Tag: neuroscience

  • The Brain, the Criminal and the Courts

    “if there is a disjunct between what the neuroscience shows and what the behavior shows, you’ve got to believe the behavior.”

    8.30.2019

    On March 30, 1981, 25-year-old John W. Hinckley Jr. shot President Ronald Reagan and three other people. The following year, he went on trial for his crimes.

    Defense attorneys argued that Hinckley was insane, and they pointed to a trove of evidence to back their claim. Their client had a history of behavioral problems. He was obsessed with the actress Jodie Foster, and devised a plan to assassinate a president to impress her. He hounded Jimmy Carter. Then he targeted Reagan.

    In a controversial courtroom twist, Hinckley’s defense team also introduced scientific evidence: a computerized axial tomography (CAT) scan that suggested their client had a “shrunken,” or atrophied, brain. Initially, the judge didn’t want to allow it. The scan didn’t prove that Hinckley had schizophrenia, experts said — but this sort of brain atrophy was more common among schizophrenics than among the general population.

    It helped convince the jury to find Hinckley not responsible by reason of insanity.

    Nearly 40 years later, the neuroscience that influenced Hinckley’s trial has advanced by leaps and bounds — particularly because of improvements in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the invention of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which lets scientists look at blood flows and oxygenation in the brain without hurting it. Today neuroscientists can see what happens in the brain when a subject recognizes a loved one, experiences failure, or feels pain.

    Despite this explosion in neuroscience knowledge, and notwithstanding Hinckley’s successful defense, “neurolaw” hasn’t had a tremendous impact on the courts — yet. But it is coming. Attorneys working civil cases introduce brain imaging ever more routinely to argue that a client has or has not been injured. Criminal attorneys, too, sometimes argue that a brain condition mitigates a client’s responsibility. Lawyers and judges are participating in continuing education programs to learn about brain anatomy and what MRIs and EEGs and all those other brain tests actually show.

    Most of these lawyers and judges want to know such things as whether brain imaging could establish a defendant’s mental age, supply more dependable lie-detection tests or reveal conclusively when someone is experiencing pain and when they are malingering (which would help resolve personal injury cases). Neuroscience researchers aren’t there yet, but they are working hard to unearth correlations that might help — looking to see which parts of the brain engage in a host of situations.

    Progress has been incremental but steady. Though neuroscience in the courts remains rare, “we’re seeing way more of it in the courts than we used to,” says Judge Morris B. Hoffman, of Colorado’s 2nd Judicial District Court. “And I think that’s going to continue.”

    A Mounting Count of Cases

    Criminal law has looked to the human mind and mental states since the seventeenth century, says legal scholar Deborah Denno of Fordham University School of Law. In earlier centuries, courts blamed aberrant behavior on “the devil” — and only later, starting in the early twentieth century, did they begin recognizing cognitive deficits and psychological diagnoses made through Freudian analysis and other approaches.

    Neuroscience represents a tantalizing next step: evidence directly concerned with the physical state of the brain and its quantifiable functions.

    There is no systematic count of all the cases, civil and criminal, in which neuroscientific evidence such as brain scans has been introduced. It’s almost certainly most common in civil cases, says Kent Kiehl, a neuroscientist at the University of New Mexico and a principal investigator at the nonprofit Mind Research Network, which focuses on applying neuroimaging to the study of mental illness. In civil proceedings, says Kiehl, who frequently consults with attorneys to help them understand neuroimaging science, MRIs are common if there’s a question of brain injury, and a significant judgment at stake.

    In criminal courts, MRIs are most often used to assess brain injury or trauma in capital cases (eligible for the death penalty) “to ensure that there’s not something obviously neurologically wrong, which could alter the trajectory of the case,” Kiehl says. If a murder defendant’s brain scan reveals a tumor in the frontal lobe, for instance, or evidence of frontotemporal dementia, that could inject just enough doubt to make it hard for a court to arrive at a guilty verdict (as brain atrophy did during Hinckley’s trial). But these tests are expensive.

    Some scholars have tried to quantify how often neuroscience has been used in criminal cases. A 2015 analysis by Denno identified 800 neuroscience-involved criminal cases over a 20-year period. It also found increases in the use of brain evidence year over year, as did a 2016 study by Nita Farahany, a legal scholar and ethicist at Duke University.

    Farahany’s latest count, detailed in an article about neurolaw she coauthored in the Annual Review of Criminology, found more than 2,800 recorded legal opinions between 2005 and 2015 where criminal defendants in the US had used neuroscience — everything from medical records to neuropsychological testing to brain scans — as part of their defense. About 20 percent of defendants who presented neuroscientific evidence got some favorable outcome, be it a more generous deadline to file paperwork, a new hearing or a reversal.

    But even the best studies like these include only reported cases, which represent “a tiny, tiny fraction” of trials, says Owen Jones, a scholar of law and biological sciences at Vanderbilt University. (Jones also directs the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, which partners neuroscientists and legal scholars to do neurolaw research and help the legal system navigate the science.) Most cases, he says, result in plea agreements or settlements and never make it to trial, and there’s no feasible way to track how neuroscience is used in those instances.

    The Science of States of Mind

    Even as some lawyers are already introducing neuroscience into legal proceedings, researchers are trying to help the legal system separate the wheat from the chaff, through brain-scanning experiments and legal analysis. These help to identify where and how neuroscience can and can’t be helpful. The work is incremental, but is steadily marching ahead.

    One MacArthur network team at Stanford, led by neuroscientist Anthony Wagner, has looked at ways to use machine learning (a form of artificial intelligence) to analyze fMRI scans to identify when someone is looking at photos they recognize as being from their own lives. Test subjects were placed in a scanner and shown a series of pictures, some collected from cameras they had been wearing around their own necks, others collected from cameras worn by others.

    Tracking changes in oxygenation to follow patterns in blood flow — a proxy for where neurons are firing more frequently — the team’s machine-learning algorithms correctly identified whether subjects were viewing images from their own lives, or someone else’s, more than 90 percent of the time.

    “It’s a proof of concept, at this stage, but in theory it’s a biomarker of recognition,” Jones says. “You could imagine that could have a lot of different legal implications” — such as one day helping to assess the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness memory.

    Other researchers are using fMRI to try to identify differences in the brain between a knowing state of mind and a reckless state of mind, important legal concepts that can have powerful effects on the severity of criminal sentences.

    To explore the question, Gideon Yaffe of the Yale Law School, neuroscientist Read Montague of Virginia Tech and colleagues used fMRI to brain-scan study participants as they considered whether to carry a suitcase through a checkpoint. All were told — with varying degrees of certainty — that the case might contain contraband. Those informed that there was 100 percent certainty that they were carrying contraband were deemed to be in a knowing state of mind; those given a lower level of certainty were classified as being in the law’s definition of a reckless state of mind. Using machine-learning algorithms to read fMRI scans, the scientists could reliably distinguish between the two states.

