The answer to the above question is, Hypoism. When will it get there? Only when the people with the disease force them to, something that isn't happening and won't happen unless hypoics get involved in the politics and science of their own disease.

Addictions have been shown to be anywhere from at least 67% to 80% hereditary depending upon the addiction and the study. This means that children of addicts, whether they're brought up under the roof of their parent's home or not, will have exactly the same addiction(s) as their genetic ancestors most of the time. This occurs despite their witnessing the devastating effects the addiction have on their parents, something one would think would have the opposite effect unless, of course, there's not much the offspring can do about it. This occurs even when they have been adopted and know nothing of their parent's addiction. This occurs most decisively in identical twins brought up under the same roof or, equally, under different roofs, even when these twins never lived together whatsoever, adopted and split at birth. These occurrences clearly show that left to their own devises, offspring exhibit their genetic ancestor's addictions, or their absence, no matter what. This phenomenon has been duplicated even more convincingly in a variety of identical strains of laboratory animals using a variety of drugs and alcohol which I will include as a drug for the remainder of this article. These animal studies are also showing what some of the genes are that cause addictions but not how.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to ask the question: Is it the addiction per se that is inherited or is it addictability, the underlying physiology, the mechanism, leading inexorably to one or more addictions, the same ones or some others, in the offspring of addicted parents? The answer is addictability, but this is jumping the gun. Why would this question be important to ask? It is important because the answer will lead to the identification and understanding of the way the brain produces this phenomenon, the brain mechanism leading to addiction, a behavior. Different alleles of genes may be associated with addictions, but where do they work in the brain to cause the behavioral counterparts to these genetic differences? Has anyone other than me asked this question? I can only say, well, sort of, but not exactly.

Ming Tsuang, M.D.'s work, discussed on my web article on addiction genetics, showed conclusively that men addicted to one drug are more likely addicted to many others, even though these drugs interact within the brain at different receptor sites. Their addictability must, therefore, have a deeper basic mechanism than mere genetic differences in a specific drug receptor or a specific neurotransmitter activity caused by a specific gene. Kendler's work likewise shows high heritability of several "behavioral" addictions such as people addiction, bulimia and other eating disorders as well as familial aggregation of specific mental disorders such as depression, anxiety, and antisocial personality as well as addictions. These phenomena suggest an altered mechanism, not just a gene. Even though these researchers didn't ask the question specifically, they have begun to answer it.

The COGA (Collaborative studies On the Genetics of Alcoholism) study, although (mis)designed around alcohol because it was funded by the NIAAA, did superficially ask some questions about the co-occurrence of other drug and behavioral addictions such as gambling, sex, and religion in alcoholics and their family members (addictability). The study was not designed to answer this most important question though it should have been and could have been. The data is not available on this yet, but I predict they will find statistical co-occurrences of varied addictions that are genetically derived and connected. In other words, people who have a family history of some addiction likewise turn up with the same or some other addiction. The addiction may be the same or it may be a different one. This last part is the crucial point. The connection must be a mechanism, not a single gene. The addiction seen in offspring may not be the same addiction as in the parent, but the presence of some addiction shows that the mechanism is what is being inherited, not just the specific addiction. No one but me is asking this highly important question that when finally asked, studied, and answered, will allow the breakthrough in addictionology we are waiting for because it will prove the existence of an inherited addiction producing mechanism rather than the vagary of the less than perfect inheritance of some addiction. Of course, how else could an addiction, a behavior, be inherited than through some inherited mechanism? Inheritance of a specific addiction would be Lamarkian, like expecting the inheritance of short tails in mice who generation after generation have their long tails cut off. Genetics doesn't work this way. Cognitive mechanisms are inherited, not specific behaviors.

The COGA study is at: http://silk.nih.gov/silk/niaaa1/grants/projcoga.htm

The answers won't be definitive from the current COGA study because of the inadequate design of the study - a major waste of time and effort. No one has yet, even though the question begs to be asked and answered, designed a complete study to answer this important question. One of the lead investigators of the COGA study, Henri Begleiter, has published preliminary findings suggesting an answer to this question, but the article, Begleiter H, Porjesz B: What is Inherited in the Predisposition Toward Alcoholism? A Proposed Model. Alcohol: Clin Exp Res 1999; 23/7:1125-1135, leaves much to be desired. The COGA investigators have published endless articles on various superficial biological correlates to alcoholism in family members at risk of inheriting alcoholism. Many of these articles are listed on their web page: http://zork.wustl.edu/niaaa/publications.htm. None gets to the basic issue: What is the genetically inherited mechanism for these biological correlates?

