POTS Read online

  Discovering Neuroplasticity: The Key to Changing the Brain

  Hopper sensed that the brain must hold the key to her condition, but the task in front of her was no easy one. How could she get her brain’s sensory perception, and threat mechanisms, back to normal? In order to find out, she researched the brain with great determination. She came across the emerging field of neuroplasticity, or how specific self-directed interventions can lead a patient to change his or her own brain in a targeted way. Hopper read of different applications of neuroplasticity, from ‘rewiring’ the brains of those with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD)[51] to stroke patients creating new movement pathways in the brain so as to be able to bring ‘dead’ limbs back to life.[52] Having read of these kinds of cases, she felt that it must be possible to design an intervention for MCS. If stroke patients could learn to move their arm again, Hopper hoped that she could ‘rewire’ her brain so that its threat mechanisms - and particularly those associated with smell - could become deactivated and that her sense of smell might thereby perhaps return to normal. Although this seemed, from where she was, isolated and living on a run-down houseboat, an impossible task, Hopper knew that technically it was not. The brain is built to change: it is a neuroplastic organ. The reason Annie knew it was possible, even if it seemed impossible, to change her brain was because her research led her to the theory of “neurons that fire together, wire together”. Let us now say a little more about this theory.

  Each part of the brain is made up of “running programs” of neurons which have “fired and wired” together. The idea of neurons “firing and wiring” together was first put forward by Donald Hebb, a Canadian neuro-psychologist, in 1949. We could also call these hardwired neurons ‘brain circuitry’. These neuronal connections wire together as the brain develops and learns about the world and they concern everything: how we speak, how we move, how we think, feel and experience life. As the brain learns more and more about each of these domains (and many others besides), there forms dominant ‘series’ of neuronal pathways relating to each domain. These pathways determine how these functions take place. This is why each individual person will have his exact ways of moving, speaking, and experiencing the world, ways which will be subtly (or not so subtly) different from another’s way of performing similar functions. For any given activity, then, the brain has developed countless ‘dominant programs’ of neuronal circuitry, each comprised of countless numbers of neurons which have ‘fired and wired’ together. What these “wired pathways” entail in practice is the fact that the brain likes to follow “the path of least resistance”. It automatically goes to the brain programs and pathways which are the most frequently exercised.

  Let’s now apply these ideas to a limbic system in crisis. Hopper deduced that the most ‘frequently exercised pathways’ in her limbic system were those of threat and survival and that that was the case as a result of the initial chemical poisoning her brain had experienced. Furthermore, she deduced that if there were some way of ‘exercising’ the limbic system for long enough in non-threat and non-survival pathways, then it was conceivable that her limbic system might start to run on a new set of ‘dominant’, ‘hardwired’ and ‘non-traumatic’ pathways. In other words, by ‘dampening’ the heightened state of trauma in her limbic system, something which had led to the smell centres in her cingulate cortex becoming “supervigilant”, she might, in turn, be able to reduce the hypervigilant sense of smell that a traumatised limbic system tends to have. In this way, Hopper was attempting to ‘rewire’ her traumatised limbic system using the positive principles of neuroplasticity (i.e. that there are specific targeted exercises we can do to change brain function) even though her brain had entered into such a crisis state thanks to the negative principles of neuroplasticity (i.e. in this case how the brain can change automatically and primitively as a result of a negative/traumatic experience). To return to the ‘fired and wired’ theory, we can put the same insights as follows. Whilst it may seem that our brains are ‘stuck’ in a certain way (i.e. certain brain programs/circuitry have fired and wired and are, therefore, ‘dominant’), with enough perseverance and application it is actually possible to create new pathways that become hardwired and therefore ‘dominant’, with the old pathways, in fact, ‘disconnecting’ through disuse. The challenge therefore was to develop a program which could retrain the brain to recover from MCS specifically. She pooled all that could possibly help together, and set about following a self-devised program. Hopper found that following the method she devised at times felt like ‘defying gravity’. Nevertheless, her health steadily improved over those six months, her sense of smell normalised, her limbic system calmed down, and, having completed six months of intensive brain rewiring, she no longer needed to do the practice anymore. Her MCS, EMF and Fibromyalgia were all gone and she had successfully ‘rewired’ her brain, returning her hypervigilant limbic system (and its smell centres) to normal function.

  Methodologies of DNRS

  Hopper identified the following twelve steps as being critical for rewiring the limbic system (I note here that these twelve steps are particularly pertinent to rewiring chemical sensitivity):[53]

  Develop awareness of the expression of limbic system dysfunction in physical, psychological, emotional and behavioural patterns

  Recognize and re-label symptoms as limbic system dysfunction

  Interrupt patterns associated with limbic dysfunction

  Decrease fear association to stimuli

  Re-attribute symptoms to overactivated threat mechanism gone awry

  Choose a new strategy for responding to stimuli

  Cultivate a positive emotional state to dampen stress response

  Cultivate a positive psychological state to retrain thought patterns associated with catastrophic thinking

  Incrementally train yourself to strengthen new brain pathways and to systematically desensitize your response to the triggering stimuli

  Change habits associated with extreme harm avoidance and behaviour

  Recognise improvements and celebrate them!