    Neuroscientists also hope to better understand the biological correlates of recidivism — Kiehl, for instance, has analyzed thousands of fMRI and structural MRI scans of inmates in high-security prisons in the US in order to tell whether the brains of people who committed or were arrested for new crimes look different than the brains of people who weren’t. Getting a sense of an offender’s likelihood of committing a new crime in the future is crucial to successful rehabilitation of prisoners, he says.

    Others are studying the concept of mental age. A team led by Yale and Weill Cornell Medical College neuroscientist B.J. Casey used fMRI to look at whether, in differing circumstances, young adults’ brains function more like minors’ brains or more like those of older adults — and discovered that it often depended on emotional state. Greater insight into the brain’s maturation process could have relevance for juvenile justice reform, neurolaw scholars say, and for how we treat young adults, who are in a transitional period.

    The Jury Is Still Out

    It remains to be seen if all this research will yield actionable results. In 2018, Hoffman, who has been a leader in neurolaw research, wrote a paper discussing potential breakthroughs and dividing them into three categories: near term, long term and “never happening.” He predicted that neuroscientists are likely to improve existing tools for chronic pain detection in the near future, and in the next 10 to 50 years he believes they’ll reliably be able to detect memories and lies, and to determine brain maturity.

    But brain science will never gain a full understanding of addiction, he suggested, or lead courts to abandon notions of responsibility or free will (a prospect that gives many philosophers and legal scholars pause).

    Many realize that no matter how good neuroscientists get at teasing out the links between brain biology and human behavior, applying neuroscientific evidence to the law will always be tricky. One concern is that brain studies ordered after the fact may not shed light on a defendant’s motivations and behavior at the time a crime was committed — which is what matters in court. Another concern is that studies of how an average brain works do not always provide reliable information on how a specific individual’s brain works.

    “The most important question is whether the evidence is legally relevant. That is, does it help answer a precise legal question?” says Stephen J. Morse, a scholar of law and psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. He is in the camp who believe that neuroscience will never revolutionize the law, because “actions speak louder than images,” and that in a legal setting, “if there is a disjunct between what the neuroscience shows and what the behavior shows, you’ve got to believe the behavior.” He worries about the prospect of “neurohype,” and attorneys who overstate the scientific evidence.

    Some say that neuroscience won’t change the fundamental problems the law concerns itself with — “the giant questions that we’ve been asking each other for 2,000 years,” as Hoffman puts it — questions about the nature of human responsibility, or the purpose of punishment.

    But in day-to-day courtroom life, such big-picture, philosophical worries might not matter, Kiehl says.

    “If there are two or three papers that support that the evidence has a sound scientific basis, published in good journals, by reputable academics, then lawyers are going to want to use it.”

    This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews. Sign up for the newsletter.

    Knowable Magazine | Annual Reviews

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Listening to ketamine

    Listening to ketamine

    The fast-acting drug offers a new way to treat depression and fathom its origins. Recent approval of a nasal spray promises to expand access, but much remains unknown about long-term use and the potential for abuse.

    At 32, Raquel Bennett was looking for a reason to live. She’d struggled with severe depression for more than a decade, trying multiple antidepressants and years of talk therapy. The treatment helped, but not enough to make it seem worth living with a debilitating mental illness, she says. “I was desperate.”

    In 2002, following a friend’s suggestion, Bennett received an injection of ketamine, an anesthetic and psychedelic party drug also known as Special K. During her first ketamine trip, Bennett hallucinated that God inserted a giant golden key into her ear, turning on her brain. “It was as if I was living in a dark house and suddenly the lights came on,” she says. “Suddenly everything seemed illuminated.”

    The drug lifted Bennett’s depression and dispelled her thoughts of suicide within minutes. The effect lasted for several months, and, she says, the respite saved her life. She was fascinated by the drug’s rapid effects and went on to earn a doctoral degree in psychology, writing her dissertation about ketamine. Today, she works at a clinic in Berkeley, California, that specializes in using ketamine to treat depression. “This medicine works differently and better than any other medication I’ve tried,” she says.

    When Bennett experimented with ketamine, the notion of using a psychedelic rave drug for depression was still decidedly fringe. Since the first clinical trials in the early 2000s, however, dozens of studies have shown that a low dose of ketamine delivered via IV can relieve the symptoms of depression, including thoughts of suicide, within hours.

    Even a low dose can have intense side effects, such as the sensation of being outside one’s body, vivid hallucinations, confusion and nausea. The antidepressant effects of ketamine typically don’t last more than a week or two. But the drug appears to work where no others have — in the roughly 30 percent of people with major depression who, like Bennett, don’t respond to other treatments. It also works fast, a major advantage for suicidal patients who can’t wait weeks for traditional antidepressants to kick in.

    “When you prescribe Prozac, you have to convince people that it’s worth taking a medication for several weeks,” says John Krystal, a psychiatrist and neuroscientist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. “With ketamine, patients may feel better that day, or by the next morning.”

    The buzz around ketamine can drown out just how little is known about the drug. In the April 2017 JAMA Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association published an analysis of the evidence for ketamine treatment noting that there are few published data on the safety of repeated use, although studies of ketamine abusers — who typically use much higher doses — show that the drug can cause memory loss and bladder damage. Most clinical trials of the low dose used for depression have looked at only a single dose, following up on patients for just a week or two, so scientists don’t know if it’s safe to take the drug repeatedly over long periods. But that’s exactly what might be necessary to keep depression at bay.

    The analysis also warned about ketamine’s well-established potential for abuse. Used recreationally, large doses of the drug are known to be addictive — there’s some evidence that ketamine can bind to opioid receptors, raising alarms that even low doses could lead to dependence.

    Bennett has now been receiving regular ketamine injections for 17 years, with few negative side effects, she says. She doesn’t consider herself addicted to ketamine because she feels no desire to take it between scheduled appointments. But she does feel dependent on the drug, in the same way that a person with high blood pressure takes medication for hypertension, she says.

    Still, she acknowledges what most clinicians and researchers contend: There simply aren’t enough data to know what the optimal dose for depression is, who is most likely to benefit from ketamine treatment and what long-term treatment should look like. “There’s a lot that we don’t know about how to use this tool,” Bennett says. “What’s the best dose? What’s the best route of administration? How frequently do you give ketamine treatment? What does maintenance look like? Is it OK to use this in an ongoing way?”

    Despite the unknowns, pharmaceutical companies have been racing to bring the first ketamine-based antidepressant to market. In March, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a ketamine-derived nasal spray, esketamine, developed by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. Only two of Janssen’s five phase III trials had shown a benefit greater than taking a placebo. Still, in February an independent panel recommended FDA approval. That makes ketamine the first novel depression drug to hit the market in more than 50 years, notes Carlos Zarate Jr, a psychiatrist who studies mood disorder therapies at the National Institute of Mental Health.

