|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The Addiction Blog Current Letters to Editors 11/12/09 - Send me your comments. If they're helpful I will post them under the emails.
To fully understand this table you do need to read the book, however, you can get the gist of this table by merely perusing it and identifying with it. The point is that "it is in our genes" and it is significant as Begley relates in today's article. We don't have free-willed decision-making. People need to know how their own brains work and adjust their beliefs accordingly, usually with the help of another person, a decision consultant. This is very hard to do on your own because of the way the decision-making apparatus works, as discussed in the book. Until we begin to acknowledge this stuff and use it we will continue to be "the tail wagging the dog," and continue to unconsciously influenced by genetic traits that originally had nothing to do with what they're used for today. 12/11/09
Re: Tiger Woods a Sex Addict? Only If He's Lucky, http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/tiger-woods-sex-addict/story?id=9295425 The article is ridiculous. The article and its comments show only one thing: we are all very ignorant about addictions. The actual science of addiction causation, unknown to and misinterpreted by the experts as well as laypeople, is about the genetic disease of Hypoism, the genetic deficiency of reward system activity working in the instinct regulatory apparatus. I've been writing about this since 1992. Of course it's about instincts (behavioral addictions) as well as drugs, chemicals that react with the same receptors used by endogenous neurotransmitters. It's been proven by peer reviewed science in many different ways. Read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ , http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , and my book on all this, Hypoic's Handbook. My addiction blog on the Hypoism web site gives a current blow by blow discussion of this mess. The complete paradigm can be known about for free from the web site. Until this paradigm becomes better known and used by the public as well as by the experts we will continue to experience the unabated addiction epidemic. 12/09/09 Molly: What is Dr. Babor's email address? Or, could you forward this letter to him? I want to send him a letter in regards to his work in the field of addictions and the problem of censorship. Everything he has written about in his book Publishing Addiction Science [ http://www.parint.org/isajewebsite/isajebook2.htm ] and [ http://www.parint.org/isajewebsite/bookimages/isaje_2nd_edition_chapter14.pdf ] has actually happened to me in my 17 year career in addiction research and writing. See my web site www.nvo.com/hypoism and the pages on letters to the editor of the NY Times beginning in 1995 as well as more recently my section called Addiction Blog. Also, my major paper that has been censored is: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ I also have written a book about all this called Hypoic's Handbook as well as founded a 501 c 3 foundation called the National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts Inc. [N4A]. See my brochure on this on the web site as well. All this has been censored by the addiction field and the addiction publishing field as well as by the ordinary media despite its being scientifically valid and fully referenced. The implications of this paradigm are massive and what has happened to my work and ideas has killed millions of addicts and ruined many more of their families. Dr. Eliot Gardner (at NIDA) can confirm all this. He has read and supported my work from the beginning. 12/07/09 Re: Addiction on 2 Fronts: Work and Home, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/science/08prof.html?_r=1&hpwWhat's this, the Oprah show? Where people dress up as superheroes and save the world but never do? Tell us another story so we can fall back to sleep Daddy.Where's McLellan been hiding? Where's his theory on addiction causation that's going to revolutionize addictions? Where are his secret plans for effective prevention and treatment? Why has he been hiding them from us? Out of the blue he has some methods that are going to save the world from addictions? Why haven't we heard about these super-duper plans before? Because they don't exist, but the Times is telling us tonight that they do and they will work if only we have this new superhero on the job to work them. Of course, the article doesn't say what any of this is or where it's been published and how it's been shown to work. I haven't seen them. But like the other snake oil salesmen in the addiction field we don't need proof, all we need is faith and the recommendations of the other superheroes who have come before who likewise haven't done any of this either. All talk and no action. No proof. No theory. No numbers. Just hopeful words and inspiring story about this guy's kids and their fight against addictions. "Nations leading researcher on addictions?" How has he demonstrated this? Where did this guy prevent a single addiction? Where did this guy cure a single addict? Just like with Volkow - all words and no action. We have no papers showing any of this. Just a lot of talk.He hates Washington? Where has he written about that? I'd like to see his papers against Volkow and NIDA. I wonder where his money came from? He says addiction is a disease? Where's his paper on this? Where's the dissent against that paper? Neither exist because the first one doesn't exist. No one ever showed me his paper so I could write a dissent.I'm the only one who has done any of this anti-establishment science writing. I'm the only one with a valid theory on a valid disease that causes addictions and where addictions aren't diseases but symptoms of a disease, the true situation. Addictions aren't diseases. They are symptoms of a single genetic disease based on low reward activity. This disease is called Hypoism and no one has ever heard of it because it's been censored by the addiction field itself. Biden knows nothing about any of this. He's just following the advice of Volkow, chief of NIDA, the biggest mistake our country has ever made about addictions thanks to Bush, the president who appointed her.This article is just more hype and no substance, meant to put the country back to sleep believing we are finally doing something about the addiction mess. This is nonsense because these guys are all wrong about addictions. Wrong theory - wrong policies. McLellan has the theory all wrong and therefore he has the prevention and treatment methods all wrong. Whatever he thinks they might be, they're going to be wrong and ineffective because his theory is wrong. How many times have we been told, as a way of deliberately misinforming the public, that this new guy really knows about addictions and will finally straighten everything out once and for all? Many times. However, it's never happened. It's not going to happen now because these guys don't know what causes addictions and therefore don't know how to prevent and treat them. I wrote the same email to the Times about Volkow when she was nominated as chief of NIDA. Nothing has improved since then as I said it wouldn't. Nothing will improve now. We are just going to waste another ten years waiting for this new guy to fix everything out of the blue based on a nice story but no science. We will now get ten more years of nothing while addicts and their families suffer and die.I know one thing, something I never said before because I wanted Hypoism to do the work, not me, but it's time for it to be said. I'm the only one who can straighten out the mess in addictions. My theory and its methods are in my online papers and book, Hypoic's Handbook. Absent this theory and its methods we will continue to spin our wheels and watch addicts die. It's now up to the NY Times to let the public know this. If they don't, if they continue to censor my letters to their editors, then it's again their fault for every new dead addict and ruined family.12/6/09 Re: Volkow May Have Uncovered Answer to Addiction Riddle, http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/39/11/32.fullEvery so often I go back to look at some articles I have saved for their past, present, and future salience, and to see how things have or haven't changed since then. Today's article shows how Volkow brought to the foreground in 2004 many of the Hypoism principles first written about by me in 1992 in my first paper on Hypoism, my current and continuously updated paper, Hypoism Hypothesis http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ (read this paper before reading the rest of this email) derived from that paper, and later discussed and detailed in my 1996 book, Hypoic's Handbook, in regards to characteristics of an addictor, the population bell curve of Hypoism reward activity, the physiological definition of an addictor, neurophysiological adaptation, the evolutionary derivation of salience ( http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ How evolution derived all this) , low reward activity as the cause addiction vulnerability, and the implications of all this in one tidy theory. This book and these papers connected all the dots. Nevertheless, and despite my having lectured on Hypoism at Brookhaven Labs while Volkow was the director there (2000), she comes up with the same theory but gives no credit or reference to my work. In fact, despite her defining the Hypoism pathophysiology exactly the way I did, and using the same science to back it up, she and the addiction field have ignored and censored all my work. Note, she uses the phrase "drug of abuse" rather than my term, "addictor," which in my world includes all behavioral addictors