Brain Research on Mental Disorders: A Criticism

Objective: To expose the problems and inherent limitations of neuroscience-based brain research on mental disorders. Method: Discussion of the theory underlying brain research on mental disorders, followed by a systematic evaluation of typical studies. Results: The fundamental problem is that brain researchers fail to differentiate between biological mental disorders in which brain processes cause the disorder (notably schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and melancholic depression) and learned mental disorders in which brain processes mediate but do not cause the disorder (which is the case with reactive depression, reactive anxiety, OCD, and PTSD). Researchers have been unsuccessful in identifying mechanisms in the brain that cause biological mental disorders, and will never be able to locate the innumerable specific neural connections that mediate learned mental disorders. Moreover, the author’s review of typical studies in this field shows that they have serious problems with theory, measurement, and data analysis, and that their findings cannot be trusted. Conclusions: Neuroscience-based brain research on mental disorders, unlike other neurological research, has been an expensive failure and it is not worth continuing.

Psychedelic Drug Therapy for Mental Disorders?

Objective: Psychedelic drug therapy is banned in all countries of the world except Australia, where the government regulatory watchdog, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, is planning to allow approved psychiatrists, as of July 1, 2023, to prescribe psilocybin to treat depression and MDMA to treat post-traumatic stress disorder, a move precipitated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s designation of these two drugs as “breakthrough therapy”. The objective of the present article is to demonstrate that the evidence on which the FDA and then the TGA relied is irretrievably flawed and should be dismissed. Method: Expert review of psychedelic therapy clinical trials and specifically of the methodology and measures used. Results: The present review demonstrates that the studies the U.S. FDA and the Australian TGA relied on to approve these two psychedelic drugs for therapy are irretrievably flawed. All future trials will follow the same procedure and are therefore bound to be flawed as well. Conclusions: Psychedelic drug studies have so far provided no trustworthy evidence of their effectiveness for treating mental disorders and are not likely to produce this evidence in the future. Psychedelic drug therapy is in any event impractical because of its specialized training requirements and very high treatment costs. It is also dangerous because false publicity about its effectiveness will almost certainly lead to unsupervised self-dosing with drugs that not only are illegal but have an unacceptably high addiction rate.

Aripiprazole and Cariprazine for Bipolar Disorder?

In this article, the present author, a research psychologist and measurement expert, evaluates the major clinical trials used to support the use of aripiprazole and the chemically almost identical cariprazine for treating bipolar disorder. The main problem with the trials is that they were conducted mainly with outpatients, who on average were only moderately manic in the mania studies and only moderately depressed in the depression studies. The effectiveness of aripiprazole and cariprazine in treating moderate mania, most likely hypomania, and moderate depression, was far from encouraging. Aripiprazole produced just 7% greater reduction of mania symptoms than did placebo treatment, and just 1% greater reduction of depression symptoms than did placebo treatment when administered, as is common practice, with an SSRI or SNRI antidepressant. Cariprazine proved to be not much better because at the high dosage level of 3.0 mg/day to 12.0 mg/day, cariprazine produced only 9% greater reduction of mania symptoms than did placebo treatment, and at the typical low dosage of 1.5 to 3.0 mg/day produced just 4% greater reduction of depression symptoms than did placebo treatment. Moreover, as the pharmaceutical industry has long suspected, there is a massive placebo effect associated with these two drugs, especially for depression. These findings imply that government regulatory authorities’ approval of aripiprazole and cariprazine as mood stabilizers for treating bipolar disorder is dubious. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that the purported mood-stabilizing mechanism of these two medicines is activated only with patients presently experiencing severe mania or severe depression, a possibility that requires an in-hospital clinical trial or, at the very least, a longitudinal analysis of bipolar patients’ treatment records. Furthermore, an appendix to the present article demonstrates that the measures used in the trials, the Young Mania Rating Scale and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, are deficient and that a briefer combination measure focusing only on the core symptoms of bipolar disorder should be used.