    Thousands of people are already flocking to private clinics like Bennett’s, which provide intravenous ketamine infusions. Because the drug was approved in the 1970s as an anesthetic, physicians can legally provide the drug as an “off-label” depression treatment. Many ketamine clinics have long waiting lists or are so swamped that they aren’t accepting new patients, and Janssen’s nasal spray could rapidly expand access to treatment.

    But some researchers worry that the nasal spray won’t solve many of ketamine’s problems and could create new ones. Although the FDA is requiring that the nasal spray be administered only in a certified doctor’s office or clinic, esketamine is “every bit as habit forming as regular ketamine,” and will be difficult to keep out of the hands of abusers, says Scott Thompson, a neuroscientist at the University of Maryland and a coauthor with Zarate of a 2019 review on fast-acting antidepressants in the Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology. A nasal spray can’t deliver as precise a dose as an IV infusion, Thompson notes. “If someone has got a cold, they’re not going to get the same dose.”

    In Thompson’s view, esketamine holds few advantages over generic ketamine, which costs less than a dollar per dose, although the IV infusions in private clinics often cost hundreds of dollars per visit. Janssen has indicated that each esketamine treatment will range from $590 to $885, not including the costs of administration and observation. 

    Zarate and others are still thrilled to see big pharma investing in ketamine, after decades of stalled efforts to find new psychiatric drugs. “As esketamine hits the market, venture capitalists will come up with better versions and move the field forward,” Zarate says. Several drug companies are now testing other ketamine-like compounds in hopes of developing drugs that have its potent antidepressant potential without its psychedelic and dissociative side effects.

    Some researchers are also testing whether ketamine works for conditions beyond depression, such as obsessive-compulsive disorder, as well as in specific subsets of patients, such as severely depressed teenagers. Other scientists are using ketamine to help untangle one of the biggest mysteries in neuroscience: What causes depression? (See sidebar.)

    Seeking answers in neural wiring

    Thirty years ago, the prevailing thought was that low levels of certain brain chemicals, such as serotonin, caused depression. Boosting those could remove symptoms.

    “I felt that depression needed months or weeks of treatment — that the plastic changes involved in the healing process would require weeks to reset themselves,” says Todd Gould, a neuropharmacologist at the University of Maryland and a coauthor of the recent review paper. But ketamine’s speed of action casts doubt on that idea.

    Newer evidence suggests that depression is caused by problems in the neural circuits that regulate mood, Gould notes. Much of the evidence for this faulty-wiring hypothesis comes from rodents. Starting in the 1990s, scientists began to discover intriguing abnormalities in the brains of mice and rats that had been exposed to certain stressors, such as bullying by a big, aggressive male.

    Stress and trauma are strong predictors of depression in people, but scientists can’t ask rats or mice if they are depressed. Instead, they use behavioral tests for classic depression symptoms such as anhedonia, the inability to take joy in pleasurable activities, Thompson says. Depressed animals “give up easily” in experiments that test their willingness to work for rewards like sugar water, or their interest in the intoxicating scent of a potential mate’s urine. “They can’t be bothered to cross the cage,” he says.

    Thompson and others have found that there are fewer connections, or synapses, between neurons that communicate reward signals in the brain in depressed animals. Other labs have found shriveled connections in neuronal circuits key to decision-making, attention and memory. Brain imaging studies in people with depression have also revealed abnormal activity in neural circuits that regulate emotion, suggesting that the findings in rodents may also apply to humans.

    If faulty neural connections are to blame for depression, the next question is, “How do we get atrophied neural pathways to regrow?” Krystal says.

    Circuit training

    The answer, many scientists now believe, is the brain’s most abundant neurotransmitter, glutamate.

    Glutamate is the workhorse of the brain. It relays fleeting thoughts and feelings, and enables the formation of memories by strengthening synaptic connections. Glutamate is the reason you can still ride a bike years after you learned, even if you never practiced.

    Not all glutamate activity is good. Too much can cause the equivalent of an electrical storm in the brain — a seizure — and chronically high levels may lead to dementia. Abnormalities in glutamate receptors — specialized proteins on the surface of brain cells where glutamate can dock and bind — are linked to a wide array of psychiatric diseases, including depression and schizophrenia.

    To maintain balance, cells called inhibitory interneurons act like brakes, releasing a neurotransmitter called GABA that quiets brain activity. Most mind-altering drugs work by changing the balance between GABA and glutamate — amphetamines and PCP enhance glutamate signaling, for example, while alcohol inhibits glutamate and boosts GABA.

    By the 1990s, scientists had discovered that ketamine triggers a gush of glutamate in the brain’s prefrontal cortex. This region governs attention and plays an important role in emotional regulation. The out-of-body sensations that some people experience when they take ketamine may occur because this rapid release of glutamate “excites the heck out of a whole bunch of neurons” in the prefrontal cortex, says Bita Moghaddam, a neuroscientist at Oregon Health & Science University who discovered the drug’s glutamate-revving effect on rats while studying schizophrenia.

    Scientists aren’t sure yet how ketamine forms stronger neural circuits. But the hypothesis goes roughly like this: When ketamine enters the brain, it causes a short-term burst of neuronal activity that triggers a series of biochemical reactions that create stronger, more plentiful synaptic connections between brain cells.

    At first, many researchers thought ketamine’s antidepressant effects relied on a structure located on the surface of neurons, called the NMDA receptor. Like a key that fits into different locks, ketamine can bind to several types of NMDA receptor, making neurons release the excitatory glutamate neurotransmitter.

    This hypothesis suffered a blow, however, when several drugs designed to bind to the NMDA receptor (as ketamine does) failed in clinical trials for depression.

    Esketamine also complicates the story. Ketamine is made up of two molecules that form mirror images of each other, R- and S-ketamine. Esketamine is made up of just the S form and binds roughly four times as effectively as R-ketamine to the NMDA receptor. Despite acting much more powerfully on the NMDA receptor, studies in rodents suggest that S-ketamine is a less potent antidepressant than R-ketamine, although it’s not yet clear whether or not R-ketamine could work better in humans.

    Zarate and others now believe ketamine may work through a different receptor that binds glutamate, called AMPA. By pinpointing which receptor ketamine acts on, researchers hope to develop a similar drug with fewer side effects. One hot lead is a compound called hydroxynorketamine (HNK) — a metabolic byproduct of ketamine that does not affect NMDA receptors but still produces rapid antidepressant effects in rodents. The drug appears to lack ketamine’s disorienting side effects, and Zarate and Gould plan to launch the first small clinical trials to establish HNK’s safety in humans this year, likely in around 70 people. “I think we have a very good drug candidate,” Gould says. (Zarate and Gould, among others, have disclosed that they are listed on patents for HNK, so they stand to share in any future royalties received by their employers.)

