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.

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.

Strong marketing can’t make up for weak ideas

Well Dr Leaf, 10 out of 10 for persistence.

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and a self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. In the last month or so, Dr Leaf has been hammering home her foundational belief that the mind is in control of the brain, and indeed, that your thoughts are the key to everything in life, a bit like 42 in “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”. According to Dr Leaf, your thoughts are the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

Dr Leaf has attempted to prove her point through quotes from neuroscientists, from her own teaching, and from some published research. All she’s ended up proving is that she’s so desperate to prop up the concept that she’ll stoop to cherry-picking articles and massaging quotes. Poor form for a woman who promotes herself as a scientist.

Today’s meme is the spiritual justification of her position, expressed as a lovely little graphic with a verse from Proverbs 4:23. It’s a real Pinterest special. Most people would look at the pretty picture and accept the quote without question. It’s good marketing for sure.

Screen Shot 2016-06-24 at 5.51.29 PM

But if you strip back all of the eye-candy, is the meme still worth posting? Is Dr Leaf’s meme an accurate depiction of what Proverbs 4:23 truly means.

First things first, is the meme an accurate quote? In this case, it is. The Good News Bible really does say, “Be careful how you think; your life is shaped by your thoughts.” (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+4%3A23&version=GNT)

So the next question is, is the Good News version an accurate translation of the scripture? It’s interesting that nearly every other translation doesn’t mention thoughts and thinking at all:

New International Version = Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.
New Living Translation = Guard your heart above all else, for it determines the course of your life.
English Standard Version = Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.
New American Standard Bible = Watch over your heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life.
King James Bible = Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.
Holman Christian Standard Bible = Guard your heart above all else, for it is the source of life.
International Standard Version = Above everything else guard your heart, because from it flow the springs of life.
NET Bible = Guard your heart with all vigilance, for from it are the sources of life.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English = Keep your heart with all caution because from it is the outgoing of life.
GOD’S WORD® Translation = Guard your heart more than anything else, because the source of your life flows from it.
JPS Tanakh 1917 = Above all that thou guardest keep thy heart; For out of it are the issues of life.
New American Standard 1977 = Watch over your heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life.
Jubilee Bible 2000 = Above all else, guard thy heart; for out of it flows the issues of life.
King James 2000 Bible = Keep your heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.
American King James Version = Keep your heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.
American Standard Version = Keep thy heart with all diligence; For out of it are the issues of life.
Douay-Rheims Bible = With all watchfulness keep thy heart, because life issueth out from it.
Darby Bible Translation = Keep thy heart more than anything that is guarded; for out of it are the issues of life.
English Revised Version = Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.
Webster’s Bible Translation = Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.
World English Bible = Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it is the wellspring of life.
Young’s Literal Translation = Above every charge keep thy heart, For out of it are the outgoings of life.

Nearly every other English translation refers to “the heart”. Obviously not the literal “heart”, that muscular blood pump in the middle of our chests, but the metaphoric heart, the human soul. So even on majority rules, the Good News Bible translation is looking shaky. Is there any further corroborating evidence to help us understand which version is the most correct?

The answer would be in the original Hebrew. The word for ‘heart’ in Proverbs 4:23 is לֵב (leb), and more broadly is a word relating to the soul, ‘inner man, mind, will, heart, understanding’ (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3820&t=KJV). In some verses, the word in used in reference to what would be considered thoughts, but in many others, the word is used to describe a person’s feelings or motivations, or attitudes, or even specific intelligence and manual skills. For example:

Genesis 17:17: “Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?”
Genesis 42:28: “And he said unto his brethren, My money is restored; and, lo, it is even in my sack: and their heart failed them, and they were afraid, saying one to another, What is this that God hath done unto us?”
Exodus 8:32: “And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.”
Exodus 35:35: “Them hath he filled with wisdom of heart, to work all manner of work, of the engraver, and of the cunning workman, and of the embroiderer, in blue, and in purple, in scarlet, and in fine linen, and of the weaver, even of them that do any work, and of those that devise cunning work.”

