Are the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Big Pharma in Bed

Nora Volkow, M.D.

At the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in San Francisco in May, Nora Volkow, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) was just brimming with a lot 'o news about the square of the hypotenuse. No, I'm sorry, I mean about how much more we know about drug abuse because of brain imagining techniques. This new knowledge she spoke of was summarized in the Psychiatric News, the newspaper of the APA, in the June 21 issue.

The gist of the story was that the drugs themselves impair certain brain circuits, which must then be somehow strengthened through treatment.

One of the points she raised is that drugs like methamphetamine cause dopamine receptor signaling to be decreased in the pre-frontal cortex - the part of the brain known to be crucial in executive control (decision making). Thus, the normal brakes on someone indulging in something are supposedly damaged.

If this be true, one might think that she would be up in arms about the widespread, indiscriminate use of amphethamines like Adderall in children. At the very least, a high percentage of ADHD diagnoses are given to kids suffering from the effects of living in a chaotic environments of one sort or another, and for whom family therapy would be the most important treatment. Perhaps there are some cases of ADHD that are due to neurotoxin exposure or something like that in which the benefits of the use of stimulants outweigh the risks - a questionable assertion itself since the average academic gain for ADHD-diagnosed kids on stimulants is all of about three whole months.

For some reason, however, while she acknowledges in other venues that prescription drug abuse, including that of stimulants, is a major problem, she continues to maintain that stimulants are safe and effective when used for ADHD.

She does admit in one article that ritalin basically works the same way in the brain as cocaine! So is she saying that there is some point at which the alleged adverse affects on executive functioning she was going on and on about at the APA magically become inconsequential?

And yet, she also spends some of her time exaggerating the adverse effects of the devil weed , marijuana, in a campaign to keep it illegal.  It seems there is a double standard she has towards the risks of the drugs sold by Pharma compared to those that are not.

How much worse than the physiological effects of pot, one might ask, are the adverse effects on potheads of jailing them and turning them into felons for the rest of their lives. Or the risks to black kids? They are no more likely than white kids to smoke pot, but are four times more likely to be arrested for it. These are not adverse effects?

"Think about it: Do you want a nation where your young people are stoned?" she was quoted as asking.  I hate to break this to her, but any kid who wants to get marijuana already can. It's like one of the biggest cash crops in several states.

I don't think she has come out in favor of prohibition against alcohol or tobacco, two substances with far more potential adverse physiological effects than pot ever thought about having, so that she might at least be consistent. Does she think that young people aren't already getting "stoned" on booze? As mentioned, she does not seem to be all that concerned about the adverse effects of the stimulants - that she herself describes - when used for legal and "proper" uses. More on that in a sec. Nor does she mention that prescribed stimulants are diverted to "non-medical" uses far more often than even opiates!

It seems almost like she thinks the risks of drugs are entirely dependent on whether or not drug companies make money from them.

I am not surprised by any of this. Many years ago I listened to a talk from someone from NIDA about the horrible effects of dopamine depletion in the brains of regular amphetamine users.  I thought about getting up and asking a question, but someone beat me to it. "Doesn't this happen in kids taking stimulants for ADHD?" the fellow asked. 

The answer? "But the drugs work so well!" As if that were an answer. Now I don't know if NIDA and Big Pharma are in bed together, but that answer sure made me wonder about it.

Another truely breathtakingly bizarre point Volkow made at the APA, as reported in the newspaper (unless the journalist got it wrong):

"Among both lab animals and humans, voluntary initiation of drug use leads to subsequent loss of control and development of addiction among 10% of subjects. The lab rats and mice are uesful for refuting old stereotypes.

Some people still consider addiction moral turpitude, she said. 'But how can you develop the same phenotype in a rat, who have no moral precepts?'"

This argument is a bit of a straw man, since thoughtful mental health professionals these days are not so much concerned with the issue of sin, but more with the question of whether or not drug abuse is due to deliberate and purposeful self-destructiveness. The fact that the 10% figure applies to both rats and people seems to argue for some sort of genetic cause, does it not?

But rats having the same phenotype as human beings? Really?!? I personally have never met any rat that understands the negative effects that a drug might be having on it, or that is able to anticipate the future consequences of continuing to imbibe. People do have these abilities. Furthermore, as I have already pointed out in various venues, scientists still have yet to locate any rats that hide bottles of alcohol.

And now back to that whole executive functioning thing. Methinks she is grossly exaggerating certain of the risks from drugs used entirely to get high. (Anyone remember the scourge of "crack babies?"  Turns out that was all one big - and racist - lie).