    Plastic synaptic remodelers

    To alter how the brain processes mood, scientists believe ketamine must ultimately change synapses. In experiments in rodents, Ron Duman of Yale University has shown that both ketamine and HNK can harness one of the brain’s most important tools for synaptic remodeling: brain-derived neurotrophic factor, or BDNF.

    BDNF is a protein intimately involved in shaping synapses during brain development and throughout the lifespan. Healthy brain function depends on having just the right amount of BDNF in the right place at the right time. Many mental illnesses, including depression, are associated with low or abnormal amounts of the protein. For example, samples of brain tissue from people who have died by suicide often contain abnormally low amounts of BDNF.

    Duman and colleagues have found that both ketamine and HNK cause a sharp uptick in the amount of BDNF that is released from neurons. This increase is required for the drugs’ antidepressant effects, and for the increase in dendritic spines — the stubby protrusions that form synaptic connections with other neurons. Both ketamine and HNK also seem to reduce inflammation, which has been linked repeatedly to the stress-induced loss of synapses.

    Ketamine is not the only compound that can induce rapid synaptic plasticity: Other psychedelics, such as ecstasy (MDMA), acid (LSD), and DMT also trigger similar structural changes in neurons and rapid antidepressant effects in rodents, researchers at the University of California at Davis recently found. The effects don’t hinge on getting high, the team reported in March in ACS Chemical Neuroscience. Even very small doses — too low to cause perceptual distortions — can increase synapse density and lift depression.

    Traditional antidepressants such as Prozac also increase BDNF levels in the brain, but not nearly as fast as ketamine does, Duman says. That is why most antidepressants take so long to remodel synapses and relieve depression symptoms, he says. 

    Dissecting depression

    Beyond promising new treatments, Zarate and other researchers see ketamine as a powerful tool for probing depression’s tangled neurobiology. Studies in mice and rats are a good start, but scientists need to study the drug in people to truly understand how ketamine affects the brain. Unlike traditional, slower-acting antidepressants, ketamine lends itself to short-term lab experiments.

    Zarate is using neuroimaging tools such as fMRI to study the human brain on ketamine. Past studies have shown that in people with depression, communication among several key brain networks is disrupted. One network, called the default-mode network (DMN), is involved in self-referential thoughts such as ruminating about one’s problems or flaws. This network tends to be hyperactive in people with depression, and less connected to more outwardly attuned brain networks such as the salience network, which helps the brain notice and respond to its surroundings.

    In one recent study, Zarate and his colleagues found that after receiving an IV dose of ketamine, people with depression had more normal activity in the default mode network, and that it was better connected to the salience network. At least temporarily, the drug seems to help people get unstuck from patterns of brain activity associated with repetitive, negative thoughts. Zarate does caution that the study results need to be replicated.

    The team has also used brain imaging to study how ketamine affects suicidal thoughts. About four hours after an infusion of ketamine, a chunk of the prefrontal cortex that is hyperactive in people with depression had calmed down, researchers found, which correlated with people reporting fewer thoughts of suicide.

    Ketamine also seems to tune other brain regions that are key to effective treatment. Last year, scientists published a study in mice showing that ketamine quiets abnormal activity in the lateral habenula, a small nodule wedged deep under the cortex. Some researchers have described the lateral habenula as the brain’s “disappointment center.” The region is responsible for learning from negative experiences, and is hyperactive in people with depression, as if “broadcasting negative feelings and thoughts,” Thompson says.

    Such studies remain exploratory. As to why ketamine works — and just as important, why its effects are transient — scientists are still speculating. “I think ketamine is resetting neural circuits in a way that improves the symptoms of depression, but the risk factors — whether genetic, environmental or other risk factors — are still present,” Gould says. “It seems to help reset things temporarily, but the underlying cause is not necessarily resolved.”

    Helen Mayberg, a neurologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York who specializes in using an experimental procedure called deep brain stimulation to treat depression, suggests that ketamine may be like using a defibrillator on someone experiencing cardiac arrhythmia. “I am not addressing the fact that you have underlying heart disease, but now that your arrhythmia is gone, I can concentrate on other treatments.”

    It’s important to put the potential risks of ketamine into perspective, particularly for people contemplating suicide, researchers emphasize. Most people are willing to tolerate severe side effects for other life-saving treatments, such as cancer drugs, Mayberg points out. “If you can interrupt an extreme suicidal plan and ideation, I’ll take that.”

    Ketamine in teens?

    For Krystal, weighing ketamine’s still largely uncharted risks and potential rewards ultimately comes down to a deeply personal question: “What would we want for ourselves? For our families? Do we want them to have to go through several failed trials over several months, or even a year, before taking a medication that might make their depression better in 24 hours?”

    Some of the hardest decisions are likely to involve children and adolescents. Hospitalization for youth suicide attempts and ideation nearly doubled between 2008 and 2015, leaving many clinicians — and parents — desperate for more effective and rapid treatments. Left untreated, depression is “really bad for the brain” and can cause serious, long-term cognitive and developmental problems when it starts young, Zarate says. “The question is, is that going to be better than the long-term side effects of ketamine?”

    Untreated depression is really bad for the brain, especially in the young. The question is, is that going to be better than the long-term side effects of ketamine?

    Scientists don’t yet know. Ketamine has been deemed safe to use as an anesthetic in children, but there aren’t yet sufficient clinical data to show how low, repeated doses of ketamine used for depression could affect the developing brain.

    On a more fundamental level, scientists don’t fully understand the neurobiology of adolescent depression, notes psychiatrist Kathryn Cullen of the University of Minnesota. It may involve abnormalities in brain development, such as the way the prefrontal cortex connects to brain regions that process emotion, but “we don’t know if the brain connection abnormalities emerge because of toxic stress induced by depression, or if these abnormalities predispose people to develop depression, or if depression itself reflects abnormal development,” Cullen says. “It’s critical to figure out how to alleviate the biological changes that are associated with [teen] depression so that the brain can get back on a healthy trajectory.”

    Two recent clinical trials — one at Yale and another at Minnesota run by Cullen — have found that ketamine can lower symptoms in severely depressed teenagers, but neither study was set up to follow the teenagers long-term, says Cullen. Janssen is currently running a trial of its esketamine nasal spray with 145 youths who are suicidal, but the results of that study have not been published yet. Cullen thinks ketamine has potential for use in teens, particularly to avoid suicide, but “there are still a lot of unknowns.”

    Not just a quick fix

    Worldwide, depression afflicts more than 300 million people, making it the leading global cause of disability. When contemplating such overwhelming misery, the vision of a world in which depression can be cured with a single injection or squirt of nasal spray holds obvious appeal.