So it appears the Good News Bible is actually a poor translation. Again, this is an example of Dr Leaf cherry picking something that suits her theory out of a bulk of divergent views. No matter how she tries to sell the concept, the idea that the mind controls your brain and that your thoughts control your destiny is scientifically and scripturally weak. Persistence and good marketing isn’t going to change that.

MIND CHANGES BRAIN? READ THIS …

Screen Shot 2016-06-21 at 9.45.03 PM

They say that if you want something badly enough, you can make it happen … you just have to believe in it to make it work.  Wish upon a star, believe in yourself, speak positively, think things into being … it’s the sort of magical thinking that forms the backbone of Hollywood scripts and self-help books everywhere.

But that’s not how science works.  In the real world, believing in something doesn’t make it magically happen.  Holding onto a belief and trying to make it work leads to bias and error.  Instead of finding the truth, you end up fooling yourself into believing a lie.

This is the trap that Dr Leaf has fallen into as she continually tries to perpetuate the unscientific notion that the mind changes the brain.

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and a self-titled cognitive neuroscientist.  Her philosophical assumptions start with the concept that the mind is separate from and controls the physical brain, and continue to unravel from there.

The problem is that Dr Leaf can’t (or won’t) take a hint.  I’ve discussed the mind-brain link in other blogs in recent times (here and here), but yet Dr Leaf continues to insist that the mind can change the brain.  It’s as if she believes that if she says it for long enough it might actually come true.

Today, Dr Leaf claimed that “newly published” research from Yale claimed that, “Individuals who hold negative beliefs about aging are more likely to have brain changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease.”  Except that this research is not really new since it was published last year, and Dr Leaf tried to draw the same tenuous conclusions then as she’s doing now.

She quoted from the interview that one of the authors did for the PR puff piece that promoted the scientific article:

“We believe it is the stress generated by the negative beliefs about aging that individuals sometimes internalize from society that can result in pathological brain changes,” said Levy. “Although the findings are concerning, it is encouraging to realize that these negative beliefs about aging can be mitigated and positive beliefs about aging can be reinforced, so that the adverse impact is not inevitable”.

Well, the issue is clearly settled then, all over bar the shouting.  Except that the promotional article doesn’t go through all of the flaws in the methodology of the study or the alternative explanations to their findings.  Like that the study by Levy, “A Culture-Brain Link: Negative Age Stereotypes Predict Alzheimer’s Disease Biomarkers” [1], only showed 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 certainly didn’t show that stress, or a person’s attitude to aging, in anyway causes Alzheimer Dementia.  And they didn’t correct for genetics in this study which is the major contributor to the risk of developing Alzheimer’s [2].  So no matter what Dr Leaf or the Yale PR department thinks, the results of the study mean very little.

But why let the lack of ACTUAL EVIDENCE get in the way of a good story.

It’s sad to see someone of the standing of Dr Leaf’s shamelessly demoralise themselves, scrambling to defend the indefensible, hoping beyond hope that what they believe will become the truth if they try hard enough.  It doesn’t matter how much Dr Leaf wants to believe that the mind changes the brain, that’s not what science says, and clutching at straws citing weak single studies and tangential press releases isn’t going to alter that.

References
[1]        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).
[2]        Reitz C, Brayne C, Mayeux R. Epidemiology of Alzheimer disease. Nat Rev Neurol 2011 Mar;7(3):137-52.

Prescribing dangerous drugs for a made up disease

Honestly, I don’t know if I can go on much longer.

I feel like every time I approach the wild waters of social media, I find myself drowning in a sea of shameless ignorance.  It’s like a post-modern intellectual zombie apocalypse where brainless morons roam cyberspace, relishing the opportunity to infect the minds of the innocent and gullible with their delusions of expertise.