  Repeat the new strategy daily for a minimum of an hour per day for 6 months “

  The DNRS draws on many techniques to create exercises that speak ‘in the language of the limbic system’, utilising the limbic system’s ‘sensitivity’ to events, experience, sensation and emotion in clever ways designed to ‘lift’ the limbic system out of a state of crisis. Whilst the DNRS exercises are ‘psychological’ in nature, these have been adapted specifically to ‘speak’ to a limbic system in crisis and, furthermore, the exercises are also performed with a level of repetition which is required to lift the limbic system out of that physical impairment. Indeed, the DNRS exercises are performed with a level of intensity that would not be seen in standard ‘psychological’ interventions.

  The ‘one hour a day’ minimum point is also important for the reason just mentioned, namely that the aforementioned intensity of practice is required to ‘lift’ the brain out of a traumatic state. Whilst most who practice for one hour a day should recover, it is also notable that many participants spend two or three hours per day on the core practice, and a minority even practice for four hours a day, over six months. In the same way that it is hard work for a stroke patient to create new neural circuitry associated with movement, so too is it hard work to rewire the limbic system. Changes often, however, start to happen very quickly. Many with MCS report resolution of any major symptoms within a couple of months, weeks and, in some cases, days. Regardless of the speed of change, however, it is essential to maintain the exercises for six months so as to hardwire the changes in the brain. The discipline and commitment required are considerable, but the feeling of having put in the hours over six months, and the sense of having a ‘new limbic system’ after that time, is unparalleled.

  The various techniques the DNRS has adapted to rehabilitate the limbic system include: cognitive behavioural therapy, neuro-linguistic programming, mindfulness based cognitive restr
ucturing, emotional restructuring therapy, incremental exposure to context of perceived risk followed by brain retraining and behaviour modification therapy. As a whole, the program may be described, in Hopper’s own words, as a ‘…top-down neuroplasticity-based psychoneuroimmunological intervention that assists in normalizing the threat and survival mechanism within the limbic system and downgrades the brain’s maladapted chronic stress response.’[54] By “psychoneuroimmunological”, Hopper means that it is a ‘PNI’ intervention: the health of the body (or its immunological state) changes in response to the change in the brain, or, more precisely, as a result of the calmer HPA axis signal being emitted to the rest of the body via the nervous system.

  The Efficacy of the DNRS for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

  The DNRS was created relatively recently, with its DVD program only having been available since 2011 and, therefore, there has not been the amount of research into the program one might expect. This is now about to change, however.

  A multi-stage academic research study by the University of Calgary, a leading university in brain imaging and brain research, and the University of Alberta, a leading university in researching integrative medicine, is seeking funding (as of early 2017) in order to test the efficacy of neural retraining for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Fibromyalgia. This independent research study will include functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) and various other markers in health at baseline and at six months post-treatment intervention in participants who are implementing the DNRS program. Researchers will assess scans and other markers to learn more about the potential impact of DNRS on the brain. The scans will identify what changes (if any) are occurring in the brains of DNRS participants and demonstrate how potential changes in brain function may relate to symptoms of illness. At the time of this book going to print, there has been the potential development that POTS may also be included in this study although this has not been confirmed. Readers are encouraged to visit the DNRS website for updates on this research.

  Regarding other research, there was also an informal study[55] conducted by the DNRS itself into its efficacy which measured changes in multiple chemical intolerance (MCI) - a cluster of varied symptoms commonly found in MCS, CFS and FM. This preliminary data collection study made use of the ‘QEESI’ scale (Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory), a standard scale used to assess severity of MCI developed by Dr. Claudia Miller of the University of Texas.[56] The QEESI scale operates on a scale from 0-100, where, for both symptom severity and chemical sensitivity, patients are graded as: 0-19 (low); 20-40 (medium); 40-100 (high). In order to be included in this study, participants had to have a score of 40 or over.

  55 participants completed the QEESI scale at baseline and at least at one point in the next 3, 6, 12 or 36 months. The results were promising. On average, QEESI scores for “chemical sensitivity” decreased by 38 points, for “symptom severity” by 32 points, and for “impact on life” by 38 points. If one were to define “full remission” from MCS as having a QEESI score of less than 20, then around 30% of the participants achieved full remission whilst another 20% achieved a “partial remission” QEESI score of less than 40. In short, slightly over half of participants achieved full or partial remission. 60% of participants improved by at least 20 QEESI points. However, four participants did not experience positive changes and two participants’ symptoms increased in severity. In short, despite the limitations of this ‘informal’ study, there is strong initial evidence to show that brain retraining is an effective treatment for MCS. The study by the Universities of Calgary and Alberta, in any event, will give us more concrete data in the years to come.