    But — despite the hype — that is not what ketamine offers, Bennett says. Based on her own experience as a patient, and her clinical work, she is troubled by the framing of ketamine as a “rapid” depression treatment if that precludes the slower, more effortful process of psychotherapy. Without psychotherapy, she says, “you’re not giving patients any tools to help themselves, just making them dependent on a molecule that has temporary effects. When the effect wears off, they have to go back for more medicine. This is going to be lucrative for the pharmaceutical company but probably not in the patient’s best interest.”

    In Bennett’s clinic, ketamine is administered only alongside talk therapy, which she uses to prepare patients before they take ketamine, and afterward to help them process the experience. “I think this is the only ethical way” to administer a drug that can trigger disorienting psychedelic experiences, she says. “This isn’t a ‘take two and call me in the morning’ situation.”

    There’s growing scientific interest in whether ketamine can enhance the effectiveness of therapy by increasing the brain’s ability to remodel circuits through experience, Krystal notes. And in 2017 a small Yale study found that providing cognitive behavioral therapy in tandem with ketamine can extend the drug’s antidepressant effects.

    Unlike some researchers and pharmaceutical companies, which consider ketamine’s and esketamine’s hallucinogenic side effects inherently negative, Bennett thinks that for some people the visions can be positive — particularly in the context of therapy. There’s scant scientific evidence to support the idea that such hallucinations are therapeutic, and they can be deeply disturbing for some people. (If people who experience hallucinations do better, it may simply be because they have received a higher dose of ketamine, Krystal points out.)

    Still, Bennett thinks researchers and clinicians need to stay open-minded about why ketamine is helping people — and be more attentive to the settings in which ketamine and esketamine are administered. “People consistently report that they experience the presence of God, or their own sacredness,” she says. “When someone comes to my office wanting to kill themselves, ready to die — and then they have a transformational moment where they believe their life is sacred — it’s indescribable how exciting that is as a clinician.”

    This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews. Sign up for the newsletter.

    Knowable Magazine | Annual Reviews

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Meet Adie Wilson-Poe, the Cannabis Scientist

    Meet Adie Wilson-Poe, the Cannabis Scientist

    “Of all the things that cannabis can potentially do for humankind, the impact on the opioid crisis is by far the best and biggest thing it could do for humanity.”

    Dr. Adie Wilson-Poe was a straight edge kid. She grew up in Arizona then moved to the northwest at 19–first to Seattle and later to Portland–and found her home there. She wasn’t into drugs or drug culture; she was a punk rock kid who moved to Seattle for the music and ended up in science. While getting her psychology degree, Dr. Wilson-Poe became interested in drug use and addiction. She started studying neuroscience, specifically the neurobiology of psychology. 

    The first time Dr. Wilson-Poe smoked weed, she was 25 and well into grad school. Although at the time there was scant scientific literature about marijuana, she studied whatever data she could find and came to understand that cannabis had medicinal properties. She also started studying the basic mechanisms of addiction and how different drugs affect the brain in unique ways. 

    Dr. Wilson-Poe is an accomplished neuroscientist whose work is regularly funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

    Why do you think so many pain-relieving drugs are addictive and what does the future hold in terms of cannabis-based pain relief?

    The whole reason that most people are using opioids or cannabinoids is because they’re trying to relieve pain. There is a very complex interaction between pain relieving drugs that are also addictive. That dynamic interaction between pain relief and drug abuse or drug misuse is something that we spent a lot of time working on. There’s a big gap between what we do in the lab and what we would do in the clinic and I’m trying to narrow that gap for cannabis and opioid interaction. 

    We know that inhalation is a very common method that people use to relieve pain. We know it’s a very effective method for relieving immediate pain. Oral products and edibles are great for nighttime when you can wait for them to kick in and then work overnight. But for relief when you’re in pain, you need something that works right away, and we know that the lungs are a great method of doing that.

    How do you think cannabis can solve the opioid epidemic?

    Of all the things that cannabis can potentially do for humankind, the impact on the opioid crisis is by far the best and biggest thing it could do for humanity. There are a number of places where cannabis can interact with opioids. If we just follow one person, let’s say you get injured at work, you throw out your back, and you have pain. You have a choice at the time that you’re experiencing pain. You could start using cannabis right away and never even use an opioid at all. All of the side effects, all of the risks, all of the dependence potential. You can prevent it entirely by managing pain with cannabis. Cannabis has been used for pain relief on this planet for 5,000 years. 

    The other thing we know from the evidence and my work has contributed to this as well, is that when they are used together, cannabis and opioids provide synergistic pain relief. So synergy means greater than additive effects. Rather than two plus two equals four you have two plus two equals seven or something. We know that this is a very robust effect, we see it in people, we see it in all other mammals, we see it whether you use a synthetic cannabinoid or delta-9, you see it whether you use codeine and morphine. When you use the drugs together, you get better pain relief and what that means–the outcome of that better pain relief–is that you don’t need as many opioids.

    Can you explain how cannabis can also be used for addiction treatment?

    Let’s say again: you have your injury on the job and your doctor prescribed opioids. You took them as directed and get to a point where your injury has resolved, but now you’re physically dependent on opioids. There’s a role for cannabis here. Part of the science is a little bit more messy than the others, but there’s some preliminary results showing that people who are physically dependent on opioids have some withdrawal relief from cannabis. During withdrawal you feel restless, you can’t sleep, you’re irritable. Those symptoms are very well treated with cannabis. 

    People have always talked about weed as a gateway drug, but now we’re hearing that marijuana is the exit drug. What are your thoughts?

    The gateway hypothesis came out of some evidence that was produced in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, which showed that there’s a correlation between using cannabis and using harder drugs like opioids. But that correlation is also true for people who use nicotine and alcohol. Just because those things are correlated with the use of harder drugs doesn’t mean that they cause a person to use harder drugs. That gateway hypothesis has been thoroughly refuted in more recent work. We now know that cannabis is not necessarily the gateway to causing someone to use other drugs. We’re in this new time where we see that cannabis is not the gateway drug to opioid use, but rather it’s an important tool for exiting from dependence on opioids.

    How has our government ignored the evidence that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol? 

    In the early seventies, President Nixon assigned a bunch of scientists and doctors the task of analyzing cannabis’ effects on people and making a determination about how safe or how dangerous it was. This was the Shafer Commission. They wrote up this exhaustive report and gave it back to him. The report said, “This is a very innocuous substance, it shouldn’t be regulated, it’s even less dangerous than alcohol.” But Nixon ignored the evidence and allowed cannabis to persist as a schedule one drug.

    Through the history of prohibition there’s been a blatant disregard of the evidence. We saw this even as recent as the current administration. Jeff Sessions is probably the worst at this. Everything that comes out of his mouth about cannabis is directly in contradiction to the evidence. The evidence has always been there to support cannabis as a relatively safe substance, especially compared to other drugs.

