The Addiction Blog

Current Letters to Editors 11/12/09 - 9/14/10 

Send me your comments. If they're helpful I will post them under the emails.    

9/14/10 Re: The Public’s Quiet Savior From Harmful Medicines, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/health/14kelsey.html?hpw It's wonderful that the Times recognizes the integrity of Ms. Kelsey in regards to drugs and devices. But what about therapies such as psychotherapy and the various "psychosocial" treatments for addictions. There is no FDA regulation of those despite their equally serious outcomes and dangerous results, such as lack of efficacy and the allowance of the treatment industry to claim efficacy when it has not been proven, especially for addiction treatments. I've been demanding this kind of oversight as well as proof of efficacy and safety for more than 15 years but have been ignored and censored particularly by the Times. We all know the damage done by ineffective treatments when they are believed to be efficacious. This leads to failure of addiction recovery with all its lethal consequences while the patient gets blamed for the failure. Since the treatment is supposedly efficacious, it must be the patient's fault it didn't work! This leads to continued addiction as well as discrimination against the addict who is harshly judged for his failure to recover. Not only is there lack of proof of efficacy but actual fraud. Read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/theaddictiontreatmentfraudfinallyexposed/ The same standards need to be used for addiction treatments as are required for drugs and devises. Then, maybe, we will recognize that the current addiction causation theories are bogus and useless necessitating research into new theories of addiction causation and their corresponding treatments, work that I have been doing for the last 17 years. 9/11/10 Re: Unsentimental Education, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/books/review/McKelvey-t.html?ref=review Why is Murry smiling? As you know, if you read my blog, I hate addiction memoirs. The reason I hate them is that the memoirists know nothing about addictions but believe they do because they lived through it. Does a victim of leukemia know everything about leukemia just because they lived through it? No. so, why for addictions? And they come off being believable to the readers who likewise know nothing about addictions except for what they believe they know. Thus, whatever they say is believed, as in this case, a big mistake, a mistake that perpetuates the lethal nonsense about addictions. The reviewer states, "Despite her generous portrayal of her troubled family life, Liz Murray succeeds as an author. Few parents would seem to have been more deserving of contempt than the ones who raised her." Why do these parents deserve contempt? The fact is that neither the author nor the reviewer knows anything about addiction despite writing about it. They don't know, for example, that the parents' behavior was more related to the underlying addiction paradigm than the addiction itself. I wonder what Murry is smiling about, not realizing that her life was so influenced by that paradigm as will be the lives of her children seeing that the actual cause of addictions is a genetic disease called Hypoism. The point is that most of the disastrous effects of addictions are due to the believed paradigm which causes them rather than the addiction itself. This has been shown over and over, yet people are just not interested in knowing and appreciating this and would rather believe that addicts are immoral assholes deserving contempt rather than compassion seeing they have a disease that is beyond their control, exactly what people refuse to acknowledge - no different from leukemia. Thus, the memoir is coming from a warped and wrong perspective, one derived from the believed wrong theory of addiction causation, whatever that happens to be for the particular writer. It is this paradigm, the 12-step paradigm, the hijacked brain hypothesis paradigm, the moral paradigm, that warps peoples' perspectives on addiction morality, something that is no different in reality from the morality of leukemia. It is those wrong paradigms, perpetuated by ignorant writers, that are causing the trouble addicts face in this society. Yet, here it is again, that addicts are moral deviants and deserve contempt, a concept that will continue to kill addicts and their kids from now until doomsday. So, why is Murry smiling? She's perpetuating the thing that killed her parents, herself, her offspring, and all other addicts' and their offspring. She knows nothing about that yet she keeps smiling. Why's she smiling when she's helping do just that? And the Times as well. There is a biological cause of addictions, Hypoism, that once acknowledged and known by the public will prevent and treat addictions as never before. Why is the Times uninterested in this solution rather than publishing lethal nonsense by memoirists and reviewers of that nonsense? 8/28/10 Re: America Is Better Than This, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/28/opinion/28herbert.html?hpw No, Bob, America is not better than this. It is actually worse than this except in the hallowed halls of the NY Times. No? Not even there! It turns out that Bob Herbert has a skewed perspective of America because of his particular biases he is not aware of. Yes, even liberals have biases and they are unconscious; always available to reach out and touch someone different from you. "Reach Out," is a euphemism for "kill." Even liberals who think they have no racist beliefs have racist beliefs, and this FACT is very old already, and proven by valid science, something liberals know nothing about, the Times especially. It's called the IAT [Implicit Association Test] which can be found and explored at its home page: http://www.projectimplicit.net/index.php since 1998. This was merely proof of my earlier hypothesis called Cortico-limbic dissociation discussed in my book, Hypoic's Handbook, where addictophobia is defined as an unconscious instinctive - based xenophobic scapegoating for those so inclined to hate addicts and reach out to destroy them in the name of loving them (to death); even themselves and the so-called addict-lovers who are lying to themselves and to addicts as well, funny enough. Read about these lovely people, otherwise known as addiction experts and medical license revocation and restoration panels, not all of them, only the most influential and with the most clout (figure out who they are yourself - they are the ones exclaiming the most loudly how they are for helping addicts ironically enough) in the exposes called: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/entitledtoyouropinionnotanymore/ and http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/15replacingalanleshneristheonlywaytoendthedrugwar/ Who is actually helping addicts? List them and the proof for their actual help. I think you will have a lot of trouble honestly doing this. Let's see. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Implicit Project Implicit blends basic research and educational outreach in a virtual laboratory at which visitors can examine their own hidden biases. Project Implicit is the product of research by three scientists whose work produced a new approach to understanding of attitudes, biases, and stereotypes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In those who exclaim loudly just the opposite. Here's a little discussion I had with one of the IAT experts, a true helper person who, at least at that time, was not aware of the role IAT played in the world of addictophobia, one of the unconscious biases seen in people who claimed to be "for" addicts' well being. Kristi Lemm wrote (in black): Dr. Umanoff, Thanks for inquiring about the IAT.  Your chapter was interesting.  I agree with your point that prejudice is the result of low-level mental processes, not the kind of "rational" thought that people can actually debate about. However, I don't think that many of the researchers who use the IAT consider it to be a measure of a "xenophobia instinct."  The test does assess beliefs and attitudes that are outside of conscious awareness, however, that does not mean that such beliefs and attitudes are instinctual. (I wrote in red) No, then where do unconscious thoughts and beliefs come from, particularly the ones that are present in all people, irrespective of their culture?  Wouldn't you call those thoughts and beliefs instincts? What neural construct produces in all people and all cultures the exact same qualitative type of thinking? I would call them instincts. What do you call them? Well, is xenophobia an instinct? Aren't instincts located in an unconscious part of the brain, in humans as well as in other animals with the instinct? Don't racist thoughts come from that instinct? Doesn't your research using the IAT show that all people have those unconscious racist (xenophobic) thoughts consistent with the presence of the xenophobic instinct in these people whether they admit (are conscious of it) to it, or not? Therefore, it is clear to me that your test is merely quantifying the presence of this instinct in all these people you have tested. This evidence you present is more likely due to the xenophobia instinct than it is to any cultural or environmental patterns of association. Cultural patterns of association would lead to conscious racist associations, but not unconscious ones. You obviously have a bias in your conclusions about your work. There would be no unconscious racist associations in the absence of the instinctive context into which they can be placed, only conscious ones. The importance of your work, as I see it, is that you show exactly the opposite of what you say you do.  Most of us believe that the IAT assesses patterns of association that have been solidified in memory over years of exposure to a particular set of environmental stimuli.  You may believe this, but this is not what your results show. You need to take another good look at your biased beliefs that led to your biased conclusions. These implicit associations may be in conflict with the individual's explicit, conscious, beliefs and attitudes.  Right, and that's where the cortico-limbic dissociation comes from. Thus, a person may hold prejudiced implicit beliefs in line with the dominant culture, while at the same time explicitly holding egalitarian, nonprejudiced standards for him or herself. Implicit beliefs do not come from one's culture, they come from one's instincts. Only the objects of the belief (the scapegoats) come from the culture. I'm afraid you have it backwards here. You have tested for, and demonstrated, unconscious racism (xenophobia) which is not under conscious or societal control. In other words, despite what these people say they think or wish they think or want to think, they are all still racists. The fact is that all people are racists, like it or not. This is exactly what I call "cortico-limbic dissociation." Despite what people consciously say about their being racists or not, they still are racists. This is why you subtitle your test, the "what you would rather not know about yourself" test. People don't want to see themselves as racists, but the test demonstrates their racism against their will. Thus, my whole argument in my paper on CLD: that the only way to get people to stop acting out their instincts, racism being just one, in a societal context, is for them first to be able to admit they have them, "acknowledgment." Once we all do this and can say it out loud, instead of consciously denying them, then we all can adjust our behaviors, as individuals and as a society, irrespective of these racist (xenophobic) feelings and their associated conflicting and confusing thoughts. In other words, we can think instinctively, which we do like it or not, but act, instead, anti-instinctively. You can't teach an instinctive thought and feeling out of existence, but you can act it out of existence by deciding not to act on the thought or feeling, no matter how strong it may effect you. By the way, racism isn't just about black/white issues. Racism is about any group being picked as a scapegoat. There just needs to be a discernable difference between the racist and the object of the racism. It doesn't have to be skin color or some other obvious physical trait. It can be difference in beliefs, language, dress, or behaviors. The whole point of the xenophobic instinct, in evolutionary terms, was to protect the clan from people who were