Hypoic's Handbook delineates a neurobiological and unconsciously motivated addiction paradigm where both recovery and prevention are the same things and are dictated by the characteristics of the addiction producing brain mechanism rather than by the ignorant human desires to treat and prevent addictions via conscious and willful policies. These later policies have been ineffective for over 100 years, yet addiction experts and antidrug foundations and organizations persist in using them despite their demonstrated repeated failure. In fact, the Surgeon General and the National Academy of Science have both studied the 15 year history of the D.A.R.E. prevention program and exclaimed it was a failure. The response to these studies by funders of these ineffective programs has been to continue them, "revised." One definition of insanity is the use of the same methods over and over to accomplish a desired goal despite their repeated failure. Continued failure of these programs can only mean more addicted people and more consequences of addictions for the addicts, their families, and the society. It also means they will continue to ignore Hypoism, the only paradigm capable of true prevention via early recovery, the only way to prevent the consequences of a genetic and unconsciously motivated disease.

Below are some of my letters to the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation that has the purported goal of preventing drug use and addictions and spends hundreds of millions of dollars on ineffective policies to accomplish this goal. I think these letters and the negative responses I've received from them are self explanatory and demonstrate the absolute closed-mindedness of people and groups who say they really do want to help addicts and their families yet will ignore the way to accomplish this lofty goal. I've had the same response from governmental, addictionology, and recovery groups such as The National Council on Alcoholism and the Long Island Council on Alcoholism. All I can do is to try to have them reevaluate their paradigm and methods. Their persistence in ignoring the only possible successful methodology is an enigma to me. Maybe some one reading this article will have more success in helping groups such as the RWJ Foundation rethink its policies.

(I sent a proposal requesting money to help establish the N4A and publish my book)

5/98
Katherine J. Parker
Deputy Director
Office of Proposal Management
Robert Woods Johnson Foundation
Route 1 and College Road East
PO Box 2316
Princeton, New Jersey 08543-2316
Reference I.D. #034454
Dear Ms. Parker,

Thanks for your review. It's too bad, though, since you seem to have missed the gravity and seriousness of the proposal. We do have common ground. We both want to help addicts, their families and the people they effect. What you may have missed about the material which I sent you, though, is that it describes a paradigm on addictions which is completely different from and opposed to the one on which your foundation is operating and one which is based on the science of addiction rather than the religion of addiction. Moreover, it is one that works for your objectives rather than against them as your paradigm does and must. Of course, this sounds confrontative, but it is the reality. How would you know? You're not an addiction expert. You take the advise of your chosen experts. O.K. But, have you had those experts actually prove their case to you or do you just accept whatever they say because they are the experts. I know deep in my heart that you don't realize the seriousness of this letter. If you and your foundation are really sincere about what you are attempting to do, then don't you think the experts have an obligation to prove to you that their paradigm is actually correct? Haven't they had enough time to prove it? The same nonsense about addictions has been coming out of this paradigm for 60+ years, yet they still can't prove any of it. Ask them to show you the data on how their treatments work. They have none. Ask them to show you the data on how well prevention works. They have none.

Let's all get together and have a debate. Believe it or not, they won't participate because they are above debate and they have everything to lose and nothing to gain, except reality. But when did a psychiatrist actually value reality as more important than his word, his religion, the religion of psychiatry which only high priests are allowed to participate in? I'll predict what the debate will sound like. It will sound like the public TV debate between the creationists and the evolutionists. This is the quantum difference between their paradigm on which your foundation's work is based, and mine. How about taking the risk of actually doing something that will actually help rather than looking good to the world and your benefactors?

The reason I sent this material to you is so that you may have the opportunity to read it and compare it to your foundation's "philosophy" on addictions. You may not realize this, but the paradigm under which you are creating and operating your programs on prevention, education, and support for research is, as well intentioned as it may be, grossly incorrect. This is the reason your programs have not and will not effect present and future addictions in a positive manner. They never have. This is the reason addictions overall are more out of control than ever. Check the statistics. The drug and other addiction problem is getting larger, not smaller, despite many well intentioned efforts like yours. I predict this trend will continue, again, despite well intentioned efforts like yours. The reason for this is that the paradigm on which these efforts are based is wrong. This is what I discuss in my book. This is why my book needs to get published. But, as you may well know, getting a new idea published when it seems to be against everything we all believe, yes believe, not know, is a daunting task. This is why I'm asking for your help. You have the clout which I don't have.

