WILL THE PRESS RECOGNIZE HYPOISM OR CONTINUE TO IGNORE IT OUT OF INTELLECTUAL SNOBBERY AT THE EXPENSE TO ADDICTS, AND DO RECOVERING ADDICTS WHO READ THIS GIVE A SHIT EITHER?
Below is a letter sent to the science department of the NY Times as well as the editor. Because I don't expect to get a response from them, I publish it here. I would hope someone else interested in the reality of addictions and the meaningfulness of Hypoism would re-send this letter to other papers and addiction journals in protest for it being ignored. The intellectual snobbery, lack of integrity, and closed-mindedness of the media and addiction literature, in addition to the recovery media and literature, needs to be confronted strongly. I can't do it alone. So, my protest is here for all to use. Use it or not. Only addicts will suffer if you don't. The article portends the government's and addictionology's use of reward system blockers that will turn more addicts into zombies who won't ever again be able to have a good feeling because of them while ignoring real drug-free recovery based on the actual disease of addictions. Only your acquiescence will allow this to happen.
C/O Science Dept.
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
Dear Ms. Dean:
This letter concerns the article by Linda Caroll, Genetic Studies Promise a Path to Better Treatment of Addictions, in todayís paper, and is a request for the Times to deal with the following information.
I have already written the book, Hypoicís Handbook (Hypoism is the neurobiological entity that causes all addictions and HYPO is the prefix used in the name of this entity to highlight the genetic deficiencies upon which the paradigm is based), describing the paradigm to which her article alludes; a paradigm that has been ignored and censored by mainstream addictionology for years for a variety of reasons, but mainly because it turns the field of addictions as well as the recovery from addictions on their head as Lindaís article begins to do, but falls short because of the missing connections made in my book. In fact, Iíve been writing the Times about the book and paradigm for over five years, and have also been ignored, probably because Iím not a member of the academic elite. Iím just a doctor who can think and write, and my ideas go against most current and deeply believed misconceptions of addictions even though I use the same neurobiology facts and concepts current addictionology misuses. Their emphasis has been to control and change addicts while mine has always been to help them.
The paradigm described in my book includes behavioral, people, and belief addictions in addition to drug addictions and, thus, forms a complete paradigm of all addictions. It discusses the biological evolution of the reward mechanism, the mechanistic template for all addictions, the genetic variations of this mechanism across the population responsible for addictions having a genetic basis in only certain people, and the etiology of addictions from the neurobiological-genetic level to the cellular level all the way to the behavioral level, filling in the missing pieces, including many of the concepts alluded to in Lindaís article, but with important distinctions and additions. The difference is: I complete the entire picture and formulate a recovery from these addictions that while being based on this neurobiology doesnít necessitate the use of drugs to alter the brains of addicts in detrimental ways unknown to Linda. My use of the complete neurobiology, something current addictionologists canít and refuse to fathom at this point in time for biased reasons, allows for recovery without blocking the addictís reward mechanism, the basis of the proposed drugs in the article, and thus blocking normal feelings of well-being, a deep loss to the addict. There is a better way to produce recovery in addicts, based on current neurobiological precepts, without using drugs to change addictís brains in hurtful ways not discussed in the article.
The theory in my book is complete and the implications are overwhelming in terms of how we perceive addictions, how we perceive addicts (as the article just touches upon), how addicts perceive themselves, and how to use these ideas to improve and magnify recovery and alter public policy for the better for all involved concerning addictions of all kinds. I would hope you at the Times would be able to appreciate my paradigm at this point in time, now that youíve entered the realm of addiction neurobiological reality as this article begins to do.
Itís time we started dealing with addictions according to their reality rather than via the intellectual and emotional prejudices that have distorted this field for time immemorial.
I would be willing to send you a copy of the book if we can talk about it first.