    Can you talk about what you’re doing with the business Smart Cannabis

    We’re really interested in what the effects of cannabis in people are and how we can use that information to both better support the people using cannabis and help to support the people who are cultivating or producing cannabis. We have to study it in people and ask them, how did this make you feel? Knowing what people actually find enjoyable, not just intoxicating because there’s really a difference there, right? Like just because something has 30% THC and it got you really high doesn’t mean that was necessarily an enjoyable experience. Maybe you’d have a better time on Friday night if you had had a 17% flower, but we don’t know that until we actually test it in people. 

    Do you have an opinion on the recent vaping controversy?

    Oil cartridges are not going anywhere. This is an incredibly convenient and very popular way for people to consume cannabis. But what we really need to focus on is what’s the safest possible way to consume. Propylene Glycol and Vitamin E Acetate are probably never going to be allowed to be in these cartridges again. Obviously, all of these flavors and additives that break down into really nasty chemicals, those are going to be outlawed. 

    We’re going to need to have some regulation around.

    We’re probably going to see some change in the technology also. You can’t have a battery that’s over this amount of voltage. You can’t have a ceramic coil or a fiberglass coil that gets hotter than this temperature, because we know at that temperature, that’s when things start to break down and even if we don’t have the FDA or some other regulators telling us that this is what we need to do, it’s on us, it’s on the industry to be able to make those decisions for the health of our consumers.

    Cannabis events help to educate people about cannabis, what do you see as your role in all this?

    I feel incredibly grateful that this is what I get to do with my time on planet earth. It just so happened that legalization and the opioid crisis was happening when I was going to grad school. I get to participate in something that could leave a very long-lasting mark on humanity. It’s also interesting that a lot of my colleagues–a lot of doctors, a lot of healthcare professionals–because of the federal prohibition, there’s a lot of conservative thinking. There are a lot of people who are afraid to talk with their patients about cannabis or a lot of people who are afraid to speak about these things in public. 

    I believe in doing no harm and it’s very clear to me from the evidence that cannabis is a medicine and opioids, although useful for certain things, are dangerous. I feel very privileged that I get to participate in these really important conversations at a really important time. But one component of that is my not fearing what the National Institutes of Health are going to do or what the DEA is going to do. There’s some inherent risk for me in openly talking about these kinds of ideas because so many of my colleagues would just rather hide in the laboratory because it’s too much of a risk for them. But the right thing to do is to reduce harm and keep people alive and I feel very privileged that I get to play some part in that.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Music and Emotion: How Songs Help Us Grieve and Heal

    Music and Emotion: How Songs Help Us Grieve and Heal

    Music can express how we feel when our grief renders us speechless.

    After my father’s death from suicide 16 years ago, I was always looking for signs—the flickering of a lightbulb, a bird flying overhead, anything that would let me know he was still with me. But in all those years, there was just an empty feeling, a giant black hole where those signs should be. 

    Then, a couple years ago, on the way home from lunch on my birthday, I heard Rod Stewart’s “Forever Young” on the radio, and I knew. I just knew it. That was the message from my father.

    Before and After

    Like many people who have lost loved ones to suicide, I tend to view my life in terms of Before and After; there was my life before he died and then there was my life after he died. I also tend to categorize music in much the same way. There are the songs that evoke the memories of my childhood, like the oldies from the ‘60s and ‘70s that we listened to on family car trips. I can’t listen to Simon & Garfunkel or Gordon Lightfoot without memories flooding back –like when my father introduced my sister and me to his record collection. We played those records for hours until we had all the words memorized.

    Then there are also the songs that remind me of the dark days and months just after he died. A month before his death, I bought Norah Jones’ debut album on a whim and it sort of became the soundtrack of his death. My mother and I listened to it constantly, so every time I hear “Come Away with Me” I’m immediately transported back to that time. Suddenly I’m that scared, confused 21-year-old who can’t believe she’ll never see her father again.

    These songs make me so sad, and yet I can’t stop listening. It’s almost like I’m drawn to the pain that those songs evoke, as if listening to them will somehow help me continue to process my grief.

    How Music and Grief Are Processed in the Brain

    As it turns out, there’s some validity in my yearning to listen to these songs. Listening to music actually lights up the brain’s visual cortex, which processes visual information and stores important memories.

    “Music has been found to have a nostalgic effect, allowing individuals to recall memories, feelings and emotions from the past, so as an individual listens to music, they will start associating it with memories and feelings,” says Aaron Sternlicht, a New York-based psychotherapist. “Musical nostalgia can be helpful in the grieving process to help resolve emotions that a grieving individual may have previously been suppressing.”

    After that birthday message, I started listening to “Forever Young” on repeat. I listened to it when I was writing. I listened to it when I was responding to email. I even listened to it when I was just surfing the web on a random Sunday afternoon. And then I heard it again one morning in March as I was browsing the aisles of Walgreens. At first, it felt completely random and I didn’t think much of it. Then I started putting the pieces together: Shopping together was one of our favorite things to do together, and it was March, the month in which my father died. The coincidences seemed too serendipitous, albeit bittersweet, and the words of the song just cut me like a knife.

    It felt like a message from him, filled with all the things he wanted to tell me. I was relatively young when he died, and there is so much we missed, so many conversations we never got to have, so much life advice he never got to give me. 

    For so long, I’d thought about all the things I’d say to him if I had the chance, but I never gave much thought to all the things he might want to tell me. There’s just so much I want to chat with him about — so many questions about life and what to do and hoping he’d be proud of me. Hearing the lyrics, I pictured my father giving me all sorts of advice, just like he used to. He was always fond of telling stories and imparting wisdom, and I miss his presence so much, looking over my shoulder and encouraging me onward. He was the ultimate cheerleader.

    It’s Not Just Me

    The more I thought about the powerful connection between music and grief, the more I wondered if others felt the same way I did. Did music also make them feel close to their loved ones? Did it help them in their own grieving process? And what is it about certain songs, albums, and artists that connect us to loved ones we’ve lost?