as well as addictive drugs, despite it being well known that behavioral addictors work exactly the same way as drug addictors in regards to being addictable. Here are some relevant quotes from this article and how they relate to the Hypoism hypothesis: "An extensive body of research has shown that all drugs of addiction increase dopamine activity in the human brain's limbic system. But, Volkow stressed, "while this increase in dopamine is essential to create addiction, it does not actually explain addiction. If you give a drug of abuse to anyone, their dopamine levels increase. Yet the majority do not become addicted." Definition of the word addictor. "The reduction in dopamine type-2 receptors is not specific to cocaine addiction alone," Volkow continued. Other research found similar results in patients addicted to alcohol, heroin, and methamphetamine. Common property of all addictors. With the decrease in D2 receptors associated with addiction, the individual has a decreased sensitivity to salient stimuli acting as natural reinforcers for behaviors. Neurophysiological Adaptation. So, she asked, "How do we know which is the chicken and which is the egg?" Does the continued use of a drug of abuse lead to decreases in D2 receptors, or does an innately lower number of receptors lead to addiction? Is this low reward activity caused by the drug itself or there beforehand? Here's your answer---- Research is now addressing that question, Volkow confirmed. And it appears that the latter may be the answer. In nonaddicted individuals who have not been exposed to drugs of abuse, there is a widely varying range of D2 receptor concentrations. The genetic I think it's pretty clear to those of you who have followed my work that Hypoism, the paradigm Volkow discusses here, has been made available to the entire addiction field and the media since at least 1995 and that it has been ignored and censored deliberately to keep the public ignorant of its scientific reality and implications on ending the addiction epidemic, something Hypoism could have done as early as 1992 if it had not been censored. Moreover, despite the failure of the current theory of addiction still pushed by Volkow, the hijacked brain hypothesis, to solve the addiction epidemic, Hypoism remains ignored and censored. This is the biggest medical scandal of all time. When and if this story gets told and its consequences known, the shit will hit the fan. 12/04/09 Cathy Young: Re: Tiger Woods, Gender & Domestic Violence, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/03/tiger_woods_gender__domestic_violence_99392.html The media is speculating about this being a domestic violence (spousal abuse) incident. Where this is coming from is beyond me. Until we have all the facts we can't know what this incident was or what motivated this incident. Nonetheless they are talking about domestic violence and trying to relate Wood's and his wife's behaviors to their concept (and the expert's concepts) of domestic violence as well as other aspects of domestic violence/spousal abuse. The big problem with this is that psychology's (or sociology's?) concept of domestic violence is 100% wrong. Thus, the media is spreading misconceptions about domestic violence as they discuss this story. Instead of clarifying and reducing domestic violence, these misconceptions and misrepresentations have only helped perpetuate and worsen domestic violence. I've been writing about this mess for 15 years but the domestic violence field and the media have ignored the real (scientific) explanation of domestic violence, making it worse. This is being continued with the Woods incident. I'm sure as the days advance this will get even worse. I'm writing this letter to help straighten out this mess. The question is whether anyone is interested in any of this or in doing this for the sake of both men and women, their families, and their kids especially. Domestic violence is only going to grow and worsen unless we use the right theory to deal with it. This theory is called Hypoism - The Hypoism paradigm of addictions. As I've discussed in past emails about similar cases and in my book on addictions, Hypoic's Handbook, the prototype being the OJ and Nicole Simpson case, domestic violence is the end result of people addiction (addiction to the attachment instinct) just like cirrhosis of the liver is an end result of alcohol addiction, DUI the result of alcohol addiction, and overdose the result of heroin addiction. It is not an entity of its own. The issue is addiction and how addictions work in the human brain. Thus the only way to prevent and treat domestic violence is through the correct understanding of addiction, not stronger laws against domestic violence. My book, Hypoic's Handbook, and my major paper, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , explain addiction pathophysiology (neurobiological cause of the single disease, Hypoism, that causes all addictions) and the origin of each of the hundred or so addictions. Hypoism is defined as the genetic brain disease of low activity of the brain's reward mechanism and addictions occur in only those people who have genetic low reward activity. Out of this entity come all addictions as well as their predictable side effects. Domestic violence is a predictable side effect of a particular addiction, people addiction, addiction to the attachment instinct, one of the strongest human instincts. People addiction is probably the most common addiction as well as the least understood addiction. If you're interested in informing the public about all this as a way to prevent and improve treatment of this and all other addictions feel free to contact me so I can assist you. From the glossary of my book: spousal abuse - As a sign of people addiction: Our entire concept of “spousal abuse“, and “domestic violence” and violence within any relationship is misperceived. In general, it’s not about violence at all. It’s either about the instinct of jealousy, an instinct which evolved to protect the offspring of a male/female relationship, or it’s about a desperate attempt to control an addiction to a person, which is presently called co-dependency, but which I call people addiction. Both of these, jealousy and people addiction, are in the context of Hypoism (see “Role of the Instincts,” chapter 7, concerning jealousy and attachment instinct addictions). People addiction is the same as drug addiction except the drug is a person. Both people in a people addiction are addicted to each other, except for celebrity addiction, which is a unique case of people addiction where there is no real life relationship between the two people, except a fantasized one by the addict. The celebrity is the drug. This type of people addiction causes stalking and assassinations but is not germane to domestic violence per se. In relationship violence, in general, one person is the addict and the other is the drug. For example, in the case of O.J. and Nicole Simpson, O.J. was the addict and Nicole the drug, although both were addicted to each other and both played both roles. In my definition of addiction, “the use of a mood-altering chemical, person, idea, or behavior to change how you feel against your will,” both people addicts use each other to “get high” against their wills. In order to accomplish this, the people addict must have control over their drug (the other person), just like in any other addiction (supply of an addict’s drug is paramount). Because the drug is a person, the people addict is constantly attempting to maintain control over that other person in countless ways. Additionally, as in all addictions, the people addict alternatively loves (is addicted to) and hates that other person (his drug, its pusher, and his addiction). There is no “real” love in any people addiction. It only “feels” like love to the people addict because it raises the FOKS (Feel OK System - reward activity) via the attachment and lust instincts. The people addict hates the person he’s addicted to because there is no actual way to make that person into a perfectly cooperating drug. There is a constant power conflict between the two people addicts for control— the attempts to ensure that person’s role of the drug that always gets them high in all circumstances and situations. The whole relationship was actually originated under this misconceived contract between the two people—”I will get you high, if you will get me high.” The relationship was never a “relationship,” but was always an addiction based on this unspoken contract between the two people addicts. They only “thought” that they were having a relationship. They only “thought” they were in love. Like all addictions, it starts off working the way they want it to, but eventually it leads to negative consequences, a process called progression. All addictions undergo progression. The addiction stops working as it once did and each people addict attempts to get their drug to be a better drug, “to work better.” More control is exerted by each of the people addicts to get the other person to be a better drug. When these attempts fail, as they always do, the addicts get increasingly angry with each other for not getting them high. This eventuates in arguing and finally physical violence as attempts to manipulate the “drug” to get into line, “to be a better drug” as promised by the initial contract between them. The above theme is the backdrop behind our misunderstood concept of “domestic violence.” Only when we perceive domestic violence as the end progression of people addiction will we be able to actually do something about it. People addiction is a peculiar addiction unlike any other addiction because the drug is another human being rather than a chemical or a behavior. It is, however, the