Hypoism



Home Page of Hypoism, The Disease of Addictions


Web site advertising


The Overriding Principle


The reason for this web site


IMAGINE


send me a message


Discussion Page

Buy the book



Buy the Book

Hypoism Issues



Role of Dopamine in Addiction Causation


Theory of Addiction - Hypoism Hypothesis


Why drug use is unconscious and against one's willfulness - not volitional


Misuse of the word choice in addictions


THE INESCAPABLE LOGIC OF ANY VALID ADDICTION ETIOLOGICAL PARADIGM


WHAT OTHER DISEASE....?


What Am I Angry About? - Don't Ask Me This Again


Disease Concept - A Perspective


HYPOISM IN A NUT SHELL


Page Directory of this Site with Explanations and Links


The History of the Proof of Hypoism in the Wake of the P/R Paradigm page 1.


History page 2


Why Addiction Experts and Other People Are Ignoring Hypoism


Strange Brew


AIMING AT AN UNDERSTANDING OF ADDICTIONS


The Paradigm Vacuum in Addictions Today


THE ADDICTION PROBLEM AND THE SOLUTION


What Does An Addiction Expert Know?


The Hypoism Addiction Hypothesis - An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective


Addiction Questionnaire


Misconceptions of addictions and addicts


What's Hypoism? What's an Addiction?


WHY WE DON'T NEED HYPOISM.


Why We Need Hypoism: A Comparison of the Principles and Consequences between the two Paradigms


Entitled to Your Opinion? Not Anymore.


HYPOICMAN: A non-recovering, unimpressed Hypoic


The Field of Addictionology: A Golfing Analogy


NEW YEAR PREDICTIONS


Contact Information

Hypoism Treatment Research



The Addiction Treatment Fraud Finally Exposed


Hypoism Treatment Research Proposal

N4A



I KEPT QUIET


The National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts


Make A Contribution To The N4A


Addict Discrimination Documentation


Social Innovations Award 2000 for The N4A


Third Millennium N4A Conference Keynote Address on Hypoism - Pathophysiology in Addictions vs. Superstition


N4A Goes on the Offensive - Suggesting Real Action


The Verdict


Blind Faith?

Learn More About the Book



Letters from book readers


Title Page of Book


Book Blurb


Book Cover


Back Cover


Table of Contents


Foreword


Preface


Opening Statement


Chapter 1


Vision For The Future


Outcomes of Hypoic's Handbook


Bibliography


Book Corrections


Harm reduction prototype: Swiss PROVE program

Book Reviews



The Phoenix Magazine

Hypoics Not-Anonymous



Hypoics Not-Anonymous

Things You Can Do



What you can do---


My Kids

Special Links



Special Links to important web sites


Addiction Links on the Web

Addiction Genetics



Recent Genetic Studies on Various Addictions from a Large Twin Registry


Genetic Studies page 2.


Gateway theory finally disproven


Celera Discovers Millions of Tiny Genetic Differences in People

Interesting Addiction Science



Clinically Important Neurotransmitter Deficiencies

Hypoism Magazine-Articles by and for Hypoics



EMBRYONIC HYPOISM CIRCA 1968


#1 Hatred, #2 The Words: Opinion, Belief, and Knowledge, #3 Hate Addiction


#4 The Drug War War, #5 Evolution vs. Creationism Revisited for Addictions


#6 American Society for Addiction Medicine Statement for Recovering Physicians


#7 Issues Peculiar to the Disease of Addictions


#8 Critique of Alan Lechner's (NIH), "The Hijacked Brain Hypothesis."


#8a. Update!! Dr. Leshner recently makes a change


#9 MY STORY - The Doctor Drug War - Wrong and Wasteful p.1, 1/6/00


The Doctor Drug War p.2


Doctor Drug War p.3


Doctor Drug War p.4


Doctor Drug War p.5


Affidavit for judicial review of NYS Dept. of Ed.


#10 The Superstition Instinct 3/1/00


#11-Conflict of Interest in Addiction Research


#12 - Controlled Drinking Lands On Its Ass


#13 - The Kennedy Curse or Kennedy Hypoism?


#14 - The Lord's Prayer for Hypoics


#15 - Replacing Alan Leshner is the only way to end the Drug War


#16 - The Brain Addiction Mechanism and the COGA Study


#17 - Letter to the director of the National Academy of Medicine's Board on Neurobiology and Behavior Health on Addictions


#18 - Is Addiction Voluntary, A Choice, as Leshner and NIDA Insist?


#19 - Bush's Alcoholism and Lies


#20 - A P/R Paradigm Addict - "Cured?"