Let's evaluate the ideas objectively rather than as you have done which is to evaluate them by whether or not they superficially relate to your foundation's stated objectives and philosophy. If you would actually do this, you may see that the publishing of this book will be unequivocally more effective in realizing your foundation's goals of helping people than the good, but ineffective, works you are attempting. Prevention has never been shown to keep one addict from being addicted. I'm a good personal example of that. I got addicted while I was in medical school. Many other doctors have the same story. Do you think we weren't aware that drugs and alcohol are addicting? Prevention only works on people who will never be addicts anyway. Get my point? Prevention does not work because it can not work. It's a nice idea, just not effective. It's not effective because addiction occurs unconsciously, as weird as that may seem to you and your advisors. Ask Bill Clinton why he would let himself become a sex addict. He doesn't even know it himself yet. The real story on the realities of addictions are in my book, not out there in public view yet. I need your help to get it out there.

Not only do efforts like yours have no positive effect, and believe me, I wish they did too, but they actually have the reverse effect by perpetuating the incorrect paradigm-that being the psychological paradigm which purports that addictions are a choice and are learned. This could not be further from the truth and there is no basis for that paradigm's position except the "philosophical" bias of the advocates of that position (the invalid psychiatric and psychological basis of human behaviors, especially concerning addictions). Since addictions are not learned or chosen, they can't be prevented by using those same methods. "Just say no" doesn't work. Love, as sweet as it sounds, does not prevent addictions. This is because addictions come out of an unconscious part of the brain which is not amenable to reason, choice, good intentions or wishful thinking. We can't prevent Diabetes and we have given up trying. But we do promote the correct paradigm on Diabetes so that there is a solid basis for those with Diabetes to get to a physician and get it correctly treated. The same will be true for addictions once this occurs. The only difference is that there is no medical or psychiatric treatment for addictions, but there is recovery via 12 step groups. The biology behind all this is clearly spelled out in the book.

This was the original reason I requested your support for my book. The book describes the real disease from which addictions are derived and the correct paradigm from which to approach addictions as an inexorable manifestation of a genetically transmitted disease which I call Hypoism. It is the Hypoism which is inherited, not the addictions. Hypoics will always get addicted to something. This cannot be prevented. But, with the popularization and acceptance of the correct paradigm, the victims of Hypoism can readily realize they are hypoic and can get the recovery they need before all the severe disasters have time to occur. Addictions will lose their stigmatization and demonization both of which keep addicts away from help. In the presence of the wrong paradigm, denial always stays intact and the addicts don't make the diagnosis resulting in perpetuation of the dire manifestations of their Hypoism which include addictions as well as many other dangerous results. Like it or not, this is the reality of addictions. Sticking our collective heads in the sand will not change this. Hypoism is a biological fact no matter what well meaning people like you wish. Without realizing it, your foundation is actually perpetuating the very thing that continues to hurt the people who are being hurt. Sorry I'm being so blunt, but this is just the case.

I'm enclosing the book, as per our conversation the other day. Hope you had a good vacation, by the way.

It doesn't make sense for you to waste your dollars on programs which inherently can not work in the way you want them to. They never have and they never will, sorry. All of your social scientists will tell you that I am crazy and that they know what's best, but look out your window and check the reality. Under the intense care and control of these social scientists, addictions are growing, not receding. And, this doesn't mean that we need to do more of the same ineffective stuff, but rather, that we need to change paradigms completely.

Check out the material I'm enclosing. Compare the two paradigms which I outlined in the Introduction chapter. I hope you sincerely read this information with an open mind. Otherwise, you will continue to spin your wheels getting nowhere with your programs while the reality of Hypoism and addiction continue to enlarge and metastasize. At least give me the opportunity to show you the reality of my concept and how the programs you are currently funding behind the defunct psychological paradigm have no basis. I need the help of an obviously powerful and potentially invaluable foundation such as yours.

You supported Bill Moyers show on addictions recently aired on TV. As well intentioned as it may have been, it was wrong. Its effects are to perpetuate the damage to addicts and to society. It is counterproductive non-science, or put a gentler way, it is science whose real life implications are not fully appreciated because of severe the biases and pre-judgments of the "scientists". They have severe conflicts of interest which interfere with their objectivity and sorry to say, integrity as scientists. Count how many times these scientists said the word "I believe" in the series. The present paradigm perpetuates itself as well as the stuff it purports to be against. Review the PIMMPAL complex which pictorially displays how the whole system works. I also enclosed a letter which I sent to Mr. Moyers making the same argument. I mean what I say. This is serious stuff. I hope you realize that. The longer the present paradigm remains in effect, the longer will the damage continue. Hope I didn't hurt your feelings. This was not my intention.

Thanks for taking the time to evaluate this important idea. I know you realize how important the correct idea is behind any endeavor. It only makes sense, considering how long we have been in this mess. Why keep barking up the wrong tree?

Sincerely Yours,
Dan F. Umanoff M.D.

(after they told me, "No Thanks.")

