We are fortunate to have this issue guest edited by Sunil Sachdev, MD; Michael Powell, PhD; and George I. Viamontes, MD, PhD, which is Part 2 of the series on Brain-Body Interactions (see Part 1 in the December 2009 issue of Psychiatric Annals). Dr. Viamontes and colleagues have summarized their interesting contributions in the guest editorial (see page 362). The article on “The Physiological Impact of Mental Processes on Major Body Systems,” (see page 367) by Dr. Viamontes and Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, is a masterpiece, which is worth reading more than once. Lately, we have been receiving and publishing more case reports from our readers. This is a good trend, because clinicians often see cases that may not necessarily fi t the common wisdom. We can all learn from these cases. In addition, because of the widespread treatment of mental disorders by clinicians other than psychiatrists, such as primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, psychologists, and other mental healthcare providers, patients seen by psychiatrists are increasingly likely to be treatment resistant or refractory, having been through the more commonly used treatments, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), when they consult with us. This means that there is less gold standard evidence to guide us, because most of that evidence is generated by pharmaceutical industry-sponsored, randomized, placebo-controlled studies (RCTs). Pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to do RCTs of augmenting agents or combinations (with the exception of more recent studies of olanzapine, aripiprazole, and quetiapine augmentation). Single studies or small case series reports can often lead to useful treatment strategies in the absence of RCT evidence for treatment-resistant disorders (such as the case of Raskind’s early report of the effect of prazosin in posttraumatic stress disorders nightmares).1 Caution should be used, however, in publishing an increased volume of submitted case reports. Often, these cases may require careful editing, can be highly variable in quality, and may require attention in separating opinion from data. In the June issue, one of these such articles was published, which contained opinions that should have been more carefully screened. Our bad! I am grateful to James Jefferson, MD, and Marlene Freeman, MD, for calling us out these errors. The article “ A Woman with Bizarre Behavior” was published, presenting a 52-year-old woman who had been lithium carbonate for 20 years and presented with “bizarre behavior” for 2 years. According to the article, when the patient was re-started on lithium “for the past 3 years, she became a different person, was acting bizarre and almost demented.” A reference was cited to the statement that lithium can cause cognition defi cits when used for a long period of time. This reference cited four articles that found that lithium could “have a negative effect on memory and information processing.” The author then stated in his discussion that he had seen similar cases to this in the past and that it was likely that many patients in the future would have the same side effects. The author concluded with opinions that were not supported by the data presented in the article. The author then made recommendations for future consideration, such as removing the drug from the market, having the side effects listed in the package insert, or having a black-box warning added, and that it should be used as “a last resort.” The listed references did not include two large studies by Kessing, showing that lithium reduces the incidence of dementia in populations of bipolar patients.2,3