#21 - Congress Misled and Lied to by NIAAA


#22 - Special Letter to the Times on Addiction Genetics


#23 - JAMA Editor Publishes According to His Beliefs, Not Science


#24 - Smoking as Gateway Drug. I Don't Think So!


#24B - IS COCAINE ADDICTION CAUSED BY COCAINE?


#25 - One Less Heroin Addict. But At What Cost?


#26 - An Open Letter to the Judge who Sentences Robert Downey, Jr.


#27 - Letter To Schools About The Pride Program Against Drugs


#28 - A Letter To Bill Moyers, Close To Home, and PBS


#29 - HYPOISM IS ACTUALLY A DISEASE OF THE "WILL"


#30 - Brookhaven Labs Provide More Evidence For Hypoism


#31 - Addiction Prevention Revisited


#32 - DRUG WAR EVALUATION BY THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE


#33 - NIDA Is Close But No Cigar


#34 - Bush's Addict Discrimination and Hypocricy Begins


#35 - Maya Angelou's, "Still I Rise."


#36 - Leshner Lies To Congress


#37 - Addiction Combos


#38 Brain tumor proves Hypoism hypothesis


#39: So-called Availability Debunked as Contributor of Addictions


#40 - Hypoism Reproduced By A Pill


PIMMPAL Complex


Cartoons

The Hypoism Blog - The Addiction Blog



The Addiction Blog 4/17/11 -


The Addiction Blog 9/14/10 - 4/16/11


The Addiction Blog 11/12/09 - 9/14/10


The Addiction Blog 7/23/09 - 11/09/09


The Addiction Blog 5/16/09 - 7/22/09


The Addiction Blog 3/3/09 - 5/13/09


The Addiction Blog 8/3/08 - 3/3/09


The Addiction Blog 4/1/07 - 8/3/08

old letters



My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 1.


My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 2.


My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 3.


My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 4.


My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 5.


My New York Times Letters to the Editor page 6.


My Letters to the editor of the NY Times page 7.


My Letters to the Editor of the NY Times page 8.


NY Times Letters Page 9.


New York Times Letters Page 10


My NYT Letters page 11


NY Times Letters page 12.


NY Times letters p. 13


Letters to the NY Times page 14.


Letters to Newsday


Letters To The Los Angeles Times


Creationism/Evolution Letter to BAM 11-25-05

Speeches



Committee for Physician Health Speech
goldbutton.jpg

The Future of Addictions

Addict Discrimination in the News



Mandated Treatment for Welfare Recipients


Anorectic Murdered by Doctors out of Ignorance and "Desperation"(10/20/99)


Six Dead Heroin Addicts-Enough? 10/31/99


American Society of Addiction Medicine Discrimination


Darryl Strawberry Punished Again


South Carolina Forces Pregnant Women to Take Drug Tests


When it comes to drugs, the constitution doesn't apply


Parents of Overweight Girl Will Sue New Mexico


Scrapbook

Downloads



Download Files


huffington post


Custom HTML


Sitemap




Hypoics are born, not made.

Hypoism  
Dan F. Umanoff, M.D.  
941-926-5209  
8779 Misty Creek Dr.  
Sarasota, Florida 34241  

dan.umanoff.md@gmail.com  




Make sure you read article #24 before reading this one!!!

Untitled

IS COCAINE ADDICTION CAUSED BY COCAINE?

ARE ADDICTIONS HEREDITARY?

ARE ADDICTIONS DISEASES?

Now, everyone one of you who is reading this page is going to have an opinion about it, pro, con, or just plain confused. Despite this, very few of you will read the book that explains my assertions in detail, and this includes the "scientists" who wrote the article this page rebuts. They have their opinions and won't debate me just in case I show them their scientific hang-ups and biases are wrong. They will write me letters but won't debate me much like the creationists whose whole argument is based on belief and no science.

Let me ask you a question that should be easy as pie, but you will get it wrong. It is basically the question Dr. Lai is asking in his "research" but doesn't know it. The question is: Does cocaine cause cocaine addiction? The answer to this question is the key to understanding addictions and seems so obvious to everyone reading it. The correct answer is the difference between Hypoism and the P/R paradigm and everyone will get it wrong. Before I answer it, I must say that this question is exactly the same as the one answered by the "gateway" theory of addictions, and this is why it is the question that Dr. Lai asks but is unable to answer correctly or even comprehend the correct answer. This is why he will continue to do the same research, get the same result, make the same conclusions and be wrong every time. And, when I tell him he's wrong he'll not ask me to explain, he'll instead tell me I not entitled to question him. That's the only way he can get out of the debate, by making it personal and putting his pseudoauthority in the way of debate, just like the Pope does when asked a question, "I don't have to answer that because you're not entitled to ask it. God gives me the answer, not men, not science, not you." This is no way to win an argument if you claim to be a scientist.