most common addiction because all addicts are people addicts as well. For us to come to grips with “domestic violence,” we first need to see it as part of an addiction for both participants equally. Both participants of people addiction are addicts and need recovery. There are no innocent bystanders or victims in people addiction. Both participants are addicted, both need to take responsibility for their addiction and both need recovery exactly the same as alcohol addicts, heroin addicts, or gambling addicts. Only when “spousal abuse” and “domestic violence” are viewed in this addiction context will any progress be made in dealing with it. 12/02/09 Re: The Authoritarians, http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ I read your book and paper, "Highly Dominating, Highly Authoritarian Personalities," The Journal of Social Psychology 144 no4 421-47 Ag 2004 Your paper's abstract: "The author considered the small part of the population whose members score highly on both the Social Dominance Orientation scale and the Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale. Studies of these High SDO-High RWAs, culled from samples of nearly 4000 Canadian university students and over 2600 of their parents and reported in the present article, reveal that these dominating authoritarians are among the most prejudiced persons in society. Furthermore, they seem to combine the worst elements of each kind of personality, being power-hungry, unsupportive of equality, manipulative, and amoral, as social dominators are in general, while also being religiously ethnocentric and dogmatic, as right-wing authoritarians tend to be. The author suggested that, although they are small in number, such persons can have considerable impact on society because they are well-positioned to become the leaders of prejudiced right-wing political movements." My field is addictions and addiction theory. 17 years ago, from the existing science of addiction causation, I discovered the genetic cause of addictions and named this disease Hypoism after the genetic low reward system activity (low dopamine activity) it is based on. My paper on this is: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ My book on Hypoism, Hypoic's Handbook, was published in 1996. Although Hypoism is supported by peer reviewed science (see the above paper's references) this theory has been ignored and censored by the addiction establishment, most recently by Nora Volkow since she was appointed chief of NIDA by George Bush. I believe she is a good example of the authoritarian "double-high" and her behavior exemplifies the disastrous outcome of such an appointment. She has always been a biased advocate for the Hijacked Brain Hypothesis (HBH) theory of addiction causation [Leshner A.: Addiction is a Brain Disease, and it Matters, Science; 278, 45-70, Thanks for your insight. 12/02/09 Re: Understanding Complex Interactions Key to Preventing Alcohol Abuse, http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/44/14/21.1.full?sid=29d4efb2-83e6-4e07-a97c-c7dcd87eb3df The article ends with: In summary, he said, he wanted clinicians to remember that “alcohol use disorders are genetically influenced.” This genetic component should be communicated to patients with AUDs and to their family members. “You may have the ability to do a bit of prevention by educating the patient's family about the genetic risk factors that they may carry,” he suggested. Furthermore, like most psychiatric disorders, “alcoholism relates to a whole range of risk factors, and very few if any of them relate to a person's moral fiber. I'm hoping that five years from now, with the help of my friends, I will be able to start identifying kids based on their genotypes, before their first drink... and find out whether they have one of the risk factors for alcoholism," said Schuckit. "Depending on their age, we can determine which interventions will make sense to try to diminish the impact of those genes." This is a very good idea. In fact, I thought it was such a good idea 17 years ago I wrote my first paper, Hypoism - A Real Disease, which has evolved into the Hypoism Hypothesis ( http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ ) and my 1996 book, Hypoic's Handbook, about this genetic addiction (all addictions) paradigm so that we could start a grass roots movement (because psychiatrists were against it at that time) to begin this kind of prevention methodology (based on genetic diagnosis and before addictions begin in at-risk youngsters) known as preventative Hypoism recovery, where Hypoism is the genetic disease that causes all addictions, not just alcohol addiction. Too bad that paper was censored and rejected for non-scientific reasons. Then I wrote the book about this genetic disease in 1996 and even wrote Psychiatry Online about it but they and the rest of the science and addiction media ignored it. My book describes the specific prevention methodology based on the pathophysiology of the disease and how it works in the brain. This was ignored and censored. Now, Dr. Schuckit suggests doing this same thing though without knowing anything about the pathophysiology of the disease or the genetic disease, Hypoism, itself, or even knowing anything about the prevention methodology (which interventions?), and his paper gets published willy nilly. This, of course, makes no sense because Schuckit is ignorant of the intervention method required by Hypoism. In fact, the whole addiction field is ignorant of this methodology, the reason there's no effective treatment or prevention today. My book details this methodology but people like Schuckit won't read my book. Yes, they all know about Hypoism but have censored and ignored it for at least 11 years when I wrote 3000 emails about Hypoism and my book, Hypoic's Handbook, to all the members of ASAM, The American Society of Addiction Medicine. I think my book and paper deserve the Adolf Meyer Award. However, I'd be happy if the APA just read them and let their members and the world of addictions know about them. Only the correct causation theory will ever allow the end of the addiction epidemic as well as ensuring effective prevention, recovery, and public policies. Will the APA acknowledge any of this? 12/01/09 Re: E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science , http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html?_r=1 I've written Tierney about this issue before. He has chosen to ignore it many times. Thus, he's just as guilty as are the ones he's criticizing. The NY times has chosen to ignore this issue as well, a thousand times since 1995. Hypocrisy and self-righteousness are funny that way. When someone else is doing it against your wishes you make a big stink about it but when you do it you are blind to it. Global warming is a well known controversy. Both sides have been heard. The public is well aware that there are two or more sides. The only issue left is getting the right data and allowing the public to know about it. The addiction controversy is as unknown to the public as is the science behind it. The Times has kept this from the public since my first letter to them about it in 1995. (see letters to the NY Times on my web site) Because of this there isn't even a public debate no less public claims of cheating or lying. The result of this is the continued addiction epidemic and drug war, all based on the perpetuation of the current wrong theory of addiction causation, the hijacked brain hypothesis, maintained by the Times and other media outlet's censorship of my work. The correct theory of addiction causation is the only thing that can end this debacle and that theory has been censored. This theory, Hypoism, is being ignored and censored by the media, particularly the Times. How about cleaning up your own mess before complaining about someone else's mess? 11/29/09 Re: Donahue Talked, Oprah Listened , http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/opinion/29tannen.html The article states, "But there’s another aspect to her genius that accounts for her phenomenal success: her gift for connecting personally with her audience." Ms. Tannen, a linguist, calls her methodology, "rapport talk." "Ms. Winfrey transformed it from report-talk, focused on information, to rapport-talk — the telling of secrets and personal troubles that drives many women’s friendships." The funny thing is that while Oprah seemed to be informing her audience (claiming information on a wide variety of people issues) she instead was actually addicting her audience. What appeared to be rapport was actually addiction. What goes on there is something Oprah didn't want anyone to know about or understand - people addiction. In fact, I got a call around ten or so years ago from one of Oprah's staff who wanted to know about my new theory of addictions, something that ran rampant among her audience's families. When I got around to explaining people addiction (exactly what was happening between Oprah and her audience) the phone call abruptly had to end for some administrative reason. I never heard back from the show. It seemed that they weren't interested in helping the audience with their addiction problems because having her audience addicted to her was her modus operandi. There are two varieties of people addicts, as explained in my book on addictions, Hypoic's Handbook, the drug variety and the addict variety. Both are addicted to each other, but one acts like a drug and the other(s) act like addict(s). The addict(s) get addicted to the drug and do whatever the drug needs them to do in order to continue getting their supply of the drug, just like any other addiction. "Relationships" can act like this, OJ and Nicole Simpson, cults can act like this, Jim Jones and his cult, religions can act like this, and con-men/women can act this way. I can't think of an example for this. Maybe you can. It's not a relationship because it's not about the people. It's about the physiology that underlies Hypoism (the disease that causes addictions), the genetic low activity of the reward system in hypoics, the people who have the right physiology to get addicted. This physiology makes these hypoics search out and get addicted to a hundred or so different addictors, drugs, instincts, and beliefs that raise the activity of the genetically low reward system. This genetic physiology holds for all addicts (hypoics - people who get addicted to one or more drugs and/or instincts and their endogenous neurotransmitters) including people addicts who get addicted to the attachment instinct and the neurotransmitters involved with that instinct, oxytocin, endorphins, and dopamine. My book explains this in much detail as well as the science behind it. My web papers do this also, so I won't go into all this here. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . But this real information is exactly what Oprah's staff person didn't want to know about, didn't want on her show, and didn't want their audience to know about. Although it would have helped solve their problems with addictions, which wasn't happening the way things stood, this information would have. It would have ended the show as well. Oops. Thus, Hypoism was never getting on Oprah's show and the world lost out on learning about the real cause of and recovery for addictions, Hypoism and Hypoism recovery. Hmmm. I wouldn't call that "rapport," or "genius," would you? I would, however, call that a great business model, something the drug cartels figured out long before Oprah. It all came about quite naturally as addiction always does, in the right people. 11/26/09 Re: The Religious Wars, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/opinion/26kristof.html?_r=1 This article, the religion(ous) war, reminds me of a paper I wrote that could fix the drug war if people read it and used the ideas in it. For some reason they refuse to read it. The Drug War War it's called and it's about the irrational polarization for and against the drug war. However, neither side of the drug war war will read the paper. They both seem to want to keep fighting for their side (keep the drug war on the one hand and legalize drugs on the other) on a totally irrational basis. Neither side has a rational or correct argument but they don't care about this. They want what they want and will only settle for complete victory irrespective of what it does to the millions of addicts and their families. The thing is, each side "feels good" about their positions and that good feeling is what targets and motivates them. I tried to explain to them that their good feelings about their positions have nothing to do with whether they are right or wrong but all to do with the genetic variations (involuntary irrational feelings and decisions based on them) they have inherited that makes dopamine go up or down in regards to particular drug war ideas they think about and/or believe. If dopamine goes up a lot they really like the idea and the opposite if dopamine goes down. This happens because of genes and their alleles they had nothing to do with picking from their parents. It's all unconsciously done in their brain while they have no idea it's happening. The implications of this decision-making system are that we have to be very careful to, as rationally and thoroughly as possible, go through all the information about the drug war, drugs, addictions, etc., and pick out the scientifically correct information and use just that as a group to make the best for all people, addicts included, decisions on the drug war and its issues, as discussed in the drug war war, #4 at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/articlesbyandforhypoicspage2/ and that means being rational and honest and having an honest rational debate on the science and the validity of the science behind these issues, not just people's opinions and beliefs. They got us where we are today. This is the only way out of the drug war mess. Similarly for the mess in religion and religiousness. We, as a society, must use the same kind of honesty and rationality to deal with the religion issue. We must admit that this must be done to save the whole planet (because these are the stakes here), and we must give up making decisions based on our good or bad feelings based on the genetic variations of the regulation and reward of the superstition instinct as discussed here: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/10thesuperstitioninstinct3100/ Kristof doesn't take any of this into account, neither does Dawkins (even though I have written him about this) nor Hitchens, or Harris, or Wright, or Wade. In fact, no one has. This is why the religion war war rages on in the same irrepressible fashion as the drug war. And the results will be only worse. It's not enough to know instincts are involved here but to also know the genetic variations in the regulation of these instincts and the genetic variation in the reward of these instincts, things I discuss in my book, a book that has been ignored and censored by the same people having these endless and destructive arguments - putting the world at risk. Refuse to read it? Well. See you in hell, as they say. 11/25/09 Re: You can cut back on alcohol, http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-alcohol16-2009nov16,0,474959.story?page=1 It's true. People who are not alcohol addicts can drink safely and "moderately." People who are alcohol addicts can't. We already knew this. The main problem with Willenbring's studies is that he was unable to distinguish between the two groups with his questionnaire. He also didn't follow them long enough to validate his interpretation of his results. They need to be followed for 30-40 years. I wonder whether Shari Roan actually read and evaluated these studies herself. My guess is that she didn't, but instead used these self-designated experts to evaluate them for her. Maybe she'll write me back and tell me which is which and whether it's important to read the studies herself. This kind of misinformation can be very dangerous if misinterpreted by addicts. It's dangerous to themselves and to the rest of us as Audrey Kishline found out - http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/12controlleddrinkinglandsonitsass/ The fact is that the addiction experts are all wrong about the cause and natural history of all addictions, not just alcohol addiction. Shari should read my book, Hypoic's Handbook, and various online papers on the real science of addictions - for example, try this one - http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ - before she decides who is an expert and what self-designated experts know or what they don't know about addictions. Just because someone has a job title that implies he/she knows about addictions doesn't mean they actually know what they say they know and are correct. In fact, that's the reason the field of addictions is such a mess (maybe you didn't notice?). The whole addiction field is wrong about the cause of addictions and therefore is wrong about prevention and treatment (maybe you haven't noticed?) When you write an article about this kind of nonsense you need to make sure you're right. Because if you aren't you can kill 20,000 innocent bystanders a year (from DUI's) and several hundreds of thousands of addicts too in a variety of ways. 11/25/09
Recommendation StatementU.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)
Topic Index: A-Z Alcohol Misuse (Drinking, Risky/Hazardous): Screening and Counseling (2004) Grade: I Statement. I—Insufficient Evidence to Make a Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routinely providing [the service]. Evidence that the [service] is effective is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied. AHRQ is the lead Federal agency charged with supporting research designed to improve the quality of health care, reduce its cost, address patient safety and medical errors, and broaden access to essential services. AHRQ sponsors and conducts research that provides evidence-based information on health care outcomes; quality; and cost, use, and access. The information helps health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers—make more informed decisions and improve the quality of health care services. Abstract of analysis: {Good evidence supports the efficacy of brief, multi-contact primary care interventions for risky/harmful alcohol use in primary care patients identified through screening and screening-related assessment of at-risk drinking and alcohol use disorders. [Sorry - This is bullshit. Where's the reference for this? I've read the data on this and it doesn't show what it says to show.]} Patients in these trials underwent screening to identify those possibly in need of alcohol misuse intervention in primary care or elsewhere, followed by screening-related clinical assessment to qualify patients appropriate for primary care-based intervention or for referral to specialty treatment of abuse/dependence. Patients were screened generally using standardized self-report instruments alone (e.g., AUDIT), or in combination, (e.g., CAGE with standardized quantity and frequency questions) that have been found to be valid in primary care populations. After primary care brief, multi-contact interventions, patients reduced average drinks per week by 13%–34% and increased the proportion drinking at moderate or safe levels by 10%–19% compared with controls. Similar population-level reductions in average alcohol consumption have been projected to reduce the prevalence of alcohol abuse/dependence by 3%, while use of alcohol within safe/recommended levels has been epidemiologically related to reduced short-term (e.g., injuries, alcohol-related problems) and long-term (e.g., cirrhosis, total mortality) health risks. Drug Use, Illicit: Screening (2008) Effectiveness of Early Detection and Treatment (1/08) Grade: I Statement. I—Insufficient Evidence to Make a Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routinely providing [the service]. Evidence that the [service] is effective is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. "There is limited evidence that treatment has a direct effect on long-term morbidity and mortality." 