When I read these awful articles that skirt this crucial issue, I begin to think that these investigators don't want to discover the mechanism causing addiction. Why would this be? Is it because the actual mechanism, as suggested by all this work, is determinative and outside the realm of will and choice of the individual, a reality that removes addiction from their biased conceptualizations of addiction origination, prevention, and "therapy?" Yes, they are actually biased against the inevitable reality of addiction etiology, a paradigm I call Hypoism.

Years ago, I spoke to Begleiter about the Hypoism paradigm and mechanism of addiction origination. He told me, "You're preaching to the choir," and then brushed me off. These investigators are spending our tax dollars doing research intended to prevent the discovery of the actual cause of addiction. Believe it. Moreover, we are letting them get away with it!

Every addict knows in his/her heart and from his/her personal experiences, and from the above mentioned heritability studies, that no matter what they do, talk and plead with their kids, send them to ala-tot, ala-teen or therapy, do perfect recovery for themselves, pray to god, their kids frequently end up addicts nonetheless, sometimes with the same addiction as themselves, sometimes a different addiction. Isn't it time someone, everyone, finally acknowledges that addictions are inherited via some as yet unknown mechanism, unconscious in etiology, unrelated to choices and control, and move on to deal with them realistically? Doesn't everyone realize that by denying this inevitability and acting counter to it only perpetuates its consequences? What could possibly blind so many people, even the "experts," to this reality? Only an overpowering and deeply held biased belief that humans are consciously in control of all their behavior. Well, get over it, addictions have proved this to be false over and over and over. The facts are there. The disease causing addictions is inherited, inevitable, and inexorable. The only realistic way to prevent addictions is early diagnosis of the actual disease that causes them and to begin early recovery from the disease, before the addictions are manifest. We accept this in all other diseases, why not in Hypoism?

The only realistic thing to do is give this phenomenon a name, help people with the disease make the diagnosis, and get into recovery, a recovery based on the mechanism, not on superstitious beliefs about the disease, unless, of course, we all choose to change the brains of the victims of this disease with "medications," (hasn't worked), "therapy," (hasn't worked), or genetic engineering (unconscionable). Anyone for a brain transplant?

I have already done all of the former. The name of the disease is Hypoism, named after the deficient (low - hypo) activity in parts of the brain mechanism responsible for the disease. This disease is defined and discussed in the book, Hypoic's Handbook, as well as on my web site in the web pages, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ which discusses the evolution of the mechanism causing addiction in hypoics, and, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thirdmilleniumn4aconferencekeynoteaddressonhypoism/, which discusses the pathophysiology of this mechanism.

Hypoics can be assisted in a variety of ways in making the diagnosis (genetically, behaviorally, and possibly biologically), and the recovery is available in 12 step groups slightly altered to take into account the mechanism of the disease described below or in HNA (Hypoics Not-Anonymous), already dealing with complete Hypoism recovery. This process, once the disease is accepted, destigmatized, and adopted by the public as a bona fide disease, will result in early recovery of hypoics and the actual prevention of future damaging addictions of all varieties. This result is what everyone, addicts as well as nonaddicts, is attempting to produce but with the wrong concept. Early recovery, however, will continue to be elusive until it is accomplished correctly, under the auspices of the real and correct disease, and with the correct understanding of the correct disease mechanism, something that isn't happening today. In fact, it will never happen if we continue to move in the biased direction research in addictions is moving.

Research in addictions today is biased towards proving the current beliefs of addiction etiology. This kind of biased science is a sin. The experimental methods are biased. The interpretation of the results are biased. The conclusions and the policy outcomes of these experiments are biased in favor of the current presumed paradigm of addiction etiology and treatment. The entire process is biased to maintain the current paradigm of addictions despite all evidence and results pointing towards Hypoism, a diametrically opposed paradigm of addictions.

Who is responsible for this misinterpretation of addictions continuing and the maintenance of the status quo? Everyone having anything to do with addictions and all for very poor motives.

The government: NIDA and NIAAA support a biased concept of addiction and addiction control based on that concept which propounds moralism, choice, and punishment, and forcing, in any way necessary, the addict to change into a nonaddict.

Addictionology: The experts get money and power from the government only if they support the government's paradigm of stigmatizing prevention, treatment, and control with drugs, fear, and brain washing.

Addiction therapists: Support the current paradigm of addictions because their livelihoods disappear under Hypoism.