    To get some answers, I opened up the conversation on Twitter and Facebook. Before long, the stories started pouring in, full of love and memories. People were incredibly open and willing to share their stories as a way to honor their loved ones while at the same time acknowledging their grief. Here’s a sampling of some of the powerful experiences they shared with me:

    When I was in high school, my best friend and I made the world’s stupidest music video (with my parent’s massive camcorder) to Avril Lavigne’s “Complicated.” She tragically died of a bad reaction to pain killers/anti-depressants (we never quite got a clear explanation) about eight years ago. Every time I hear that song, I laugh thinking of that ridiculous day, but also want to cry.Catherine Smith, Philadelphia

    My grandpa was a Johnny Cash lookalike. He would even be hired to do impersonations at conferences! Cash is one of my favorite artists because he reminds me of my grandpa (whose name was actually JC, haha!) Last year I went to the Johnny Cash Museum for the first time and cried when I walked in—it was like seeing his face everywhere.Syd Wachs, New Zealand

    Neil Diamond’s “Sweet Caroline” reminds me of my dad, who passed away in September. That was his favorite song. The song has definitely taken on new meaning since his death.Melissa Cronin, Vermont

    When my grandfather died (quite a bit ago), I listened only to country music for about a month straight during my grieving period, as country was his favorite genre. I never listened to country before then, and I can only think of him now when I listen.Isabelle Lichtenstein, Boston

    When I was 16, my beloved Cairn terrier was attacked and killed by another dog. I can’t stop crying whenever I hear “Somewhere over the Rainbow” because Toto in the Wizard of Oz is played by a Cairn.Julia Métraux, New York

    My grandparents, especially my grandmother, loved Elvis, so I walked down the aisle to an Elvis song and it really helped me feel like they were there. —​​​​​​​Abbie Mood, Colorado

    [My mom] died three days before my 32nd birthday. I’d always wanted to take her to Hawaii because she’d always wanted to go and she’d never been anywhere. During my second trip traveling alone in 2012, I was standing in a McDonald’s restroom and heard “I Hope You Dance.” I’d never listened to the lyrics before, but I felt she’d sent me a long-distance dedication, Casey Kasem-style. I started bawling. —​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Miranda Miller, Cleveland

    My Dad’s Message to Me

    Just like Miller, I like to think that the words in “Forever Young” are a message from my father. My favorite line is: 

    But whatever road you choose, I’m right behind you win or lose.

    What a comforting, gentle reminder from him. Just hearing those words makes me feel like I’m still close to him, as if there’s part of him still here with me, right behind me, always, just like the song says.

    Music can be a comfort when everything around us is confusing. Music has the power to begin to heal our soul, even if only a little bit at a time. And, music can express how we feel when our grief renders us speechless, says psychotherapist Ana Jovanovic.

    “It can help us cry, verbalize our feelings and also, feel connected to others,” she says. “When you’re listening to music, you may be able to better recall some of the most significant moments in the life you’ve shared. It’s a piece of experience that helps us stay connected to a memory of a person, even when they’re gone.”


    What songs are meaningful to you and why? Let us know in the comments.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • It's Never Too Late to Change: New Books by Writers in Recovery

    It's Never Too Late to Change: New Books by Writers in Recovery

    If stress has been dogging you and your bandwidth is low, it’s okay to turn off your gadgets so you can refuel. Pick up a book instead and indulge in some battery-free entertainment. Here are 4 faves, all by sober writers.

    Your nerves shot? Mine, too. Winter is a slog and I can’t wait for spring. When I can’t stand one more minute of worrying about the planet, polar bears, politics and hate, I still choose escape. But… instead of rum and cocaine, my go-to is a good book. So, if stress has been dogging you and your bandwidth is low, it’s okay to turn off your gadgets so you can refuel. Breaks from YouTube and the 24/7 news cycle can do wondrous things for the mind. I went radical this week and even turned off my cell. Twitter can consume me if I let it.

    This month I made time to curl up on the couch with my dog and disappeared into these gems:

    Never Enough: The Neuroscience and Experience of Addiction
    by Judith Grisel (Doubleday, Feb. 19, 2019)

    “My response to being overwhelmed by the deep void was to leap into it.” — Judith Grisel

    Judith Grisel writes about the grizzly years of self-destruction. Stories show the author at her messiest. In a decade, she’d consumed a cornucopia of substances; by age 23, she was a self-loathing mess.

    The strength of Grisel’s bestseller is her intimate knowledge about the nervous system and addiction. Grisel peppers the pages with unsettling anecdotes, but she does it sans self-pity. Like a journalist, she reports embarrassing and creepy things.

    “I ripped off stores and stole credit cards when the opportunity presented itself, I was still able to maintain, at least to myself, that I was basically a good person. To an extent, for instance, I could count on my companions, and they could count on me. I say to an extent, because we also knew and expected that we would lie, cheat, or steal from each other if something really important were at stake (that is, drugs).”

    I never tire of drunken-drugalogues, and Grisel doesn’t disappoint on that front. But telling these stories is not to shock or manipulate readers, nor is Grisel trying to prove she was “a bona fide addict.” Her purpose is to illustrate the bleak existence of those who cannot stop drinking and drugging.

    When Grisel “finally reached the dead end” where she felt she was “incapable of living either with or without mind-altering substances,” she sought help. After a 28-day rehab and months in a halfway house, she managed to pull her life together. After seven years of study, she earned a PhD in behavioral neuroscience and became an expert in neurobiology, chemistry, and the genetics of addictive behavior.

    This book doesn’t brag about having the answers, but shows what a sober neuroscientist has learned after 20 years of studying how an addicted brain works. She makes it easy to understand why it’s so difficult to get sober and maybe even harder to stay that way. It irks me when people say they never think about drugs or alcohol anymore. My first feeling is rage—probably because I’ve never experienced anything like that, despite working hard on myself during 30 years in recovery. Grisel refreshingly writes about the temptation that’s always there.

    Grisel’s writing communicates succinctly: “A plaque I later saw posted behind a bar described my first experience [with alcohol] precisely: Alcohol makes you feel like you’re supposed to feel when you’re not drinking alcohol.” In another passage, she quotes George Koob, chief of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: “There are two ways of becoming an alcoholic: either being born one or drinking a lot.” Grisel is careful to explain so you don’t get the wrong idea. “Dr. Koob is not trying to be flip, and the high likelihood that one or the other of these applies to each of us helps explain why the disease is so prevalent.”

    When she writes about her experiences, it’s candid and clear, and it feels like she’s a friend and we’re chatting in a café. I found myself frequently nodding with identification—like a bobblehead on a car dashboard. It’s a fascinating, absorbing, satisfying book about addiction.

    Widows-in-Law
    by Michele W. Miller (Blackstone Publishing, Feb. 26, 2019)

    There was a huge turnout at The Mysterious Bookshop in downtown Manhattan on February 26. The event was the book launch of Michele W. Miller’s second novel, Widows-in-Law. Lawrence Block, the wildly successful, sober crime novelist, sat beside Miller in the role of interviewer, and he was as entertaining as ever.

    See Also: Lawrence Block: One Case at a Time

    Miller, a high-level attorney for New York City, said, “Widows-in-Law is about an attorney who dies suddenly in a fire, leaving behind a first wife who’s a streetwise child abuse prosecutor.” She then jokingly added, “who might resemble me a little bit.” That got a big laugh because many attendees knew that Miller had previously worked as a child abuse prosecutor.