Seems to me the supposed "impairments" in executive functioning in addicts that she talks about are awfully specific and limited. In the past, a lot of cocaine addicts, for example, used to burglarize houses and fence the goods to support their habits without even getting caught. It would seem to me that quite a bit of executive functioning is being exhibited in that endeavor. Imagine what master criminals they might be if they had unimpaired executive functioning. It boggles the mind!

And if addicts do have a sort of brain damage, how can some of them suddenly just stop using after attending just one meeting of a 12 step program, and then stay sober by continuing to be in the program? Not as many as we'd like, but still many do. The 12 steps were based originally on techniques used by Protestants to get others to adopt their religious beliefs, not treat brain dysfunction. So how is it that what is essentially a change in cognitive beliefs can fix a brain overnight?

I have argued that many of the brain changes observed in MRI studies are actually conditioned responses due to neural plastic changes in brain structure and function in response to the social environment (No, not all of the observed changes. Some can indeed be due to drug effects, trauma, or disease. Duh). The conditioned changes can indeed happen in relatively short time frames. But literally overnight? Please.

Hey Slapass What Are You Supposed to Be Doing Right Now Taint This

Hey fathead!

What are you doing here, anyway? Are you malingering, procrastinating, wasting your precious gifts, face deep in a laptop when you could be face deep in the lap of a fine young man or woman, ignoring your garden, ignoring your children, ignoring that strange man at the front door with the funny tic in his eye and the metallic smile, wishing you were somewhere else, wishing you could run off and join the circus, wishing that the world would stop and grant you a few more hours, biding your time until the muse comes up and bites you on the perineum, wasting your time until the oceans rise and wash over you and your uncompleted manuscripts?

Go on, get outta here! If I catch you on Twitter later this evening, there will be hell to pay, I assure you.

Are you still here? Do I have to take the switch to you?

Go away. Your naughtiness will be recorded in the annals for all to read and you will be mocked and people will throw potatoes at your head. And maybe bricks and nails.

I'm getting really angry now.

Go and make beautiful art, muttonheaded buffoon! The world is mooning over you, prematurely. The celebrity rags have already prepared their articles.

I am going to get on a plane now and whup the daylights out of your porkchop ass. Get ready, dinkums. When I arrive, I expect to see a first draft. Or hear your fine composition on the peee-a-no. Or taste your cake baked in the shape of the state of Texas. Or see the tree that you have carved into a fine replica of Abraham Lincoln. Or pet the little knitted Zombunny that you have stitched in your spare time.

Go now and do what you are meant to do.    

The Waters of the Afterlife Are Filled with Man Killing Fish

I recently had a conversation with Littlest Son, now age 6. Somehow we got on to speaking of the meaning of life, and where he might have been before he graced us with his presence on the planet.

Mom: Where were you before you got here?

Son: In the Before Place. It's just grass. Grass and lots of darkness, and people talking in the darkness.

Mom: Babies about to be born—they're the ones who are talking?

Son: No, there are no ages in the Before Place. Well, actually, everyone is five years old.

Mom: What about life after you die—do you think there is an afterlife? What's it like there?

Son: How would I know?! I am not dead yet!

Mom: But what do you think it might be like there?

Son: Oh, it is all trees and grass and flowers! Everything is very beautiful. And peaceful. Half of the world is grass and trees, and the other half of the world is water. The water is blue. It's all beautiful!

Mom: And?

Son: And the part of the world that is water is totally filled with sharks.

Mom: Sharks?

Son: Oh yeah, sharks.

Mom: So, in the afterlife, you can't even swim because the water is completely shark-infested?

Son: Yes, but this is only including those sharks who have died. Not all sharks.

Mom: So, a reduced number of sharks?

Son: Yes.

Mom: What about the bunnies? Aren't there any bunnies in the afterlife? Butterflies? Nice things like that?

Son: Nope, only sharks!

In the category of "Where on Earth did we come from?" you might also like The Oeuf Room.

Is Your Psychiatrist Committing Malpractice Even if Doing What a Lot of Other Psychiatrists Are Doing

My malpractice carrier, which is physician owned and operated, recommends taking one of their seminars or online courses on different aspects of medical malpractice every year, and gives those policy owners who do a 10% discount on their yearly premium. 

The course I took this year was on misdiagnosis.

The course was not really geared to psychiatrists at all, but it seemed to me that the general advice still applies to them. However,  in my experience the advice is not clearly being followed by a lot of my colleagues these days. If these recommendations are indeed valid, and I certainly agree that they are, a lot of psychiatrists are getting away with gross negligence. 

Statistics show, by the way, that doctors are actually far more likely to get sued for something they did not do wrong than they are to get sued for actual malpractice. Isn’t that bizarre?

Some of the advice in the malpractice course concerns two major criticisms of my colleagues that I have written about extensively on this blog and in my last book: relying on symptom checklists, and relying on a diagnoses made by a prior clinician. Truly frightening.