11/24/09 Re: The Biology Behind the Milk of Human Kindness, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/science/24angier.html?_r=1 Once upon a time Natalie Angier didn't buy behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology as the primary forces behind behavior. That was around 1995 and 1996. When I asked her to write my book for me about Hypoism (the genetic and neurobiology of addiction causation), because I didn't think I was capable of writing a book myself, she told me the paradigm didn't hold water and was wrong. Thus she declined to write my book, a book that will one day get the Nobel Prize for Medicine. It turned out I couldn't find anyone to write my book, so I had to write it myself. Luckily I persisted. Now, of course without contacting me and revising her rejection of these biological principles on which Hypoism was based, she writes an article about the same kind of stuff, although it's about Oxytocin and altruism instead of dopamine and addictions - the same principles though. Moreover, she writes, "Reporting this month in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers found that genetic differences [genetic diversity]in people’s responsiveness to the effects of oxytocin were linked to their ability to read faces, infer the emotions of others, feel distress at others’ hardship and even to identify with characters in a novel or “Doonesbury.” “I came into this research as a big skeptic,” said Sarina M. Rodrigues of Oregon State University, an author of the new report, “but the results had me floored.” Really!! Sorry to say, but science is that way. That's the beauty of science. It's anti-intuitive, lucky for us. Otherwise we'd all still be stupid rather than just most of us. Of course, as you all know, one of the major principles on which Hypoism is based is "genetic diversity." You can find this discussed in my book and papers repeatedly. Genetic diversity exists because of multiple genetically different gene alleles - many different forms of the same genes in different people passed from generation to generation via the genome to cause differences in personalities and differences in instinct regulation. You know what I mean because you have read the book. You know the implications of this - exactly what she states is the cause of differences in behavior related to different levels and activity of the oxytocin regulatory mechanism - the bell curve of oxytocin activity, exactly the same principle as the bell curve of reward activity and dopamine activity in Hypoism or in non-hypoism. Yet, despite my writing the NY Times thousands of letters describing the same principles in Hypoism and as the cause of addiction in just hypoics, they continue to censor my work while publishing Angier's articles about the very same things. I is just simple bias for Angier and against little ole me? Or is it just bias against Hypoism and for the hijacked brain hypothesis even though the HBH has been proven wrong and Hypoism proven correct - as detailed here: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ ? Why do addicts have to die by the millions just for the sake of this bias and hatred on little ole me? Remember, it's not about me, the science speaks for itself. If only people would read it. But they refuse to read it because Dan Umanoff doesn't actually exist - only Nora Volkow does. Moreover, how is it possible for Dan Umanoff to be right and the whole addiction field be wrong? Hmmm. It is possible. That's the whole point about science. That's what science does. That's what science is for. How about we deal with the science for a change rather than personalities. Science is independent of personalities even though people, especially people at the NY Times, like people, handpicked people, better than science. Ha Ha. 11/24/09 Re: The Authoritarians, http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ We're going to change things a little (180 degrees) today. I'm asking you to read this free book on authoritarianism by Bob Altemeyer and write me your thoughts about it and how the book might or might not explain the behavior of Alan Leshner, Nora Volkow, Eliot Gardner, recovering addicts in 12 step programs, newspaper editors who censor and/or ignore my letters, ASAM, National Council of Alcoholics and Addicts, Robert Woods Johnson foundation, and any other people or groups of people who ignore and censor my letters to them, and what their behavior actually was/is. Although I'm not commanding you to do this, the word authoritarian can/might (at the very least) be related to the two human social instincts, hedonic and agonic, I discuss in Hypoic's Handbook as well as other instincts I mention and discuss. Also, you can make comments (editorial and otherwise) about this book and about my book and how I (and you) interpret this stuff. Also, take the test in the introduction and send me your scores if you want to. Also, if you chose to, have your friends read the book and do the same things I asked you to do, whether they have read my book or not. The links to the book is on the web site above and is free to read. Have fun. 11/23/09 Re: Stupid Drug Story of the Week, http://www.slate.com/id/2236302/ I've been writing similar articles in my blog and other emails to media outlets since 1995, except for one difference. I add to these blogs and emails the "smart" part of the drug story that the media articles and Shafer's article leave out. As one of the commenters commented, "So what kind of public policy choices would you advocate?" And then there's the inevitable comment from the parents that lost a kid from huffing who said, "The folks at the University of Michigan who do wonderful and important work with their Monitoring the Future survey and report would say that making a difference in one person's life would be considered "statistically insignificant"... They are not. It is not. In 1995 I began writing the NY Times (many of these letters to the editors are on my web site), and since then, many other media outlets including Slate, that instead of complaining about individual drugs and what they do to our kids, we should be informing the public about the correct theory of addiction causation, Hypoism. They can use this theory and its prevention, treatment, and public policy implications to end the addiction epidemic altogether, something the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH), the current incorrect and ineffective addiction causation theory, the University of Michigan surveys, and the drug stories similar to what the Today show presented don't do. The funny thing is that Slate, Slate's readers, and the other media outlets censor (don't publish my letters to the editors) and/or ignore my solution to the addiction epidemic even though they ask for an alternative article. I don't remember Shafer writing a story about the Hypoism paradigm of addictions, a paradigm that if used by our country would end the addiction epidemic altogether. My book, Hypoic's Handbook, shows why and how this can happen. So, what about that Shafer? What about that Slate readers and editors? What about reading and reviewing my 1996 book and more recent papers on Hypoism such as the scientific proof of Hypoism (and the disproof of the HBH) -http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ - and helping replace the murderous HBH with Hypoism thus allowing it to solve the addiction mess which it will if the country learns about its existence and uses its policies? How about doing that and see if it isn't the "smart" drug story of the week? Only the correct theory of addiction causation can solve the addiction epidemic, irrespective of the particular addictors. 11/22/09 Re: The Evolution of the God Gene, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?scp=1&sq=god%20gene&st=cse In my 1996 book, Hypoic's Handbook, the book on the evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics of addictions, the proven theory of addiction causation, derived from the instinct regulating apparatus and genetic low reward activity of its evaluation mechanism, the Decision-Making Apparatus/Feel OK System (DMA/FOKS), I mention quite emphatically that the superstition instinct is a real and complete instinct that evolved 50-100,000 years ago and that its responsible for three new human traits and abilities that differentiates us from previous pre-human species: Science, Art, and Religion. The superstition instinct is, as all instincts must be, a lot simpler, useful, and inclusive than "the god gene" hypothesis that makes no sense as a single instinct when actually thought about. As my paper on the superstition instinct discusses, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/10thesuperstitioninstinct3100/ , it defines this instinct as the ability to ask a question and the neurobiologically determined unconscious "need" to answer it either rationally or irrationally, whichever provides the most dopamine release (as in all other instincts), and the initial hedonic tone (genetically determined reward activity) for the individual. This includes the concept and existence of genetic diversity of the instinct evaluator (DMA/FOKS) among individuals. Although Wade doesn't take any of this into account, making his hypothesis ridiculous and untenable, several of the commenters do show there is intelligent life out there and that some people have thought this through a lot better than Wade. These comments, quoted from the page called "Letters. An Evolutionary Bent Toward Religion?," http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/l22religion.