given for the cancellation, and when I questioned the decision, no explanation followed.  The most I got was a belated offer to refund my flights and accommodation costs.

Now, I realise that critiquing someone’s work in such great depth isn’t exactly endearing and I’m not on Dr Leaf’s Christmas card list, but being a critic isn’t grounds for refusal of entry.  Not that Dr Leaf ever seemed to care about what I said.  She made no effort to communicate with me over the last three years, at all, and she certainly hadn’t changed her teaching.  She seemed completely indifferent to what I had to say, so cancelling my registration was unexpected.

I could think of many reasons why she or her team would take this action.  One of them was that I might have personally offended her.  It has never been my intention, but perhaps I misread the sound of her silence, and rather than Dr Leaf completely ignoring my work, she had been following it and was offended by it.

I decided that the most mature thing I could do in this situation was to approach her directly to apologise, not for my ongoing critique of her teachings, but for any unintentional personal offense, and to see if there was any scope for compromise.  I sent the final letter to her via her husband’s e-mail on the 22nd of June.  I offered my sincere apologies for any personal offense she may have taken, and I offered to meet with her whilst in Sydney, either before or after her workshop, to see if there was any middle ground.  If she did not want to meet, or if we met but ended up agreeing to disagree, then I promised not to make any further contact with her.  We would shake hands, and that would be the end of it.

On the 6th of July I received a reply.  Not from Dr Leaf, and not from her husband, but from her lawyer.  The general gist of the letter was, You’re welcome to your opinion, but you’re not welcome to hear her speak.  Dr Leaf has no personal grudge against you, but don’t ever try to make any personal contact with Dr Leaf ever again.

I offered an olive branch and Dr Leaf took it from me, slapped me in the face with it and threw it back.

So ladies and gentlemen, this is where Dr Leaf and I stand.  I feel like I’ve done everything that I could’ve to resolve my concerns with Dr Leaf in the manner ascribed in Matthew 18:15-17.  I never wanted to be best buddies with her, or to be even vaguely liked by her, but it is disappointing that she can not bring herself to write a couple of sentences of reply to my offer of apology.

Many will consider her actions entirely justifiable.  They might say that I’ve been rude or harassing, that trying to contact her directly was simply intimidating, and that I have no right to question her since I’m not a cognitive neuroscientist.

I could understand that logic if I was personally harassing and intimidating her, but I’ve always tried to remain critical of her work, not her personally.  I have only seen her twice in person, and only ever tried to talk to her once.  I have only communicated directly with her once, and that was rebuffed.

Others will consider that the problem lies with Dr Leaf herself.  They may consider her actions demonstrate a fragile ego, or extreme hubris, or anti-intellectual hypocrisy.

Perhaps she realises that her house of cards empire is built on indefensible science which forces her to avoid scrutiny at any cost.

Who knows?  Her refusal to engage means that we’re all none the wiser, and all we can do is speculate.

All I can say is that I’ve tried to follow the biblical model for resolving interpersonal issues, gone out of my way to give Dr Leaf the courtesy of the right of reply, and to act first and apologise when I thought personal offense may have been taken.  That Dr Leaf has not taken up my offer on any of it is no skin off my nose, but I don’t think there is anything more that I can do.  The ball remains in Dr Leaf’s court, or house of cards as the case maybe.

What do you think?  You’re welcome to express your opinion in the comments section below.

Advertisements

Lancet confirms fat is bad

Earlier this week, the prestigious medical journal The Lancet published an article about the health effects of obesity [1].

Spoiler alert – obesity kills you.

That sounds a lot like old news.  Why is a leading medical journal wasting space printing studies that tell us what we already know?  Well, up until now, the answer wasn’t as settled as people might have thought.

From the earliest writings of the ancient Greeks, fat people were always considered weak-willed or morally lacking.  Obese people either over-indulged or were lazy sods that deserved the indignation of the clearly morally superior skinny people.  Medical science initially seemed to back up that notion with hard data.  Body Mass Index (or BMI, your weight in kilograms divided by your height in metres squared) between 20 and 25 was the ultimate goal, and if you were above that, you were set to live a shorter and unhappier life.

