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