So, as a public service, here’s some information from the course that psychiatric patients might find useful if they are considering suing a psychiatrist for malpractice. From MedRisk (Medical Risk Management, Inc.).

Misdiagnoses were more likely to be considered negligent in malpractice suits. Misdiagnoses were more than three times more likely to result in serious patient injury than medication errors.

2.      Multiple case law decisions have consistently held that the patient has no duty to volunteer information the physician does not ask about, and the patient’s only duty is to answer the physician’s questions honestly. (A smoker actually has no duty to tell his cardiologist about the smoking if the cardiologist does not ask!)

3.      Review any written history questionnaires with the patient to make sure the information is accurate. Patients who are sick or in pain can’t be relied on to even read the questions carefully, let alone provide thoughtful answers. Many patients will simply respond with a “No” to all prior diseases without reading the list and some patients, as discussed below, may not even be able to read or understand the questions. For example, the patient with a known history of high blood pressure may answer “No” when asked if he has ever been diagnosed with hypertension simply because he doesn’t know that they are the same thing. So make sure that your questionnaires are worded as simply as possible. Even then, review the responses verbally with the patient and make sure that you really do have a useful medical history. 

      

      Most healthcare instructional materials provided to patients are written on a 10th grade reading level or higher. Yet the reading level of the average patient is 4.6 grade levels below the last year of school completed, which means that a typical high school graduate reads at around an 8th-grade level. Further, the average Medicaid recipient reads at less than a 6th grade level, with more than one-third reading below the 4th grade level.

4.      Hear the patient outwhile taking the history and do not interrupt. Physicians are often overworked, overbooked, and scrambling to stay on schedule. This can leave them anxious to get to the point of a patient visit. One study found that physicians on average interrupted patients only 18 seconds into the explanation of the reason for the visit. This is significant because patients typically have a list of several complaints or observations they would like to discuss, yet rarely get beyond the first or second before being interrupted. Cutting the patient off before you’ve heard him out is called “premature closure,” and the main problem with this approach is that it assumes that the presenting complaint carries the most medical significance.

This is often not the case because the patient experiencing multiple symptoms may not know which are the most important, nor which may be related to the same underlying cause. For example, the patient who reports transient blurriness in her right eye may not realize that the simultaneous tingling sensation she feels in her right arm and leg are related. Premature closure typically involves a patient with a serious but uncommon diagnosis who presents with symptoms suggestive of a less serious and more common diagnosis.  

Contributing to premature closure is a general human tendency to hear what we expect to hear, and mentally filter out as extraneous any details that we don’t expect. Fortunately, the main assumption underlying premature closure—that patients will talk endlessly if allowed—appears to be incorrect. Several studies have found that patients who are allowed to list all their concerns without interruption rarely speak for more than two minutes. Allowing the patient those two minutes not only prevents premature closure, but can actually save you time by allowing you to focus on the most important symptoms first. It also avoids those “Oh, by the way…” conversations in which the patient brings up a new problem just as you’re headed for the door.

And finally:

5.      Every doctor owes a duty of making an independent assessment of the patient, utilizing the full range of his or her clinical skills, regardless of whether you’re a primary care provider or a sub-specialty consultant. If you’re an FP [family practitioner] and receive a specialty ob-gyn report informing you that a 60-year-old woman who had a hysterectomy 15 years ago is pregnant, you’d obviously recognize that you’d received the wrong patient’s report or that some other mix-up had occurred. Yet far less blatant errors occur all the time in the exchange of patient information, and you should always be mindful of that possibility any time the specialist’s opinion doesn’t fit your clinical finding or the patient fails to respond to treatment as expected.

Clearly, the same can be said for not entirely relying on the diagnosis of some other practitioner even  in the same specialty, who may or may not have done a good diagnostic workup, but instead doing one’s own independent assessment. If a  psychiatrist prescribes something to you after initally talking to you for just fifteen or twenty minutes, find another doctor.

Are you alexithymic

On Friday, I'm going to be posting about alexithymia in us and in our characters. Alexithymia means "without words for emotions" but is a bit more complicated than that. Before I talk too much about it, though, how about heading to this online questionnaire and seeing if you have any alexithymic tendencies? (I've taken it myself. A box will pop up asking if you want to open or save; just click "open" and you can take the test, and at the end your score and its interpretation will appear). It takes about 3 minutes.

No need to share your score unless you really want to. It's just something to think about. And on Friday, I'll talk about what alexithymia is really about--and what writers should know about it when they're writing characters.

And, as it's Monday, don't forget to stop by Lydia's blog for her Medical Monday post, and then hop over to Laura's blog for her Mental Health Monday post!