As I’m sitting here writing, the little angel on my right shoulder is trying to get my attention.  “Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion,” she whispers softly.

Except it’s hard to hear when the little devil on my other shoulder is digging his pitch-fork in my brain and twisting it to make a point.  “But their opinion is crap,” he angrily retorts.

Tonight, the subject of my inner voice’s great debate was the Facebook headline, “ADHD: Drugs to treat disorder could create heart problems for children, researchers say.  Children under 18 who had ADHD and were prescribed methylphenidate were more likely to get an irregular heartbeat in the first two months, researchers said.”

Screen Shot 2016-06-07 at 9.49.38 PM

The little paragraph on Facebook didn’t mention any important facts, like what the article was that they quoted, or that the actual number of events linked with drug were miniscule.

That didn’t stop some clearly stupid people from publically venting their rancid opinions all over social media.

There were the usual paranoid delusions claiming that ADHD is over-diagnosed so that the American Psychiatric Association could get more funding from pharmaceutical companies.  Or that Ritalin has never been properly tested, and that children on Ritalin have been human experiments for the last 30 years.

Then there were all of the old chestnuts too, like ADHD is because of poor parenting or poor diet, or teachers with sub-par intelligence who aren’t challenging their pupils enough.  And who needs Ritalin anyway when all you have to do is stop feeding them artificial flavours and colours, high fructose corn syrup, GMO’s and fast foods.  Better yet, treat them with cannabis.

There were also some brazen displays of intellectual impotence within the heady mix of stupidity, like the people who suggested that children shouldn’t be given ANY drugs unless they’ve got diseases like cancer.  ‘Cause, clearly, paracetamol and penicillin are just as toxic as Ritalin.

Then there was the cherry on top:

“The doctor who came up with ‘ADHD’ and ‘ADD’ confessed on his deathbed that they were made-up diseases.”

Really??  Oh, come on, that’s both pathetic and grossly insulting.  ADHD is a real disease.  It’s been proven by real scientists and real doctors working in real labs and real hospitals.  Yet in the post-modern mind-bubble, an unverified viral meme on social media carries more weight than decades of scientific enquiry by some of the worlds smartest people.

For those of us who aren’t intellectual zombies, there was no death-bed confession about ADHD’s concoction.  According to a fact-check by Snopes.com, the doctor who ‘made up’ ADHD never said ADHD wasn’t real, but only that he thought the biological cause of ADHD was over-estimated.

Those who clearly knew nothing about ADHD or its treatment decided to further perpetuate their ignorance by embellishing and catastrophizing the “heart problems” that the Facebook headline alluded to.  Except that if they had bothered to review the article Facebook was referring to, they would have seen that there really wasn’t anything going on.

According to the article “Cardiovascular safety of methylphenidate among children and young people with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): nationwide self controlled case series study” [1], the only significant heart issue with Ritalin is a condition broadly classified as ‘arrhythmia’, which is medical speak for an irregular heart beat.  However, the peak risk for arrhythmia in the study was in children with congenital heart defects in the first few days of treatment.  For this, the relative risk was 3.49.  That means that a child with an already dodgy heart will have a three and a half times greater risk of an irregular heart rhythm than a child with a normal heart who’s not on Ritalin.  This sounds terrible, but “lies, damn lies and statistics” – in reality, the overall number of children who will actually get an arrhythmia because of Ritalin is still incredibly low because the total number of children who get arrhythmias is incredibly low.  Mathematically speaking, 3.49 x diddly-squat is still diddly-squat.

Besides, all of this is old news.  The current study was simply trying to use a larger source of data to get better statistics on case-reports of the possible effects of Ritalin.  But in the product information of methylphenidate, heart problems are clearly listed as a possible complication.  Because of this, and to ensure that Ritalin isn’t thrown around like candy, only medical specialists like paediatricians and child psychiatrists can start a child on medications like Ritalin.