And mostly, Recovering addicts in several ways and for several poor reasons: 1) They (all the 12 step groups) believe their recovery will evaporate if they change their mode of recovery to one based on science rather than on "spirituality." Bill Wilson put the fear of god into their beliefs about recovery. The traditions of A.A. state, "no opinions on outside issues," so they don't get involved with the disease debate nor with activism in addiction policy issues. They have been spiritually castrated, mostly out of fear of what the higher power might do to them if they disobey Bill Wilson. 2) Many of these people feel so self-stigmatized and ashamed that they believe they need to be accepted by nonaddicts as a way to atone for their sins. Hypoism opposes this atonement because it makes it clear there is nothing to atone for. Many of these atoners have gone so far as to become addiction counselors. To be credentialed, however, they are forced to go to school and learn things about addictions they know are wrong, but to get their license to practice, do it anyway. Over time, they forget the truth and become robots for their bureaucratic agencies who provide their salaries. They resist change out of fear of losing their jobs. 3) Those who switch rather than fight. These people, many of whom have attempted to rejoin the nonaddicts, are so afraid of being ostracized by "normal" people, they have taken jobs for the nonaddicts that police the addicts. These are the uncle Toms of the world of addictions. They have joined the other side out of fear. They fear punishment by the powers that be if they stand up for themselves. These three groups are run by fear, fear, and fear. This is recovery? This is serenity? These groups include all the "counsils on alcoholism" and other addictions as well. They all believe the higher power will take care of these things for them. There's no need to think or question. They have relinquished critical thought for the short term gain of anonymity and being allowed to live and work. They seek respectibility and forgiveness rather than the truth about their disease. Every other disease has an activist group advocating for the interest of the people with the disease. Not so among recovering addicts. Bill Wilson made a deal with society - Let A.A. survive and we won't bother you. This deal was good for A.A. but not for the vast majority of addicts. As a group they are useless and impotent to deal with their own discrimination and destruction of their brother and sister addicts on a massive scale. These are the people I am trying to reach with the realities of Hypoism to lead in changing the world of addictions, but they're inaccessible because of the misbeliefs and misuse of their traditions. If Bill Wilson were alive, he would, no doubt, change this, but dead he is incapable of doing anything. This must end, but I don't know how to reach his living but brain-dead and frightened followers.

The incredible irony here is that the attitudes and beliefs in these recovering addicts that keep them from acting intellectually and politically in their own interest have been created in them by the same paradigm they need to change. Their fears come from their own misconception of their own disease. Their fear, self-stigma and shame originate from this self same incorrect paradigm they fear to overthrow. That is the major pity of this entire mess in which they find themselves inactive and impotent.

The status quo can only be changed if and when addicts join together under the banner of their disease and demand these changes. The Hypoism paradigm brain mechanism gives them the tool to do this. In order to do this, however, hypoics need to break their own self-imposed chains of incorrect beliefs. From where I sit, they seem unable to do it, much to my chagrin.

Everything we intellectually need to suggest and support the existence of the correct addiction mechanism is at hand. The COGA study, an experimental venue for the proof of this mechanism, likewise exists. We await with bated breath the methodological changes in this study to make it into the study we need it to be. I ask all fellow addicts to make it known we want these changes and will raise hell until they are made.

Here's the first of many to come articles out of the COGA study to confirm the Hypoism hypothesis:

Bierut L, Dinwiddie S, Begleiter H, Crowe R, Hesselbrock V, Nurnberger Jr. J. Schuckit M, Reich T: The Familial Transmission of Substance Dependence: Alcohol, Marijuana, Cocaine and Habitual Smoking. Archives of General Psychiatry 1998; 55:982-988.
BACKGROUND: Alcoholism and substance dependence frequently co-occur. Accordingly, we evaluated the familial transmission of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine dependence and habitual smoking in the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism. METHODS: Subjects (n=1212) who met criteria for both DSM-III-R alcohol dependence and Feighner definite alcoholism and their siblings (n=2755) were recruited for study. A comparison sample was also recruited (probands, n=217; siblings, n=254). Subjects were interviewed with the Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism. The familial aggregation of drug dependence and habitual smoking in siblings of alcohol-dependent and non-alcohol-dependent probands was measured by means of the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Rates of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine dependence and habitual smoking were increased in siblings of alcohol-dependent probands compared with siblings of controls. For siblings of alcohol-dependent probands, 49.3% to 50.1% of brothers and 22.4% to 25.0% of sisters were alcohol dependent (lifetime diagnosis), but this elevated risk was not further increased by comorbid substance dependence in probands. Siblings of marijuana-dependent probands had an elevated risk of developing marijuana dependence (relative risk [RR], 1.78) and siblings of cocaine-dependent probands had an elevated risk of developing cocaine dependence (RR, 1.71). There was a similar finding for habitual smoking (RR, 1.77 in siblings of habitual-smoking probands). CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine dependence and habitual smoking are all familial, and there is evidence of both common and specific addictive factors transmitted in families. This specificity suggests independent causative factors in the development of each type of substance dependence.