In this episode, Therese Markow and Dr. Janine LaSalle discuss Dr. LaSalle’s research on autism, focusing on prenatal gene-environment interactions. She explains that autism affects one in 36 children and talks about how genetic and prenatal environmental factors, such as maternal health and chemical exposures, play a role in autism. Dr. LaSalle discusses how they use placental DNA to identify epigenetic marks linked to autism, aiming to predict probability of autism before birth in order to intervene early. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding these factors to develop early intervention strategies.

Key Takeaways:

• It's almost impossible to compare autism incidents across time because the diagnostic criteria have changed many times over this span. There's no definitive laboratory test for autism.

• A number of genes have been identified that increase the risk of autism, genes that affect prenatal neurodevelopment.

• Maternal obesity, maternal asthma or fever during pregnancy, and preterm birth are a few examples of maternal health factors implicated in autism. Environmental exposures during pregnancy that increase risk for autism include air pollution and some pesticide exposures - these have the best evidence because they can be measured easily.

• Prenatal identification of newborns at risk for autism allows treatment to begin immediately after birth to improve their developmental trajectories.

• While little boys have a much higher incidence of autism and ADHD, the mechanism underlying the sex difference is not understood.

"The best explanation for most cases of autism is really the combination of common environmental factors and common genetics." — Janine LaSalle, Ph.D.

Connect with Janine LaSalle, Ph.D.:

Professional Bio: https://health.ucdavis.edu/medmicro/faculty/lasalle/

Website: https://mmi-lab.ucdavis.edu/

UCDavisMind Institute: https://health.ucdavis.edu/mind-institute/

UCDavis Genome Center: https://genomecenter.ucdavis.edu/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/janine-lasalle-70149415

Connect with Therese:

Website: www.criticallyspeaking.net

Threads: @critically_speaking

Email: theresemarkow@criticallyspeaking.net

Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it.

In this episode, Therese Markow and psychologist Dr. Elizabeth Scott, discuss narcissism, its clinical definition and the characteristics of “malignant narcissism”. Dr. Scott explains that narcissism involves patterns of grandiosity, a need for constant admiration, a lack of empathy, high levels of manipulation, and the narcissist’s “kryptonite” - criticism. They view themselves as the victim, never at fault. Despite their arrogance, they are very insecure. Dr. Scott also discusses why treatment is challenging and why therapy often focuses on managing symptoms rather than the deeper core issues. They can’t see that they have a problem, and thus are resistant to treatment

Key Takeaways:

• The myth of Narcissus illustrates the danger of excessive self-focus, which is the hallmark of narcissism in clinical terms and is becoming increasingly common in some aspects of our modern society.

• Narcissists are very good at manipulation. They consciously will do things to sort of manage their image in the eyes of others. They may appear to show empathy at times in a relationship, but it's usually more of a means to an end than a genuine concern for the feelings of others.

• Criticism is like a kryptonite to a narcissist, so even the mildest critique can provoke a strong defensive reaction: anger, denial, or shifting the blame to somebody else.

• You cannot change a narcissist's behavior, but you can control your own responses to it. Think about limits and then give yourself leeway within those to protect your own mental health.

"[Narcissists] might mimic empathetic behaviors to achieve their own ends, but it's more about manipulation than genuine caring. So they can understand maybe what empathy looks like, but not really get how it feels and how it's supposed to feel and how those behaviors are supposed to be rooted in something inside them." — Elizabeth Scott, Ph.D.

Connect with Elizabeth Scott, Ph.D.:

Twitter: https://x.com/ElizabethScott

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AboutStressManagement/

Website: https://drelizabethscott.com/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dr.elizabethscott/

Book: 8 Keys to Stress Management: https://www.amazon.com/Keys-Stress-Management-Mental-Health-ebook/dp/B00AJUKO5M

Connect with Therese:

Website: www.criticallyspeaking.net

Threads: @critically_speaking

Email: theresemarkow@criticallyspeaking.net

Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it.

Dr. Adam Schiavi is an assistant professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine and neurology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. His areas of clinical expertise include anesthesiology, neurological critical care, disorders of consciousness and brain death diagnosis, clinical ethics, critical care medicine, and traumatic brain injury.

In this episode, Therese Markow and Dr. Adam Schiavi discuss how the definition of death has changed throughout history, what the current definition is, and how that is determined by the medical technology of the time. Brain death is the current definition of death, medically, but what happens to a body after brain death is determined can vary depending on the state you live in. This can be a trying time for families and for the providers involved with the now-deceased patient as the definition of death is not understood by everyone. They also discuss how brain death differs from other states of consciousness and how people often confuse the terminology of those different states, as well as the ability to hope for healing from all but brain death.

Key Takeaways:

• The total cessation of all functions of the brain is the current definition of brain death in the United States. This definition is based on a clinical exam testing all parts of the brain, typically done by somebody certified in doing brain death determinations.

• You have to have a reason for the neurologic exam to be declining. Without a reason, you can't call somebody brain dead.

• You can replace every organ in the body, but you cannot replace the brain and when the brain dies, the body dies all the time 100% unless those organ systems are artificially supportive.

"Our culture changes with technology and the way we define death is a part of culture. As that culture has shifted, the way we define death has also shifted with our new technologies of how we can actually determine whether people are dead." — Dr. Adam Schiavi

Connect with Dr. Adam Schiavi:

Johns Hopkins Bio: Adam Schiavi, MD, PhD, MS

Email: aschiav1@jhmi.edu

Connect with Therese:

Website: www.criticallyspeaking.net

Threads: @critically_speaking

Email: theresemarkow@criticallyspeaking.net

Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it.