5/98
Katherine J. Parker
Deputy Director
Office of Proposal Management
Robert Woods Johnson Foundation
Route 1 and College Road East
PO Box 2316
Princeton, New Jersey 08543-2316
Reference I.D. #034454

Dear Ms. Parker,

I was surprised by your lack of interest in my book. You claim to be interested in making health care available to more people. I assume that means recovery for addicts as well. As a matter of fact, the way I initially discovered your foundation's interest in addictions was during the Bill Moyers shows on channel 13. You apparantly were willing to make a large investment of money as well as your foundation's moral support for that series. I also understand that you support many well intentioned community "drug prevention" programs.

I hate to be a party pooper but these prevention programs don't work. There is no data to support your programs and you won't be able to find any. Under the auspices of the current psychological paradigm, prevention, education, "treatment" and criminalizing addictions doesn't work to reduce addictions. There is no way to prevent a disease which people don't know they have and which makes them do what they do against their will. No one starts out to be a drug, sex, alcohol, etc. addict. The disease which causes addictions does so inexorably and unconsciously. This is why we haven't, as a society, been able to make a dent in addictions and their dire consequences for the last 60 years. And, believe me, all sorts of well intentioned attempts like yours and Moyers have been tried in the past to no avail. Why don't they work? Because of all the things I discuss in my book. Addiction is not a conscious event! You can't teach people not to be addicts. Moreover, when the eventually find that they are addicts, they have been self and socially stigmatized to such a degree that they not only can't admit it, but they are not allowed to-by themselves that is. Isn't this bizzare? But it is true. This is the way it is and will stay this way as long as the current paradigm is in effect. Let me know in 5, 10 or 20 years if this is not the case.

As a matter of fact, all the anti-drug addiction education and TV programs actually enforce this denial. Thus, these programs you are encouraging are actually pushing the addicts into a deeper hole. They are self stigmatized and thus must deny being an addict. Because the programs like Moyers' and others actually perpetuate the addiction paradigm which produces this self stigmatization and damaging social policy and demonization of addicts, you are actually accomplishing the exact opposite of what you are attempting to accomplish. It sounds weird, but it's true. Look at its track record. More and more education against drugs and addicts followed but even more addiction as well as its dire consequences.

My book discusses why this must occur and has the actual solution to this seemingly backwards cause and effect relationship. But, because the paradigm which I introduce is unacceptable to the "control" based experts, this paradigm is having a hard time getting off the ground. Like it or not, these experts have a conflict of interest in maintaining their psychological paradigm despite adorning their paradigm with the newly discovered neurobiology. You see, Katherine, this neurobiology actually points away from their paradigm and towards mine. Yet, these dinosaurs of the old ineffective and incorrect addiction paradigm, would rather maintain their own status than switch to my paradigm which is all about surrender of control rather than more control. It would put them all out of work. Acceptance of the Hypoism paradigm and all its implications along with detoxes and simple rehabs as well as an enlarged and more effective 12 step program revised according to the Hypoism paradigm is all we wouild need to turn around the mess we are presently in with addictions. You see, we must actually accept addictions as inevitable and not fight to get rid of them. We need to acknowledge and accept them as a non-judged fact rather than trying to prevent them as a badness. These are the simple implications of the simple Hypoism paradigm.

Thus, if you are sincere in desiring to help with the addiction problem in this country you will at least look deeper into what my thesis is all about and give me the support I need to get the book out into the public's view. I'm not asking for much support. I only need money to pay a good editor to get my book into readable form and the seed money to get it published and promoted. Compared to the sums spent on your well intentioned but nevertheless ineffective prevention and education programs, it would be a drop in the bucket. Having your foundation's moral support would also be a big help. The old paradigm is dead, it just won't admit it yet. It has had 60 years to prove itself and it just can't do it. The premise behing it is just dead wrong despite the attempt to misuse the recent neurobiology. Like I've told you before, the real neurobiology points to my paradigm and away from the old one. The system in the brain where this neurobiology works is just not amenable to conscious control. This is the basis of Hypoism and also is the reason why control (laws, drug war, prevention and education) of addictions have always failed. By maintaining the present paradigm, you are actually preventing addicts from getting the help they need. You can have 10,000 Hazeltons and this fact will not change.

All my stuff is just a more modern and scientificly based version of the Big Book of AA. just absent the religion/superstition stuff which is unnecessary, and I believe detrimental, for real recovery. All misunderstood diseases have gone through this kind of transition, from a superstition based paradigm to a scientifically based paradigm. If Bill Wilson were alive today, he would have written my book. Please give me this simple financial or professional help I need (either will do) if you are sincerely interested in what your foundation says it is. Thanks.