So, what's the answer? All of you will say, yes, cocaine causes cocaine addiction. You are all wrong. I can ask this question to the same people a thousand times, tell them their answer is wrong, and they'll give me the same answer yet again. I say, "Read the book to discover why you're wrong as well as the to find the correct answer," and they won't. They just don't want to hear about it. So, they don't. That's where we are at in addictionology. The father says, "I don't want to hear about it. Shut up and go away." He wins? Nope. Everyone loses, right? Of course. Because fathers don't always know best.

Let me answer the question for you correctly. I bet you think I'm nuts when you hear it, but this, of course is the difference between reality and belief, between what you're able to conceive of and what you can't, based on your biases, on your biases.

The answer is, NO. Cocaine doesn't cause cocaine addiction. Cocaine addiction is present at birth in hypoics only. Remember? Hypoics are born not made. But, you say, how is that possible? If a person doesn't take cocaine he won't and can't be a cocaine addict. And that's the concept you can't get. And that's the difference between the reality and falsehood of addictions. YOU ALL ARE FOCUSING ON THE ADDICTIONS INSTEAD OF ON THE DISEASE. I've said it a thousand times: You are missing the forest for the trees. The forest is the disease, the mechanism in the brain, the trees are the individual addictions. Just as Dr. Lai's article focused on smoking and cocaine addiction, so do you. Smoking and cocaine addiction are irrelevant unless you keep focusing on them. Then, of course, you miss the forest for the trees. Again - the addictions aren't the issue here. They are but symptoms. Who cares about symptoms once the diagnosis of the disease is made? No doctor does. A good doctor focuses on the disease and deals with the disease despite what the symptoms are doing. He knows that once the disease is dealt with, the symptoms will disappear. But the doctor who keeps chasing the symptoms misses the disease and catches his own tail, ouch. Ouch for him and ouch for the patient. This difference is the difference between a real doctor and a jerk who thinks he's a doctor. And, of course, you all think you're doctors. That's why you think your opinions matter. They don't, because you're not only not doctors, you're bad doctors. You don't know what a real doctor is or does. He doesn't chase symptoms. He goes after the disease. Dr. Lai is chasing addictions, symptoms, like the rest of addictionology, and thereby they miss the disease. They are the quintessential bad doctors. Most likely they are bad doctors for other diseases as well because they don't know what a good doctor is, they don't know what good medicine is, they never did and probably never will. Why do I bother arguing with them? Good question. But it's to get a debate. Otherwise there will be no debate because addictionology is comprised of only these guys. So, to stimulate a public debate that informs the public, I must debate these bad doctors.

Back to the question: does the addictor (drugs, behaviors) cause the addiction? Answer: No. The addiction is irrelevant. The right question is: Does this person have the disease of Hypoism and how shall we help him with it? We keep asking, "What do we do with such and such addiction?" Wrong question. What's the right question? Does this person have Hypoism or not, and how do we help him?

Why is this the right question and the right answer both at the same time? Because it deals with the disease, not the symptom. Someone with an out of control disease will have many symptoms, many addictions, and many other problems as well. Chasing the addictions only gets you dizzy and doesn't help anyone. Dealing realistically with the disease takes care of all current and future symptoms without having to deal with a single one of the symptoms individually. So, cocaine doesn't cause cocaine addiction, hypoism does. Deal with the Hypoism and the addiction goes away along with all the other symptoms. Deal with the cocaine addiction and the addiction may or may not go away, but, nevertheless, the disease continues to kill the patient. Do you see the difference in perspective now? Do you see why it matters whether the chicken or the egg came first? The egg, the genes, the disease came first. The chicken, the individual addictions, come afterwards. Don't focus on the chicken, focus on the disease, the egg. From the egg grows the cocaine addict, the alcohol addict, the sex addict, the religious fanatic, the violence addict, the workaholic, the anorectic, etc. Who cares about the individual addictions? Get the disease right and all these symptoms disappear.

Let me show you how focusing on the individual addictions has messed up addictionology over the last 100 years.

100 years ago, addictions were bad and immoral.

65 years ago, Bill Wilson said alcoholism (an addiction) was a disease.

Addictionology took 64 years to catch up to this wrong concept because they've been stuck in psychobabble for 99 years.

