Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Icon

On “ethical placebos,” Medicine, and Mind/ Body interactions: A book review

Cure_bookWhen I was 10 years old, I hat­ed doing the dish­es. In an attempt to talk my par­ents out of mak­ing me do this hat­ed chore, I pre­tend­ed to be ill by hang­ing my head, sigh­ing, snif­fling, and walk­ing lethar­gi­cal­ly to my bed­room, all to no avail—I still had to do those dish­es.

But, the next day, I woke up with the flu —a 104-degree fever and stom­ach pains to match. Boy, were my par­ents sur­prised! And, so was I. But, how many of us have had sim­i­lar expe­ri­ences, where our minds seemed to some­how impact our bod­ies in weird, unex­plain­able ways? How many of us have made doc­tors’ appoint­ments only to watch our fevers drop or held our chil­dren close and stopped their cough­ing fits? Clear­ly, some­thing is going on, isn’t it?

This is the sub­ject of sci­ence writer Jo Marchant’s new book, Cure: A Jour­ney into the Sci­ence of Mind Over Body. Marchant inter­views sci­en­tists from around the world, delv­ing into how place­bos, hyp­no­sis, mind­ful­ness med­i­ta­tion, and warm social con­nec­tions affect health out­comes, reveal­ing the com­plex ways that our brains and bod­ies inter­act. Not only does she uncov­er some pret­ty fas­ci­nat­ing research on mind/body inter­ac­tions, she also calls upon the sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty to pay more atten­tion to these effects in order to improve future health­care.

In Greater Good, we’ve cov­ered the sci­ence on mind­ful­ness show­ing how it impacts psy­cho­log­i­cal and phys­i­cal health. But I per­son­al­ly found Marchant’s report­ing on the place­bo effect rather mind-bog­gling. Appar­ent­ly place­bos (pills or treat­ments that don’t con­tain an “active ingre­di­ent” and are often used as con­trol con­di­tions in exper­i­ments) are not quite as inert as sup­posed. While many sci­en­tists nor­mal­ly assume a pos­i­tive result from a place­bo indi­cates that peo­ple would have got­ten bet­ter any­way or that their con­di­tions real­ly had no phys­i­cal basis in the first place, Marchant’s report­ing sug­gests oth­er­wise.

In one inter­est­ing exper­i­ment recount­ed in the book, 262 patients diag­nosed with irri­ta­ble bow­el syn­drome (IBS) were split into three groups: one receiv­ing no treat­ment, one receiv­ing a place­bo deliv­ered from a cold and uncar­ing prac­ti­tion­er, and one receiv­ing a place­bo deliv­ered from a warm and car­ing prac­ti­tion­er. All the patients were told explic­it­ly that they were receiv­ing a place­bo with­out any active ingre­di­ents.

Patients in the first group improved 28 per­cent just from being in the tri­al; those in the sec­ond group improved by 44 per­cent; and those in the last group improved by 62 per­cent —“as big an effect as has ever been found for any drug test­ed for IBS.” This sug­gest­ed to the researchers that psy­cho­log­i­cal fac­tors are at work that can be har­nessed for treatment—perhaps the mind sig­nal­ing the body to pre­pare for heal­ing or to relax enough to let the body heal itself. To Marchant, it also sug­gests the impor­tance of empath­ic doc­tors.

If an empath­ic heal­er makes us feel cared for and secure, rather than under threat, this alone can trig­ger sig­nif­i­cant bio­log­i­cal changes that ease our symp­toms,” writes Marchant.

In anoth­er study, chil­dren suf­fer­ing from ADHD were split into three ran­dom groups. One group received a stan­dard med­ica­tion dose for two months; anoth­er received the stan­dard dose one month and half the stan­dard dose the sec­ond month, and a third group received the same reg­i­men as the sec­ond group, but with an added fea­ture: they also took a dis­tinc­tive green and white cap­sule along­side their med­ica­tion that they were told was an inac­tive place­bo. The hypoth­e­sis behind this exper­i­ment was that, through the pow­er of asso­ci­a­tion, the brain could be tricked into believ­ing that the pill was respon­si­ble for the ben­e­fits of a full dose.

Results showed that the third group of kids did do as well as the first group of kids, even though their active med­ica­tion lev­els were halved, while the sec­ond group did not do as well, pre­sum­ably because they did not have the ben­e­fit of the place­bo. Although one could inter­pret these find­ings as indica­tive of no real ADHD or inef­fec­tive med­ica­tion, Marchant sug­gests that this miss­es the point.

By using expec­ta­tion and con­di­tion­ing togeth­er, eth­i­cal place­bos could poten­tial­ly help to reduce drug dos­es for mil­lions of patients around the world, in con­di­tions from pain and depres­sion to Parkinson’s and ADHD,” she writes.

So, what does research like this ulti­mate­ly mean? The answer is: we don’t know yet. For one thing, there are not enough good stud­ies to be sure of what’s going on, and there is very lit­tle incen­tive to explore these effects fur­ther. Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies have no inter­est in fund­ing research whose results might ulti­mate­ly cut into their prof­its, argues Marchant, and they are the pri­ma­ry fun­ders of clin­i­cal tri­als. Sim­i­lar­ly, few sci­en­tists are will­ing to stick their necks out to study effects like these for fear of los­ing their cred­i­bil­i­ty.