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&hpw=&adxnnlx=1258910058-oJTOw1OtPbFP7arbNifejA are: 1) "Diversity of thought is just as important as physical diversity for the survival of a community." 2) "There are, needless to say, many traits that may have helped our ancestors propagate their genes that we would be wise to outgrow. 3) "We are made up of conflicting and contradictory parts that constantly fight one another and don’t always fit the circumstances of our current environment. We should welcome as much knowledge about our makeup as we can get in order to be better informed about how to face our own impulses and those of others." 4) "As an atheist, I would first say that the premise that religions evolved (like everything else) is not news at all, and atheists will heartily agree. The bad news here is for the believers, who, to my mind, must conclude that gods are, at best, useful fictions, and don’t exist in reality. While religions may have been useful to evolving societies, their social advantages are secondary to a much greater human impulse — the need to understand and explain the world around us. This impulse has clear survival advantages and distinguishes humans from other species." 5) "Many questions came to mind as I read “The Evolution of the God Gene.” What does it actually mean to postulate a god gene for religious belief? How does it work? What is the relationship between the organic gene and the human experience? Do we need one gene for a theist and another for an atheist, an agnostic or a polytheist? It is quite possible to accept evolution without resorting to an organic narrative to account for every specific human experience. Must there be a specific gene for playing poker or dancing the rumba? And if we believe in elves and witches, are corresponding genes required?" -- No. All we need is one instinct, the superstition instinct as defined in my superstition instinct paper. The implications of the superstition instinct as I relate it to the future of humankind and all life on earth are many and quite important for the survival of the human species as well as for life on earth because unless these issues are resolved we are at grave risk of destroying not only all our fellow humans but the entire biomass on the earth itself. All this is explained in the superstition instinct paper. Of course, people have to be allowed to know about and read this paper. Too bad it's been censored by the NY Times from its readers. All this also holds for the current addiction hypothesis, the hijacked brain hypothesis, and its replacement theory, Hypoism (based on these same neurobiological principles), the theory that will solve the addiction epidemic if it's ever allowed to be known by the public. 11/21/09 Re: Clearing up cancer screening confusion, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34069515/ns/health-cancer/ I'm not an expert on cancer screening so I won't comment on the specific issue this article raises. But, I'm an expert on science reporting by the media and will use this article to comment on this issue because this is how the public is (mis)informed thus shaping opinions and public policies (or personal decisions) based on what this article calls "new information." Does anyone out there wonder why one day you'll see an article in some media outlet stating, "New study shows blah blah blah causes whatever," or, "New study shows blah blah may cause whatever," or, "Blah blah is shown not to be what we used to think it was," etc. in multiple combinations and permutations? All these statements are equivalent to the lay public even though scientifically they are meaningless and misleading. Today you're asked to believe this or that despite their being opposite statements. My wife said to me this morning, "Hey, you were right all along. Women don't need all those mammograms as it turns out." Of course, that's not what I meant when I said what I said to her about the mammogram nonsense. What's going on here and why are these media outlets so frequently changing one "fact" to another opposite one week in and week out? Or, something that is killing a million addicts a year, my particular area of interest and expertise, why is only one side of the addiction story being told in the media instead of both sides or all sides, as they're taught in journalism school, so the public can decide which is the right side of the story? As today's story about mammograms and other forms of cancer screening, "Clearing up??? cancer screening confusion," displays, the journalist talks about the people making the claims rather than whether the science on this issue is valid or not, on either side of the argument. "Several doctors groups and advocacy groups set guidelines for cancer screening, and they update that advice periodically as "new information" emerges. Sometimes they agree, sometimes they don't. Last year, a number of groups got together and issued consensus [people] guidelines for colon cancer." And MSNBC publishes the article under the "Health" section of the web site. Does anyone see the problem with this last quote? Right. There's no discussion of the science that was used (methods, data, interpretation, misinterpretation) to back the particular claims made by one group or another or the "consensus" view, whatever that means. Then the article goes into the specific groups (of people) and discusses whether each one has credibility (according to whatever criteria they state) rather than the studies about the issue and whether the studies are scientifically valid and validly show what they say they showed. Isn't the latter what we need? Who cares who and what the people are? We need to know if the study itself has credibility or even better, scientific validity. Hey, wake up, media science writers don't write about that. They write about the people or the groups. This is the same kind of science the public gets from Oprah. It's meant to alter or solidify the public opinion Oprah wants it to have rather than the public knowledge the public needs (so they can sell things rather than actually be healthier). We all know that the strength and viability of any democracy is dependent on it's knowledge, not it's opinions or beliefs. "Shit in, shit out." Which is which? Well, that's what science was invented to differentiate. It turns out, as I've been saying along, the media has been and is failing the public on this important role. Thus, according to the new consensus, one day the sky is pink and the next day it's yellow. But the media is business and needs to sell things. The media has turned into a money machine rather than what it's supposed to be, a valid information machine to inform the public, at least on some things, on what they say is supposed to be knowledge, or valid knowledge. It prints what it can sell, however, not what actually improves the knowledge base of the public. I've talked to science editors (usually after they have written me to take them off my email list - to stop "bothering" them with Hypoism crap), and they tell me their criteria for the validity of a study or opinion is 1) having been published in a peer reviewed journal, 2) having been written by someone with a good reputation, 3) having been supported by a wealthy person or organization, 4) published in a journal that has a good reputation.... They tell me they have no science training and are thus unable to determine the scientific validity on their own, thus relying on the expertise, reputations, and celebrity or wealth of the author, school, laboratory, supporters, or peer reviewers or the reputation of the journal to determine a study's validity. And we all know that the peer reviewers and journals DON'T have any conflicts of interest - ha ha. Right. So, the result of all this is that studies get reported in lay literature that are never read or evaluated by the media editors (what's the point?) and the public gets the shaft in regards to validity of the studies and articles about them. At the end of the day, the public gets one story one day and the opposite story the next. No wonder people ignore the science and health sections of lay media - it changes 180 degrees one day to the next. And the public never hears about anything that isn't published in scientific journals even if it happens to be scientifically valid and even paradigm changing; enough to save a million people a year; even if it's handed to the media on a silver platter. They won't read it. But they will publish any nonsense as long as it follows the nonsensical criteria listed above. This, of course, is why "cancer screening" needs to be cleared up - which, of course, this article says it does but, in fact, it doesn't because the science editors writing this story haven't a clue as to how to clear up anything in the science literature. So, they go with whomever is the "consensus" mavin or "most popular" or "best reputation, irrespective of the actual validity of the science. Never do we hear about how much money the author receives from the drug company or the government or the corporation or the foundation, etc., until its way too late. In addictions, for example, it's been 17 years since Hypoism was defined and detailed by valid science (referenced in my papers and book), and recently proved, and the public still has never heard of it no less seen an article about it so they might be allowed to evaluate the theory of addictions and its implications on their own. Hypoism isn't even in the dictionary! 