Now I come along and say, Hypoism is the disease that causes all addictions and addictionology says, NO, each addiction is a disease. Alcoholism is a disease. Heroin addiction is a disease. Sex addiction "may" be a disease. Notice the emphasis. To addictionology, the disease only occurs after the addiction is thoroughly in place. Wrong. The disease was there at birth. The addictions happen one at a time as the hypoic lives and experiences them inexorably.

Look at this person:

He is born in a family. The family has a history that we will get back to in a second. The person is born and 1) cries more than most babies, or, sucks his thumb for a long time, or wets his bed too much, or gets too fat, or injures himself more than most, or plays with his penis too much, or, etc. 2) Has trouble in school, gets homesick too much in camp, gets hung up on cleaning his room, or other stuff, etc. 3) Is too perfectionistic or too sloppy, beats up other kids, wants to have sex with girls too early, eats too much ice cream or cake, etc. 4) is too nervous or too depressed, too fidgety, or too whatever. 5) hangs out with goofy friends 6) does quite well in school or too poorly, underachieves and overachieves. 7) starts smoking at early age 8) etc. etc. 22) makes too much money 23) uses cocaine and gets addicted to cocaine. The addictionologist looks at this guy and says: smoking leads to cocaine addiction. All the other stuff is psychological blah blah and different and unrelated.

Lets look at his family now. Many generations and many family members are available to study. There are 50 people to study. There is one alcoholic, one homosexual priest, one massively obese, one pedophile, one philanderer, one anorectic, one workaholic, one gambler, one psychedelic goof, one shoplifter and thief, one spousal abuser and three abused spouses, etc. etc. Do statistics on the family. Conclusion: cocaine addiction is not hereditary. Alcohol addiction is not hereditary. Sex addiction is not hereditary, etc. etc. These behaviors must be environmental. No connection except that the family sure is fucked up. They must teach each other to be fucked up. No mechanism. No disease.

The Hypoism specialist takes a look at the guy and his family and concludes: severe genetic hypoism in most members of the family. Clear cut genetic mechanism involving the reward mechanism and neurotransmitter deficiencies in the decision-making apparatus leading to drug and behavioral addictions, and other bad decisions, all unconscious.

Do you see now how different this addict and his family looks to a P/R paradigm addictionologist compared to a Hypoism addictionologist?

Are addictions genetic? Are addictions caused by the addictors? Are addictions the or a disease? Isn't it clear that it depends on how you look at the people and the families. If you look for specific behaviors these people look different and the answers are NO, YES, YES. If you look for patterns of similar behaviors, all addictions, then the family disease is seen and their behaviors make sense, and the answers are YES, NO, NO. Addictionology has for years been looking for only specific addictions within families to see if they're inherited such as, "Is alcoholism genetic," instead of, "Is there a disease in this family that is inherited and causes all these different behaviors?" Because they have asked the wrong questions and looked at the wrong things they have come up with heritability numbers that are high, but still less than 100%. Less than 100% leaves room for the wrong conclusion: addictions are part genetic and part environmental. The mistake addictionology has consistently made over the last 100 years is to ask the wrong questions, look at the wrong things, and come up the wrong conclusions, all because they have been looking at the specific addictions as if they were individual entities and missing that they are all part of one entity. Again: Does cocaine cause cocaine addiction? NO. Hypoism causes cocaine addiction and 60 or so other addictions as well as many other symptoms previously not hooked up with any underlying disease other than the generalization - "this family is sure fucked up." Wrong!

The entire field of addictionology needs to change perspective as discussed in my article, The Third Millennium Keynote Address on Hypoism, and start asking the right questions, seeing the right things, finding the common denominator causing all this stuff, and coming to the right conclusion: All individual addictions are symptoms caused by a single but individually and genetically diverse entity, Hypoism, that is inherited 100% and causes the disease of addictions whether a specific addictor (such as cocaine) is present or not. The slight genetic variations between individual hypoics (as all people are slightly diverse genetically except for identical twins) causes the slight differences in how the Hypoism is manifest from one hypoic to the next. The presence or absence of a specific addictor or addiction in the individual hypoic's life makes no difference whatsoever in the overall picture of the disease in the individual, only in the specific symptoms he may or may not manifest. The individual hypoic still needs the correct recovery for his disease as discussed in Hypoic's Handbook irrespective of which symptom or group of symptoms he has.

Is this clear yet? If not, please let me know. But first, try reading the book. If this doesn't help, then e-mail or call me and I will try to clarify it better for you.









You can take the addiction out of the hypoic, but you can't take the Hypoism out of the addict.




Sign In