And, there is anoth­er con­cern­ing issue: the pos­si­bil­i­ty that research like this might prompt peo­ple to put too much faith in their men­tal capac­i­ties for fight­ing ill­ness and to forego impor­tant med­ical treat­ments. Or, as some sci­en­tists warn, show­ing mind/body impacts on health may lead peo­ple to blame them­selves for get­ting sick in the first place—i.e., If only I had been more mind­ful or com­pas­sion­ate, I would not have had a heart attack.

Clear­ly this is not Marchant’s intent. Rather than eschew mod­ern sci­ence, which has brought us impor­tant treat­ments for many ill­ness­es, she is instead try­ing to encour­age sci­en­tists to open their minds. In an ide­al world, sci­en­tists could test these effects in a more rig­or­ous man­ner to dis­cov­er if and when mind/body treat­ments real­ly help. In many cas­es, she writes, the effects are prob­a­bly con­nect­ed to stress reduc­tion, dis­trac­tion, or increas­ing pos­i­tive emo­tions, all of which may sig­nal our bod­ies to release heal­ing hor­mones or redi­rect immune-response resources.

But, what­ev­er the mech­a­nism, it would be good for researchers to under­stand it, and to engage patients more in the process of their heal­ing, she argues.

Mod­ern medicine’s focus on phys­i­cal data and objec­tive test mea­sure­ments has undoubt­ed­ly allowed huge advances,” she writes, but “it has also led to an obses­sion with mol­e­cules and bio­chem­i­cal path­ways to the exclu­sion of how we actu­al­ly feel.”

The evi­dence of mind-body inter­ac­tions may be young, but it is grow­ing. Many of the sci­en­tists Marchant inter­views have found at least some evi­dence that mind/body treat­ments impact phys­i­o­log­i­cal mark­ers.

For exam­ple, one neu­ro­sci­en­tist was able to show that peo­ple who are fooled through mir­rors into believ­ing that a fake hand has been attached to their body will expe­ri­ence decreased blood flow to their actu­al, hid­den hand, caus­ing its tem­per­a­ture to drop—a response sim­i­lar to an aller­gic reac­tion. In anoth­er exper­i­ment, researchers at UCSF showed that high­ly stressed moth­ers had much short­er telomeres—caps at the end of chro­mo­somes which short­en with aging—and less telom­erase (an enzyme that rebuilds telom­eres) than moth­ers who were less stressed.

These exper­i­ments sug­gest that decreas­ing the stress response—perhaps through mind/body ther­a­pies like mind­ful­ness, hyp­no­sis, or self-compassion—could actu­al­ly impact longevi­ty. And it makes a case for pro­vid­ing more sup­port ser­vices for those who suf­fer from undue stress, such as care­givers and peo­ple liv­ing in pover­ty.

These phys­i­o­log­i­cal impacts will no doubt remain murky if not sub­stan­ti­at­ed by fur­ther research. Cure_bookStill, even if they aren’t cred­i­ble, cer­tain­ly any­thing that improves the psy­cho­log­i­cal impacts of illness—by decreas­ing pain, stress, anx­i­ety, or depres­sion, for example—should be con­sid­ered more care­ful­ly. Patients should not be dis­missed sim­ply because their ill­ness­es lack an obvi­ous phys­i­cal cause or don’t respond to tra­di­tion­al treat­ments, not when the brain and the body are so inti­mate­ly con­nect­ed. If we don’t try to study the mech­a­nisms behind effects like those report­ed in Marchant’s book—if we mere­ly cast results aside because they don’t fall under our cur­rent worldview—we could be leav­ing a pow­er­ful source of heal­ing untapped.

I am not advo­cat­ing rely­ing sole­ly on the mind to heal us,” she writes, “but deny­ing its role in med­i­cine sure­ly isn’t the answer either.”

 

jill_suttie.thumbnail– Jill Sut­tie, Psy.D., is Greater Good’s  book review edi­tor and a fre­quent con­trib­u­tor to the mag­a­zine. Based at UC-Berke­ley, Greater Good high­lights ground break­ing sci­en­tific research into the roots of com­pas­sion and altru­ism.

To learn more:

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

2 Responses

  1. Howard says:

    How very inter­est­ing. My wife’s doc­tor has just changed her ongo­ing pre­scrip­tion from one 250 mg tablet to five times 50mg. Same total dose of course, but just pos­si­bly she may be apply­ing some psy­chol­o­gy. Good for her. I shall not ask or com­ment because that might skew results. We shall see.

  2. Thank you for shar­ing, Howard. Yes, sounds like a good idea 🙂

Leave a Reply

Categories: Cognitive Neuroscience, Education & Lifelong Learning, Health & Wellness

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters,  SharpBrains is an independent market research firm tracking how brain science can improve our health and our lives.

Search in our archives

Follow us and Engage via…

twitter_logo_header
RSS Feed

Watch All Recordings Now (40+ Speakers, 12+ Hours)