Then a few years ago, a few studies came out showing that being overweight wasn’t as dire as people thought, and in fact, some studies showed that being overweight and mildly obese offered a small survival advantage over a weight in the “normal” range [2].  This was known as the obesity paradox.

So questions hung in the air like the sickly sweet smell of freshly baked donuts – Did the medical community get obesity wrong?  Were we meant to be cuddly instead of bony?  Were the lard nazi’s tricking us into lifestyles of kale and sit ups under false pretences?

The study by the objectively named Global BMI Mortality Collaboration seems to have definitively answered those questions.  The Global BMI Mortality Collaboration was a collective effort of more than 500 researchers from more than 32 countries, who pooled the resources of 239 different studies involving more than 10 million adults.  The collaborators weeded out more than 6 million people to form a group of 3,951,455 people who had never smoked and had not been diagnosed with a chronic disease before being recruited, and who had survived for more than 5 years after being recruited.  This made their group of participants in this study as statistically robust as possible.  These participants were followed for about 14 years.  Overall, 385,879 of them died.  To see whether obesity had an impact on mortality, they adjusted the raw numbers for age and gender, and calculated the likelihood of a participant dying depending in their BMI.

It isn’t good news for those of us who are of ample proportion.  Compared to those in the healthiest weight range, the most obese had a two-and-half times greater risk of dying from any cause.  Those who were overweight but not obese, which the previous studies suggested may have been ok, had an increased risk of dying too, but only by about 7%.  Obese males had a higher risk of dying than obese females, and obesity was worse for you if you were obese and young rather than obese and old.  Though before all the skinny people start skiting, those with a BMI of under 20 also had a higher mortality.  The best place to be was with a BMI of 20-25.

 

Screen Shot 2016-07-18 at 12.02.07 AM

Statistically speaking, this is a really strong study, so the conclusions it draws are hard to argue with.  It confirms that the BMI of 20-25 is the ideal weight, and that either extreme of body weight is certainly undesirable.

There are a couple of things to note.  Firstly, being overweight still isn’t that bad.  Sure, it’s not ideal like the older studies may have said, but a 7% increase in all-cause mortality isn’t going to particularly cut your life short.  So don’t panic about your love handles just yet.

Secondly, despite the statistical power of this study, it really only answers the single question: Is obesity related to mortality?  It answers it, and it answers it conclusively, but it doesn’t tell us how or why obesity and mortality are related, which are more important questions overall.

Because while it’s necessary to know that obesity, illness and death are related, knowing how they are related can then help us understand the why of obesity, which will then help doctors give patients real information that they can use.

For example, the Lancet study didn’t look at causation.  Is it that obesity causes chronic diseases which then cause early mortality like is the case with smoking?  Or is it that there’s another cause underlying both obesity and chronic disease, with obesity being unfairly framed in a guilt-by-association way?

Obesity Guilty Framed

What about mitigating factors?  If you’re fat but you’re also very fit, what’s your mortality then?  If you have a gastric bypass or a gastric sleeve and you shed a hundred pounds, does your mortality improve?  I’ll try and answer some of these question in future blogs.

Like all good research, this study in The Lancet seems to have generated more questions than answers.  What’s certain is that more research needs to be done.

If you are obese and you are concerned about your health, then talk to your GP or dietician.  Be sensible with your health.  Sure, obesity isn’t great, but you can sometimes do as much damage to yourself through poorly designed weight loss programs than you can with a dozen donuts.

References
[1]        Global BMI Mortality Collaboration. Body-mass index and all-cause mortality: individual participant data meta-analysis of 239 prospective studies in four continents. Lancet 2016 13 july 2016.
[2]        Flegal KM, Kit BK, Orpana H, Graubard BI. Association of all-cause mortality with overweight and obesity using standard body mass index categories: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association 2013 Jan 2;309(1):71-82.