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  




Untitled

MOVING SIDEWAYS ON THE DRUG WAR, OR,

THE WHITE HOUSE DRUG POLICY REPORT ENSURES TWENTY MORE YEARS OF THE SAME

The recent release of the study done by the National Academy of Sciences Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Informing America's Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us, needs to be read by everyone to see how reactionary and obstructive it actually is despite its superficially objective and helpful tone. The conclusions of the report state categorically that there presently exists no valid data to evaluate the success or failure of the current (last 100 years) governmental policy and that new research is needed to accomplish this goal. At the least, this report will maintain the status quo in Washington. At best it will produce valid data showing the Drug War to be ineffective, but this data will not exist for 20-30 years. In the meantime, it suggests no changes whatsoever in policy!

The url for the report is: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309072735/html/index.html for those interested in and willing to reading it.

Basically, the same criticism holds for this report as I presented about the previous report done by the National Academy of Sciences done in 1997, Dispelling The Myths About Addiction, a report that was used as a major reference for the current report. This critique is posted at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/17lettertothedirectorofthenationalacademyofmedicinesboardonn/

Many inherent problems exist for why these reports are useless and harmful to the understanding of addictions and drug policy. They can be summed up as, "The foxes are guarding the chicken coop." The same addiction "experts" who have caused the current mess in this area of human behavior have been used to critique it! Another problem with this report is that an economist, Charles Manski, was the chief editor. Although he recognizes addictions have something to do with a disease, he uses an economic model to make recommendations on the drug war. How could this be valid? What other disease uses an economic model to make policy recommendations? Moreover, the report makes at least a hundred assumptions about addictions for which it has no valid basis. The only valid fact is ignored: "In their view, chronic drug use was not a wholly voluntary choice but rather a disease to which some helplessly succumbed. The disease MAY have its roots in biology. But whatever the sources, once these factors are present, an individual's ability to act independently is undermined. Given this FACT, it seemed both unjust and ineffective to respond to drug use among individuals as a crime. It seemed unjust because addicts were unable to decide to stop using drugs; ineffective because deterrence would fail, and incapacitation (jail) would work only as long as the restraint continued." The rest of the report ignores this wisdom and continues as is.

Although the authors recognized the political, intellectual, moral, financial, and philosophical conflicts of interests currently interfering in this review process, their proposed remedies for this are inadequate and na´ve. Over twenty useless and irrelevant recommendations were suggested at the end of the report all of which are impossible to accomplish under the current system, and even if they were to be attained would not prove anything definitive other than what we already know: The current morality based policy has had 100 years to work and it hasn't. Do we need to spend billions of dollars to prove that it doesn't work before we move to the next policy? There already exist a prototype public policy that has been proved to work, the Swiss PROVE program.

http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/harmreductionprototypeswissproveprogram/

While we're getting better data, at least we could switch to a policy that has been shown to accomplish all the goals we currently are failing to achieve under our system.

The report is a 20 year temporizing effort just to maintain the status quo. This is reprehensible and unconscionable. In spite of this obvious conclusion, there hasn't been a single mention of it in the press except for the one NY Times article. The public has been damaged by this report as it has for many years from previous reports on the same issues by the same kind of experts. I demand a massive public outcry!

The main issue that needs to be addressed, which wasn't in this report, is the issue of ETIOLOGY OF ADDICTIONS. The report recognized the importance of this issue, but then went on to repeat the same misconceptions on etiology that have caused the mess in policy. I repeat my admonition to current addictionology:

Until we understand the etiology of addictions, policy on addictions will be wrong and damaging.

There is no other area of medicine where such an obviously wrong policy (treatment and public policy) based on complete absence of proof of any benefit or validity continues unchanged and run by the same people year in and year out!

This is exactly why we are in the current mess. The current paradigm on addictions is wrong.

A direct quote from the 2001 report clearly makes these points.

"In its final report in 1973, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse applauded a 400 percent increase in the federal investment in research from 1969-1973, urged intensification of the investment in research, and emphasized the importance of free scientific inquiry in what had been a highly politicized domain (NCMA, 1973:368-370):

This commitment to research ... reflects a significant change in official policy. For many years, research into the effects of prohibited drugs and into the behavior of users was viewed as an attempt to question and subvert government policy. In addition, the aura of criminality surrounding drug-using behavior and the overly rigid protocol requirements often made this area unattractive to researchers. When ... researchers became [interested], they were often hindered by the law enforcement community....