  I also note here that many case studies and testimonials have been gathered by the DNRS, often illustrating the before and after effects of taking the program. Those interested in watching videos of those who have recovered from MCS, and related conditions, using the DNRS should go to this link: https://retrainingthebrain.com/success-stories/. I will also be discussing three video testimonials of those who have used the DNRS to recover from POTS shortly.

  What is the link between MCS and POTS?

  Sometimes major breakthroughs in medical science happen ‘by accident’ and I believe that, one day, the fact that the DNRS is an effective treatment for POTS will be seen as one of those ‘accidents’. For it was never originally intended for POTS, and yet it turned out to be effective for that condition also. This came about as several POTS patients who also had MCS took the DNRS program in the hope of curing MCS, but they actually ended up recovering from both conditions. It is notable, indeed, that many with POTS are also sensitive to chemicals and perfumes, as well as to sound and light, symptoms which indicate that the part of the brain responsible for processing stimuli, i.e. the limbic system, is in a crisis state. This points to the shared neurological origins common to both conditions and, had this ‘accident’ never happened, it is unlikely that others would subsequently have recovered from POTS using the program, thereby showing its potential efficacy in treating the condition.

  There are, however, undoubtedly pertinent differences between the two conditions. One might hypothesise that the difference between the person who “primarily has POTS with MCS” and the person who “primarily has MCS with POTS” is a question of which parts of the limbic system are most affected. The severest symptoms of those patients whose cingulate cortex is most affected, i.e. the part of the brain associated with processing smell, are likely primarily to have chemical sensitivity with POTS as a possible secondary condition. Meanwhile, those patients whose hypothalamus is more affected are likely primarily to have POTS, as their HPA axis will be setting off adrenalin all the time, with MCS present to some degree. Obviously, in some cases, it is possible for both POTS and MCS to be present with the same severity and, in other cases, for someone to have POTS but not MCS and vice versa. My hypothesis, in short, suggests that both conditions involve limbic system dysfunction but which part of the limbic system is most affected will dictate whether the person primarily has POTS or primarily has MCS: the cingulate cortex is the part primarily responsible for MCS whilst the hypothalamus it the part primarily responsible for POTS.

  There is, furthermore, another essential difference between the two conditions which needs to be kept in mind. And that is that although the root cause of POTS is in the brain, it also involves significant ‘knock-on’ changes in the body as a result of this neurological origin and, in particular, in the malfunction of the NET protein and resultant problems in blood vessel constriction. It is essential that patients recovering from POTS using the DNRS understand that they have a two-fold task in front of them. First, the brain needs to be rewired and, second, the NET protein needs enough time to heal. This is a noticeably different scenario from those with MCS for, although there are also widespread changes in the body as a result of MCS, these do not lead to NET deficiency and problems standing up. NET takes time to heal (how much time I will consider later in this chapter). Sometimes, there is confusion amongst POTS patients using the DNRS who are not experiencing the ‘dramatic’ reductions in heart-rate they hope for after a month or two of rewiring their brains and, as a result of this confusion, may quit the program even though they have started to feel much better. It is essential to understand that the heart-rate will remain high (or relatively high) until NET has also healed.

  Three Case Studies of Those Who Have Recovered from POTS Using DNRS

  Let us now consider three case studies of those who recovered from POTS using the DNRS (I use the first names only in two of these case studies so as to protect the privacy of those concerned).

  Case Study One: Lauren Dinkel

  Lauren Dinkel developed POTS after contracting mononucleosis at the age of 19. She had POTS for over four years before she found the DNRS. In the last of those four years, her condition had deteriorated to the point that she could not stand up at all, was in a ‘tilt-in-space’ wheelchair, in constant pain and unab
le to eat more than a handful of foods. Her heart rate in a supine position was around 135 BPM. Light and sound would give her migraines. Lauren’s hair had begun to fall out, she had become skin and bones, and she had lost all hope. Her mitochondrial cell function was on the level of an elderly woman. Her family tried everything. Lauren visited over 35 specialists and countless alternative medical practitioners, and her parents spent over $100,000 outside of their medical insurance in trying to find the answer to their daughter’s suffering. POTS was not the only condition Lauren was diagnosed with. She was also diagnosed with Fibromyalgia, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Multiple Sleep Disorders (including atypical narcolepsy), Pollen-Food Allergy Syndrome along with Mast Cell Activation Problems, Movement Disorder and Non-Epileptic Seizures, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome, Depression and Anxiety.