    In a thick and endearing Brooklyn-Queens accent, Miller described the deceased’s second bride. “You know, legs up to the eyeballs…[a] gawgeous trophy wife.” Block jumped in with praise: “That’s the one that resembles you.” Miller blushed and said, “See? That’s why we keep him around for a hundred books. Another big laugh, another inside joke: throughout Block’s astounding career, the well-loved crime writer has churned out 100 books.

    Miller quickly regained her composure and got back to the novel’s setup: Emily is a 16-year-old from Brian’s first marriage, to Lauren. Shortly before Brian died in the fire, Emily moved in with Brian (and his new wife). Lauren hoped they could reel in the out-of-control teen.

    The Miller thriller works well. It’s a fast read with dramatic and believable scenes and dialogue. I wanted to dig deeper and find out how much of the novel was fictional. Many novelists write about the worlds they know. Miller agreed to one-on-one time to discuss the three badass women at the center of the story.

    “Emily’s mom Lauren is my main character. Her backstory includes being a homeless teenager during the 1980s and ‘90s,” Miller said. “Her parents were whacked on drugs so Lauren left. She stayed at a shelter on St. Marks. It’s an iconic recovery building in the East Village.”

    When I asked which parts of the novel are autobiographical, Miller paused, sucked in a deep breath, then let it out slowly.

    “Okay,” she said. “Here goes. I’m in my 30th year clean. I was a low-bottom heroin addict.” Miller’s past included a felony arrest for cocaine possession. She was facing 15 to life. To avoid spoilers, suffice it to say that explained why some of the scenes seemed so thoroughly researched.

    “The book touches on my experiences with jail, illegal after-hours spots, and the complete chaos of addiction,” said Miller, who is now the director of enforcement for the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board. “Basically, that means I’m the chief ethics prosecutor for the city.” She’s aware of the irony. Before getting clean, Miller ran in the same circles as hitmen, such as the infamous Tommy Pitera.

    “Yeah, we got high together,” said Miller. “People knew him as Tommy Karate because he was into martial arts. But it wasn’t until a book that I found out he was a brutal killer who cut people into little pieces. I was traumatized. We hung out, getting high. I don’t know why he didn’t kill me. I guess he liked me. Maybe because I was an accomplished martial artist?”

    Miller is proof of how much your life can change when you get sober. She’s lucky to have survived her druggy past that included hanging out with murderers. Lawrence Block said, “Michele Miller has had more lives than a cat, and they’ve made her a writer of passion and substance.”

    After you read Widows-in-Law, check out Miller’s first novel, The Thirteenth Step: Zombie Recovery (HOW Club Press, November 4, 2013). It’s another fast-paced doozy and a finalist in the Amazon Breakthrough Novel Awards. Kirkus Reviews wrote, “A humorous and surprising satire of both the zombie apocalypse and the culture of addiction… wholly original… satisfying…. The care taken in both characterization and prose earns the reader’s time. A well-written, thoughtful treatment not just of a popular literary trope but of a nagging social issue.”

    The Addiction Spectrum: A Compassionate Approach to Recovery 
    by Paul Thomas, MD, and Jennifer Margulis, PhD. (HarperOne, Sept. 4. 2018)

    Paul Thomas, MD, is board certified in integrative and holistic medicine and addiction medicine—he’s also in recovery.

    “Addiction isn’t about willpower or blame,” he said. “It’s a disease that, like many other conditions, exists on a spectrum.” The spectrum is about how severely you crave your substance of choice when you don’t have it. It’s about how serious your health consequences are. Death, of course, is the worst end of the spectrum.

    The Addiction Spectrum offers a system that bases the individual’s needs on where they are on the spectrum. Thomas offers seven key methods for healing, whether you’re active in addiction or already in recovery. “Doctors need a new approach to treating pain,” said Thomas. He mentioned the hazards of painkillers within the medical community, “My wife is a nurse and recovering opiate addict,” he said. 

    The book is about any addiction—alcohol, marijuana, opioids, meth, technology. Co-author Jennifer Margulis, PhD, is an award-winning science journalist who’s been writing books about children’s health for over 10 years.

    “Making love, eating delicious food,” said Margulis, “these activities release dopamine and make you feel good. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to feel good. But using heroin or abusing prescription opioids or even excessive computer gaming or binge eating will harm your brain. Too many young people think, ‘Hey, I’m just having fun.’ But there is nothing fun about dying from an overdose.”

    But what is it about right now that can explain the drug epidemic?

    “We’re animals, wired to avoid danger and seek pleasure,” Thomas said. “We scan for threats and have an immediate fight, flight or freeze reaction. We’re talking about dopamine and epinephrine (adrenaline) responses.”

    Margulis agreed: “with cell phone alerts, video games, 24/7 news and high stress from work or school, we are overloaded. We can become addicted to food, social media, cigarettes, and a bunch of other substances and behaviors.”

    Both Thomas and Margulis agree it is time to start looking at the root causes. Why is there an increase in mood disorders, fatigue, and addiction? The book answers so many questions and I learned a lot about how to treat my body and mind better. The writing style makes it easy reading—nothing too tough to get through and very practical.

    The most anticipated book on my list isn’t out yet, but I’ve been lucky enough to read a sample chapter.

    Strung Out
    by Erin Khar (HarperCollins|Park Row Books, Feb. 2020)

    Erin Khar’s much-anticipated memoir will hit the shelves in early 2020. It’s the story of Khar’s decade-long battle with opioids, but it goes even further by searching for answers. Why is it that some people can do drugs and stop, while others become addicted? She explores possible reasons for America’s current drug crisis and its soaring death toll. The CDC statistics are staggering. From 1999 to 2017, more than 700,000 people died from drug overdoses, and 400,000 of those died from an opioid overdose. This epidemic is devouring our nation.

    Khar’s writing beat includes addiction, recovery, mental health, relationships, and self-care. She also writes the “Ask Erin” column for Ravishly.

    For a decade, beginning at age 13, she kept her heroin use a secret from friends and family. When she was caught by her then-fiancé, she went to rehab and her book describes her harrowing withdrawal. Three years later, at age 26, she relapsed. Four months later, her using had dragged her to the bottom.

    Khar, who has written for The Fix, told me, “I’ve been clean from opiates for 15 years!” That’s an enormous achievement for any addict, and in that decade and a half, she’s completely changed her life.

    From Khar’s essay in Self magazine:

    “If you had told me 15 years ago that I would be a happily married mother, living in New York City, doing what she loves for a living… I would have laughed.”

    She hopes that her book will help shatter the stigma; stop the shaming. She describes its genesis: “I wrote the short story ‘David‘ for Cosmonauts Avenue. Agents contacted me about writing a memoir.” After reading her essays, and following her writing career, I’m eager to read a book by this heroine about heroin.

    Every one of these books is written by a sober writer. They are living proof that people’s lives can change at any time.

    Mine sure did.

    Do you have favorite sober authors? Please share them with us in the comments!

    View the original article at thefix.com