At last, this has begun to change. With the, significant increase in drug use during the 1960's the government recognized the need for information which could come only from expanded research efforts. Prohibited drugs have been made available for legitimate research; confidentiality has been extended to research subjects; and now, public resources are being devoted-to this important area ...

In urging [increased] research, the Commission cautions against research that points in only one direction. In the past, government agencies have sometimes used drug research to support policy rather than shape it. Studies that produced the answers they wanted were promoted and publicized; projects which appeared to document the "wrong" results were quietly buried and not released. [New research] should specifically include studies that examine without bias alternate hypotheses and approaches."

"It is no less important in the year 2000 to emphasize the need for scientific independence in research on illegal drugs than it was in 1973."

IS THIS NOT CLEAR?

DO I NEED TO TRANSLATE?
  • FRAUDULENT AND BIASED PSEUDOSCIENCE
  • OBSTRUCTIONISM OF VALID NEW VERIFIABLE AND TESTABLE HYPOTHESES
  • IDEOLOGICAL BASIS FOR RESEARCH
  • CONSCIOUS AND RATIONALIZED SCIENTIFIC CONSPIRACY
  • MORALISTIC BASIS FOR POLICIES
  • FINANCIAL AND CAREER INTIMIDATION OF SCIENTISTS
  • IMMORAL SCIENTISTS PAID OFF TO PRODUCE AND PEER REVIEW PSEUDOSCIENCE

Is this an indictment of the people running addiction research today or not?

I DIDN'T SAY THIS, THEY DID!!!

READ BETWEEN THE LINES - IT'S CLEAR

This committee was afraid to directly say what it wanted, so it quoted the 1973 committee.

The only problem is that 28 years have gone by since this was first said, and now it is being said again. All the anger that reviewers of my book dislike is based on the above listed fraud. And I have been criticized for it. The fraud is responsible for addictophobia and addict genocide. And I have been criticized for mentioning it? What is wrong with all of you? I have been attempting for ten years to have my purely neurobiological hypothesis on addictions, Hypoism, considered but it has been ignored in spite of the above directives both in 1973 and now in 2001! When will a new hypothesis be considered without bias? Hypoism is the reality behind all addictions and solves all the social problems of these addictions. Why is Hypoism ignored? Because it removes the moralistic judgmentalism from addictions, something the government and the ignorant and hateful populous demands remain.

We are in the same mess we were in in 1973 and the same people are making the same recommendations as were made then. Does someone think something new will happen on its own out of this report? No. Thus, this report is just another fraud perpetrated on the American people by obstructionists desiring to maintain the status quo for another 28 years. Does anyone care? Will someone other than me raise hell about the need to change faces and players in this deadly game?

Again, I ask you to read and consider replacing Alan Leshner as the only way to get to the truth about addictions and end the drug war:

http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/15replacingalanleshneristheonlywaytoendthedrugwar/

The whole point I am raising now and have raised many times in the past, including in my book, is that, "the Commission cautions against research that points in only one direction [their own biased theories]. In the past [and now], government agencies have sometimes used drug research to support policy [ideology at the expense to addicts] rather than shape it. Studies that produced the answers they wanted were [invented, misinterpreted], promoted and publicized; projects which appeared to document the "wrong" results were quietly buried and not released. This statement is a massive indictment against the current corrupt pseudoscience of addictionology and I bet it is ignored as an anachronism. I assure you, it is not. The corruption of addiction science by its grantors and acquiescence and co-conspiracy by its grantees has caused the current absence of valid data and paradigm on the drug war and addiction etiology. I implore all reading this article to inform your legislators of this fraud and to have them heartily investigate this behavior by the NIH, NIDA, and NIAAA, the three branches of addiction science funded by the government and the place where over 90% of all research money on addictions comes from. The other 10%, drug companies, are equally co-conspiratorial with full knowledge of the NIH and the addictionology medical community. If nothing is done about this fraud, addicts and society will suffer indefinitely. We must demand a thorough investigation by completely disinterested scientists with real integrity.









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




Sign In