Dan F. Umanoff M.D.

(after the DARE program was shown to be ineffective)

02/17/2001
Katherine J. Parker
Deputy Director
Office of Proposal Management
Robert Woods Johnson Foundation
Route 1 and College Road East
PO Box 2316
Princeton, New Jersey 08543-2316

Dear Ms. Parker:

I apologize for bothering you again, but I have the need to remind you of something I advised you about years ago.

Two and a half years ago I sent you the enclosed letters which predicted the failure of drug use and addiction prevention programs you fund and sent you a copy of my book that described the addiction paradigm that predicted their failure and the reasons for it. You ignored my paradigm and suggestions based on the advise of your experts who supported your prevention programs. These programs have now been shown to be ineffective at best and I see you are revising them based on the same expert advise who previously gave you ineffective programs.

According to the NY Times, 2/15/01, in the article entitled, "Antidrug Program Says It Will Adopt a New Strategy," "In the past two months alone, both the surgeon general and the National Academy of Sciences have issued reports saying that DARE's approach is ineffective; several cities, most recently Salt Lake City, have stopped using the program." Despite this failure, the information in my book, Hypoic's Handbook, and my letters, you have decided to fund more useless prevention efforts while ignoring Hypoism, an addiction paradigm based on the same neurobiology your experts are aware of but with opposite implications and diametrically opposed to the one your experts wrongly believe, that is in this midst of being proved more each day.

A letter I wrote the Times in response to their article reads:

Re: Antidrug Program Says It Will Adopt a New Strategy, NYT, 2/15/01.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/15/national/15DARE.html

This article made me insanely angry. I've been telling you for 7 years that prevention doesn't work, not because I am against prevention of addictions, but because the neurobiology of addictions dictates that conscious attempts to prevent addictions CAN NOT WORK because of the location in the brain of the brain mechanism that inexorably causes addictions. Only changing the paradigm to the actual addiction paradigm can have any hope to prevent addictions, not through conscious decisions not to use addictors, but via those with the disease being able to make an early diagnosis of Hypoism in themselves (just as early diagnosis in diabetes, hypertension, and cancer prevents inexorable consequences of those diseases) and entering recovery as kids. In recovery they will not use addictors because of the nature of the recovery process about which you don't know. Jeez, if the N4A [National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts] had all that money presently being poured down the drain on useless and stigmatizing prevention programs everyone in the world would by now know about the disease of addictions and all hypoics would be able to get into recovery long before their horrible addictions even get started. This is TRUE PREVENTION and the only kind of prevention possible for this disease. Yet, you persist in not learning about Hypoism yourself, and more importantly, not informing your readers about it. Why?

As you can see, they have ignored Hypoism for a lot longer than you, but for the same reason: Dr. Umanoff is not a recognized addiction expert. Of course I'm not. If I were, I never would have been able to discover Hypoism because of taught intellectual prejudices against it, the ones that prevent the current experts from even evaluating Hypoism, no less discovering it! The current addiction experts have wrongly believed and perpetuated the belief in their paradigm of addictions for so long they are incapable of self-reevaluation of their intellectual prejudices. In fact, they are so biased in their unproven opinions on addictions, they won't read my book.

As I discussed in my previous letters and book, Hypoism prevents drug use and addictions by allowing future addicts to self-diagnose their underlying disease, Hypoism, that will, in the future, cause their drug use and addictions, enter recovery, as defined by the paradigm itself, before these addictions begin, and thus, nip in the bud future inevitable problems with addictors. This is the only way to prevent addictions in a genetically based and unconsciously motivated disease with inexorable manifestations.

So, Ms. Parker, you're at an impasse. The wrong paradigm is continuing to be used to develop ineffective policies to prevent drug use and addictions. Despite advances in neurobiology, genetics, and behavioral genetics, the methods you fund to prevent addictions are exactly the same as the ones used by the temperance movements over 100 years ago and just as ineffective. I would hate to write you a letter like this again in three years time asking you the same things after millions more addicts are incarcerated or dead and their families ruined. How can it hurt to evaluate thoroughly and conscientiously the concepts of Hypoism, a paradigm based on real science and one that reconciles all of the currently known neurobiology of drug use and addictions, not just the neurobiology that the experts choose to use, leaving out and ignoring the critical neurobiology that changes their paradigm into Hypoism? This, especially, because Hypoism will accomplish exactly your goals but in a different way from the one you are current using, a way based on how the disease of addictions actually works in the human brain. I'm sure you must agree, that if one uses the wrong paradigm to make policy, and prevention is a policy, the wrong policy is inevitable. Why persist with the wrong paradigm when the correct one will give you what you desire to accomplish?

Sincerely Yours,
Dan F. Umanoff, M.D.