11/20/09 Re: Help requested: Please take a survey on science blogging (global warming) for my graduate research , http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/8606-help-requested-please-take-survey-science-blogging-my-graduate-research-27436.html#comments Subject: Science blogging - specifically addiction - specifically Hypoism Comment: I blog about addiction science, specifically Hypoism [you've never heard of Hypoism because it's been censored by the addiction field while the media follows suit], at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ - the evolution of the genetics and evolutionarily why hypoism (genetic low reward activity) exists and what it means. If you're interested in why the public is so ignorant about the real science of anything, something like addictions, then you should read my blog and the papers it's based on in addition to my book, Hypoic's Handbook, that is the only book in existence today on the correct science and interpretation of that science - as opposed to the lies and deliberate misinterpretation of the science on addiction by the addiction establishment. This worse and more unethical than what takes place on global warming. At least people know about both sides. With addictions, on the other hand, the public knows nothing about dissenting science, especially Hypoism! 11/18/09 Re: FOR DEBATE: Are differences in guidelines for the treatment of nicotine dependence and non-nicotine dependence justified? Addiction, Volume 104, Issue 12, Pages 1951-1957 I apologize that to understand this email you will have to get this article from the library. It's from a subscriber only journal. However, it's worth it because the article raises many very important points about the world of addiction treatment today and its phony baloney philosophical basis (lacking a scientific basis - as the author states in the article, "However, it is unclear whether these treatment differences are, in fact, justifiable because of the scarcity of empirical tests.") In other words, he admits that there's no scientific basis for the various preferred treatments because it doesn't exist, as I've said many times over the last 17 years. Thus, the article is admittedly his opinion, "Our comments in this paper are not based upon a formal literature review, due in large part to the scarcity of empirical research. Instead they are based upon our subjective evaluation of the literature; thus, this paper is an editorial or commentary, not a systematic review." Quite interesting because of his honesty!!! This honesty doesn't exist anywhere else in the addiction literature as you all know. Ha Ha. He's sort of squealing on the addiction establishment. Great!! That's why I'm commenting on it. It's the first honest "opinion" article I've ever seen in the addiction literature. No one has ever raised these particular issues raised in this article (except me of course), comparing the treatment for nicotine addiction versus the treatment for other "real" drugs like alcohol, and the illegal drugs heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. because nicotine is seen as an innocuous drug - doesn't get you high or screw up your brain (in fact it improves brain function, one reason people use tobacco) - not counting lung cancer not caused by the nicotine but rather by the tobacco. Of course, if tobacco were illegal like these other drugs there would be no distinction because most of the problems with drugs are not due to the drugs but rather due to their being illegal and all the nonsense caused by that contingency alone. Of course, as we know but no one else knows, it's not the drug or specific addiction that requires treatment. It's the underlying disease instead - the Hypoism. And only we have the treatment for this. No one else knows this because they refuse to read my book. Thus, current treatments are drug or behavior specific and moreover, don't work any better than placebo or chance. I'm going to send this blog to the author and see if he reads any of my papers so he can learn something and help improve the mess in addictions caused by the HBH and NIDA. Switching to the Hypoism paradigm and letting the public know about it is the only solution to the addiction epidemic and the only way to end the stupid and destructive drug war. Try to read the article itself. It has no solutions but does frame the problems well. It clarifies, without knowing it, why Hypoism needs to happen if only the public is allowed to know about it. 11/18/09 Re: Studies Suggest Parental Monitoring Can Help Decrease Adolescent Marijuana Use, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/171267.php Here we go again - psychologists studying drug use instead of drug addiction. Remember, rate of (incidence of) drug use has nothing to do with rate of drug addiction. Most drug users have no trouble with their drug use and don't get addicted. Drug use does not predict drug addiction. Therefore, it's stupid, useless, and irrelevant to study rates of drug use in all kids for any drug. The only relevant issue is addiction, which for marijuana is probably a twentieth or less of those that use it mostly without any difficulties. This stupidity is the result of the stupid belief and use of the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH) which blames the drug rather than the genetics of the reward part of the brain (Hypoism) for causing addiction. As we all know only too well, no matter how many people use a drug only the hypoics get addicted. Thus, monitoring non-hypoic kids for drug use is a waste of time, money, emphasis, paranoia, and urine. This also wrongly perpetuates the drug war, right in your own house! Geez! Just what we need. And, of course, it doesn't prevent hypoic kids from addictions, only pushes them farther away from their paranoid and annoying parents - not a good thing. And, even if monitoring stopped marijuana addiction altogether the hypoic kids would just get addicted to something else, even worse, like alcohol and smoking (legal addictions that kill a million more people than marijuana, which kills no one, not that I'm for marijuana use, which I'm not, for hypoics at least. The drug war, at home or away from home, not only doesn't prevent addiction, the real issue, but it actually perpetuates addictions due to its wrong emphasis on the drugs rather than on the Hypoism - the only way to prevent addictions. This is one of the reasons the addiction epidemic continues unabated!!! Wrong theory - wrong policies - more addiction. Psychologists. Geez!!! Let's keep killing our kids for the sake of the HBH. Bass-Ackwards. Thanks to our leader, Volkow, and her gang of propagandists at NIDA. 11/18/09 More validation: Re: Brain Abnormality Found In Boys With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090317142845.htm ADHD, otherwise known as a large subgroup of hypoic kids (see recent blog on Volkow's defining study showing decreased reward activity in ADHD. As the cause of ADHD.), have their limbic brain [The striatal region is a network of structures in the mid brain that motivates people to engage in pleasurable or rewarding behavior. The anterior cingulate (otherwise known as the Limbic Cortex) is higher in the brain and normally activates when an expected reward stops. As discussed in Hypoic's Handbook.] activity described as: "When children engage in impulsive behavior they are looking to stimulate themselves and have fun. Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (hypoic kids) are always looking to have fun and that is what gets them in trouble," he said. "A behavior should stop when the reward stops. When you stop the reward for children with these disorders, they continue to focus on the reward long afterward and the anterior cingulate does not appear to become activated." 11/16/09 Confirmatory and validating science of Hypoism: Re: The Short Life of a Diagnosis, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10baron-cohen.html?scp=1&sq=the%20short%20life%20of%20a%20diagnosis&st=cse Naming the disease correctly is very important for the patients as well as for the public no less for the doctors treating it. Dopamine Enhances Expectation of Pleasure in Humans, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091112121603.htm Confirms some of what I said about dopamine's function in humans in my book. Gene Therapy For Addiction: Flooding Brain With 'Pleasure Chemical' Receptors Works On Cocaine, As On Alcohol, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416081628.htm "By increasing dopamine D2 receptor levels, we saw a dramatic drop in these rats' interest in cocaine," said lead author Panayotis (Peter) Thanos, a neuroscientist with Brookhaven Lab and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) Laboratory of Neuroimaging. "This provides new evidence that low levels of dopamine D2 receptors may play an important role in not just alcoholism but in cocaine abuse as well. It also shows a potential direction for addiction therapies." Obesity Predisposition Traced To The Brain's Reward System, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080729133513.htm "Baseline dopamine levels were 50 percent lower and stimulated dopamine release was significantly attenuated in the brain reward systems of obesity-prone rats, compared with obesity-resistant rats. Defects in brain dopamine synthesis and release were evident in rats immediately after birth," said Emmanuel Pothos, PhD One other thing about people, addicted or not, on chronic (longer than 1 week) oral opiates. They drive, perform cognitive functions, jobs, and other normal activity no different from people not on opiates. - several references from google. Thus, for people on chronic oral opiates there's no reason for being fired or not hired for any job based on the opiates themselves. Moreover, people recovering (clean) from chronic oral opiate addiction have less than no reason to be fired or not hired for any job. Wouldn't it be nice if the addiction field asserted this claim for people currently (and in the past) who have been discriminated against because of this misrepresentation. 