So the reaction to the new study is nothing more than a storm in a tea-cup, but it clearly demonstrates the stigma and ignorance towards ADHD that, I’m ashamed to say, still exists in our modern, progressive society.

Is it any wonder then that parents actively avoid getting an assessment for their struggling children, or do everything they can to avoid Ritalin even when they have a clear-cut diagnosis of ADHD?  ADHD causes enough suffering by itself, but the baseless and incoherent ranting of the uninformed masses adds stifling layers of unnecessary stigma and misery to those who deserve our support, not misleading advice or irrational judgement.

References

[1]        Shin JY, Roughead EE, Park BJ, Pratt NL. Cardiovascular safety of methylphenidate among children and young people with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): nationwide self controlled case series study. BMJ 2016;353:i2550.

Dr Caroline Leaf and the mind-brain revisited again

Screen Shot 2016-06-01 at 8.05.14 PM

Dr Leaf’s theme for the week is the mind-brain link. In the last few days, Dr Leaf has posted memes claiming that the brain is seperate from, and subservient to, the mind. Despite evidence to the contrary, she continued the same theme today.

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and a self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. Her teaching is strongly influenced by one of her foundational philosophical positions; that the mind (the intellect, will and emotions) controls the body, which includes the brain. While this idea may be popular with philosophers, it’s not with neuroscientists.

Not that this bothers Dr Leaf, of course, since she’s not really a neuroscientist.

Today’s meme is more or less exactly the same as what she claimed over the previous couple of days, except today’s version is more verbose.

She said,

“Mind directs what the brain does, with the mind being our intellect, will and emotions (our soul realm). This is an interesting concept posing huge challenges and implications for our lives because what we do with our mind impacts our spirit and our body. We use our mind to pretty much do everything.”

At this point, I’m having a strong and nauseating sense of deja vu.

I know I’m going to be repeating myself, but to reinforce the message, lets go through Dr Leaf’s meme to show that it hasn’t gotten any righter with repetition.

“(The) Mind directs what the brain does” … The relationship of the mind to the brain is like the relationship of music and a musical instrument. Without a musical instrument, there is no music. In the same way, the mind is a product of the brain. It’s not independent from the brain. Without the brain, there is no mind. Indeed, changes to the structure or function of the brain often results in changes to the mind. Yesterday I used the example of medications. Caffeine makes us more alert, alcohol makes us sleepy or disinhibited. Marijuana makes it’s users relaxed and hungry, and sometimes paranoid. Pathological gambling, hypersexuality, and compulsive shopping together sound like a party weekend in Las Vegas, but they’re all side effects linked with Dopamine Agonist Drugs, which are used to treat Parkinson’s disease. If a pill affecting the brain can change the function of the mind, then it’s clear that the mind does not direct what the brain does.

“This is an interesting concept posing huge challenges and implications for our lives because what we do with our mind impacts our spirit and our body” … The relationship between our body, mind and spirit is interesting. I’ve written about this before in an essay on the triune being and dualism. But there are no great challenges here or implications here. If anything, knowing that our thoughts don’t have any real power over us is incredibly freeing. Rather than increasing our psychological distress in trying to suppress or control our thoughts, we can step back and focus on committed actions based on our values.

“We use our mind to pretty much do everything” … Actually, we don’t. Much of what we do, say, and even perceive, is related to functions of our brain that are entirely subconscious. This idea is summed up very nicely by Dr David Eagleman, best-selling author and a neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas;

” … take the vast, unconscious, automated processes that run under the hood of conscious awareness. We have discovered that the large majority of the brain’s activity takes place at this low level: the conscious part – the “me” that flickers to life when you wake up in the morning – is only a tiny bit of the operations. This understanding has given us a better understanding of the complex multiplicity that makes a person. A person is not a single entity of a single mind: a human is built of several parts, all of which compete to steer the ship of state. As a consequence, people are nuanced, complicated, contradictory. We act in ways that are sometimes difficult to detect by simple introspection. To know ourselves increasingly requires careful studies of the neural substrate of which we are composed.” https://goo.gl/uFKF47

So no matter which way Dr Leaf says it, it simply isn’t true that the mind controls the brain. As I said in my previous post, this is a fatal flaw for Dr Leaf’s teaching. That she keeps using this trope is entirely her choice and her right, but it certainly doesn’t aid her reputation as a credible neuroscientist.

Dr Caroline Leaf and the mind-brain revisited

 

Screen Shot 2016-05-29 at 10.25.58 PM

Dr Leaf has been promoting her food philosophy lately, but yesterday and today, she has come back to one of her favourite neuroscience topics.

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and a self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. It’s her belief that “as triune beings made in God’s image, we are spirit, mind(soul) and body – and our brain being part of the body does the bidding of the mind …”.

This is one of the flaws that terminally weakens her teaching, and leads to scientifically irrational statements like yesterday’s meme:

“God has designed the mind as seperate from the brain. The brain simply stores the information from the mind and your mind controls your brain.”

On what basis does she make such a claim? I’ve reviewed the scripture relating to the triune being hypothesis. The Bible doesn’t say that our mind is seperate to our brain, nor that it dominates and controls our brain. Dr Leaf’s statement yesterday is simply assumption based on more assumption. It’s like an intellectual house of cards. The slightest puff of scrutiny and the whole thing comes crashing down on itself.

Screen Shot 2016-05-30 at 8.06.38 PM

To try and reinforce her message today, Dr Leaf quoted Dr Jeffrey Schwartz, psychiatrist and neuroscientist, “The mind has the ability to causally affect and change pathways in the brain.” Jeffrey M. Schwartz is an OCD researcher from the UCLA School of Medicine. It appears he lets his Buddhist anti-materialism philosophy cloud his scientific judgement.

Well Dr Leaf, I see your expert and I raise you. Dr David Eagleman is an author and neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas. He has written more than 100 scientific papers on neuroscience, and has published numerous best-selling non-fiction books including ‘Incognito, The Secret Lives of the Brain’ which was a New York Times best-seller. He isn’t an irrational anti-materialist.

He said, “It is clear at this point that we are irrevocably tied to the 3 pounds of strange computational material found within our skulls. The brain is utterly alien to us, and yet our personalities, hopes, fears and aspirations all depend on the integrity of this biological tissue. How do we know this? Because when the brain changes, we change. Our personality, decision-making, risk-aversion, the capacity to see colours or name animals – all these can change, in very specific ways, when the brain is altered by tumours, strokes, drugs, disease or trauma. As much as we like to think about the body and mind living separate existences, the mental is not separable from the physical.” https://goo.gl/uFKF47

This statement makes much more logical sense. The functions of the mind are all vulnerable to changes in the brain. Take medications as one particular example. Caffeine makes us more alert, alcohol makes us sleepy or disinhibited. Marijuana makes it’s users relaxed and hungry, and sometimes paranoid. Pathological gambling, hypersexuality, and compulsive shopping together sound like a party weekend in Las Vegas, but they’re all side effects linked with Dopamine Agonist Drugs, which are used to treat Parkinson’s disease. There are many other examples of many other physical and chemical changes in the brain that affect the mind.

Conversely, there is limited evidence of the effect of the mind on the brain. Sure, there is some evidence of experienced meditators who have larger areas in their brain dedicated to what they meditate on, but the same effect has been shown in other parts of the brain unrelated to our conscious awareness.

But since the mind is a function of the brain, whatever effect the ‘mind’ has on the brain is, in reality, just the brain effecting itself.

So Dr Leaf can cherry-pick from her favourite authors all she wants, but quoting a supportive neuroscientist doesn’t diminish the crushing weight of scientific evidence which opposes her philosophical assumptions. If she wants to continue to proffer such statements, she would be better served to come up with some actual evidence, not just biased opinion.