11/13/09 Re: Exploring the relationship between genetic and environmental influences on initiation and progression of substance use. Addiction 102 (3), 413–422. Here's more of the same, proving Hypoism (the genetic theory of addiction causation) right, one more time. [But, no one cares and no one will do anything about it.] So, why does the hijacked brain hypothesis remain? You know why. The liars keep it there to make sure addicts stay sick. Otherwise they all go broke and have to get real jobs. Too much trouble for the liars. Too bad it keeps killing the addicts. Of course, who cares about the addicts? Even the addicts don't care about the addicts. Otherwise there'd be a lot more supporters of Hypoism. Of course, they don't know about Hypoism because it's been censored so well by the liars and the media. Someday. Check out these quotes from the paper--- "Experimentation with substances usually takes place during adolescence [1]. Adolescents are highly vulnerable to social influences [2], have lower tolerance levels and become dependent at lower doses than adults [3]. Adolescent-onset substance abuse is characterized by more rapid development of multiple drug dependencies and more severe psychopathology [4]. However, the majority of adolescents who experiment with substances do not become problem users. A better understanding is needed of the factors underlying initiation of substance use in adolescence versus heavy use and problem use." "Findings Initiation of alcohol and progression to heavier alcohol use had separate but related underlying aetiologies. For cigarette and marijuana use the relation between initiation and progression to heavier use was stronger, suggesting greater overlap in aetiologies. For all three substances, environmental influences that make twins more similar (common environment) tended to be greater for initiation, while genetic influences were stronger for heavier use." 11/13/09 Re: Sociodemographic and psychopathologic predictors of first incidence of DSM-IV substance use, mood and anxiety disorders: results from the Wave 2 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, Molecular Psychiatry (2009) 14, 1051–1066 This new study confirms the validity of and need for Hypoism as have many other recent studies (see my blog and my web paper http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/). Conclusions (Despite major problems with attrition which they ignore.) of this study (Although they didn't study behavioral addictions at all, let me know if these conclusions sound like addiction (what they still insist on calling substance ABUSE) is caused by some "unknown" genetic disease - something like Hypoism.): "Taken together, the findings of this study call for more research in the rapidly growing field of psychiatric genetics that has begun to expand phenotypic definitions beyond the study of a single disorder or trait to a range of phenotypes that show a high degree of comorbidity. Work in this area is beginning to identify latent genetic risk factors that indicate shared genetic susceptibility across a range of diagnostic phenotypes." "Information on sociodemographic and psychopathologic risk factors prospectively identified in this study may also begin to inform a new class of preventive interventions aimed at preventing comorbidity (that is, the prevention of the first onset of a second or set of disorders). With regard to clinical implications, clearer data about the risks of future disorders posed by chronologically primary disorders can increase efficiency of treatment planning and provide important information to patients at risk of developing secondary disorders. Primary prevention of secondary disorders would be feasible even when the comorbid conditions share common causes. The onset of the secondary disorder is not inevitable because common causes often have modifiable mediators." "The greater incidence of all these disorders in the youngest cohort underscores the need for heightened vigilance in identifying and treating such disorders among young adults." "Young adults" is already too late. How about in children as I have suggested since 1992? Q: Does any of this sound like it could have been paraphrased from the 1996 Hypoic's Handbook which not only predicts all this but defines the genetic disease that causes it and presents the preventive and early treatment methodology? So, why has the addiction field ignored and censored Hypoic's Handbook, the book that could have ended the addiction epidemic 17 years ago? A: Because they don't really want prevention. It's bad for business. They don't want to hear about the real disease that causes addictions and its treatment so addicts can stay addicted and remain patients. The field is fighting for better insurance coverage for addiction treatment but not for the correct pathophysiology and its corresponding prevention and treatment methods, which they are censoring, as dictated by the disease of Hypoism. 11/12/09 Re: Effects of modafinil on dopamine and dopamine transporters in the male human brain: clinical implications. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19293415 Quote from the conclusion: "Because drugs that increase dopamine in the nucleus accumbens have the potential for abuse [addiction], and considering the increasing use of modafinil, these results highlight the need for heightened awareness for potential abuse of and dependence on modafinil in vulnerable populations." I wonder who said these exact words (in red) in 1992, and then, wrote a whole book about it in people who are born with genetically low reward activity (dopamine) - hypoics? I wonder who the "vulnerable" populations are. Might they actually be hypoics (ADHDers and others)? Duh. Will Volkow ever acknowledge this is the reality so that hypoics can be allowed to know what disease they really have and what my book says they need to do about it so they can live? Seems Volkow forgot I gave a lecture on Hypoism at her research lab medical conference, Brookhaven, in 2000. Also: ‘Smart drug’ may be habit-forming, study says. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29739760/ns/health-addictions/ How does the drug manufacturer make a billion dollars on this drug when its only indication is narcolpsy which occurs in about ten people, maybe a few more? Ha Ha. 11/12/09 Re: Dieters Can Experience Neurobiological Similarities Of Drug Addicts And Alcoholics, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/170462.php We didn't know this was going to happen did we? Just ignore everything I've ever written. It's of no use. Why would anyone want to know about Hypoism? It only predicted everything that's being discovered today except it was 17 years ago. That doesn't count. That was just dumb luck on my part. 11/12/09 Re: Use Of Performance Enhancers By Athletes More Likely To Lead To Abuse Of Alcohol, Other Drugs, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/170756.php I wonder what genetic disease these people have? One more validation of "you know what." Don't mention it because it's a bad word - not in the dictionary. They call it, "sensation seeking." I wonder what sensation they're seeking? "They are using them [drugs] to cope with the problems of day-to-day living." What bullshit. These "scientists" have no idea what they're dealing with. And we wonder why the addiction field is still in the dark ages. ha ha. 11/12/09 Re: Firing Bullets of Data at Cozy Anti-Science , http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/books/05book.html?ref=books The term “denialism,” used by Mr. Specter as an all-purpose, pop-sci buzzword, is defined by him as what happens “when an entire segment of society, often struggling with the trauma of change, turns away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie.” What do you call it when the NY Times, NIDA, ASAM, and AA does the same thing concerning addictions? Murder. The liars are being believed and there's no debate on it whatsoever! There's not a single word on addiction being included in this book. This means that it's not just a segment of the population that turns away from reality but the entire society, including the author of this book. What's that called? Blame the addict. And the addicts are in denial as well. They don't want to know about reality of addiction causation either. They don't seem to mind being blamed for their addictions because they believe the same bullshit. So what if a million addicts die each year in the good old USA. They deserve it, right? They did it to themselves. They're scumbags. They cause all the trouble. Good riddance. This is a viable and valid belief? Or is it a comfortable lie? Read my blog from the beginning and you can answer that. It's no different from JIM CROW or the HOLOCAUST and other genocides. All hilariously based on a comfortable lie. "Never again?" Bullshit. It's happening right now and all the brilliant people, scientists and journalists, are happily cooperating. Enjoy it, especially when it's your kid. I've been ignored for 17 years already. Why should it change now? |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You can take the addiction out of the hypoic, but you can't take the Hypoism out of the addict.