different so as to preserve the integrity of the gene pool. Xenophobia doesn't make distinctions other than same and different. Xenophobia doesn't care what the particular difference is. Cortico-limbic dissociation is why the german people were able to kill the Jews, even when they consciously knew it was wrong. Once they believed that the Jews were "less than human," in other words, dehumanized, their xenophobic instinct allowed them to carry out the genocide without losing any sleep. Same with the American Indian slaughter, the Vietnam War, the drug war, Homophobic discrimination, and slavery. All genocides, discriminations, and any other human persecutions are preceded with demonization and dehumanization of that particular group of people. In times of group or personal stress (some perceived threat) the xenophobia instinct can then be appealed to by the group leaders to destroy this "non-human or subhuman" group of people. The absence of loss of sleep among the perpetrators shows that the actions are accomplished with the approval of the unconscious brain. Without this unconscious approval, people would never be able to carry out the slaughter. They would feel too much anxiety, guilt and remorse to carry out such atrocious behaviors. The importance of your work is that is raises our consciousness about unconscious instinctive thinking. This material needs to be widely disseminated because most people are under the mistaken opinion, promoted by most psychologists and gurus, that man is in control of his thinking. Since you have clearly demonstrated that most people aren't even aware of their own thinking, how can they be in control of it? This is the big lie being perpetrated on the world right now by psychologists. Please revise your conclusions and begin to spread the ideas explicit in them. Thanks again for your interest. Please check out the website in the future; we are continuing to improve the site and add more information. Sincerely, Kristi Lemm for IAT home On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, dan umanoff wrote: > I call your concept behind the IAT, cortico-limbic dissociation (CLD). > Here's a bit about CLD I have inserted into my book about a new paradigm > in addictions. CLD involves all instincts, in my opinion, in addition to > the xenophobia instinct which you have isolated in your test. Let me > know what you think about these ideas in attached file. Dan F. Umanoff, > M.D. 8/22/10 Re: Could Brain Abnormality Predict Drug Addiction?  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081022222911.htm "Scientists at The University of Nottingham are to use MRI technology to discover whether abnormalities in the decision-making part of the brain could make some people more likely to become addicted to drugs." Does this sound familiar? Like I haven't already written the book. Hypoic's Handbook. Like I haven't been writing about the decision-making apparatus as the key to addiction and how this works genetically for 20 years already. Hypoism web site. Yet none of my work has been published to date despite detailing the theory and the uses of this theory for the last 20 years. What uses? Prevention for one thing, something that has yet to be put into action like they said but don't know how to do it while I do ---- "If we identify those who possess this vulnerability, perhaps more can be done to prevent them from making the transition to pathological addiction.” I've been writing about this use for 20 years yet have been censored and ignored. Pretty screwed up, no? All this lost time and lost lives just over pride and bias. How many letters have I written to this one journal no less all the rest of the newspapers and journals. Clearly a scientific sin of the highest order. "Love is an action not a feeling. Integrity is an action not a thought. Anything less is too little." --- Dan F. Umanoff, M.D. Author of Hypoic's Handbook - The Hypoism Paradigm of Addiction. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism President and founder of The National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts, Inc. (N4A), a not-for-profit 501 (c) (3) organization of addicts for addicts offering free educational and legal services to discriminated against and abused addicts of all varieties, "substances" and "behavioral," and their families. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thenationalassociationfortheadvancementandadvocacyofaddicts/ 8779 Misty Creek Dr. Sarasota, FL 34241 941-926-5209 7/31/10   Re: Getting Into Med School Without Hard Sciences, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/nyregion/30medschools.html?src=me&ref=homepage   As usual, when the Times writes about science or medicine they get it all wrong. Let's ask the writers of this article what is the most important aspect of pre-med and med school training? Yes, being sensitive to your patient's emotional needs is important but as we see on the TV show, "House," the sensitive trainees don't get the diagnosis or the treatments right even while they're developing good rapport with the patient and the patient's families. House, who could care less about the patient's emotional needs gets the diagnosis and treatment right. His patients get as healthy as is possible while theirs don't. I went to Brown in 1963 and was in the first medical school class there. We had eight students, a faculty that outnumbered us ten to one and were the best teachers from around the country and from Harvard medical school. I had 1420 SAT's and 89 average in high school; not that great. I got into Brown because of my abilities in playing soccer. Despite my scoring 30 goals my freshman year (twice as many as anyone else on the team) I got kicked off the varsity soccer team my sophomore year because I had 4 afternoon labs per week, all hard science courses, and could make only one practice per week. That was not enough for the coach. I graduated Brown with a 2.9 GPA and got a mediocre MCAT score, but I got around 90 percentile on the first two parts of the medical National Boards and 99.5 percentile (top 30 out of 6000 interns across the country) on the third part of the National Boards taken after the internship (1st year residency), the highest score on a grueling clinical test given to all American trained interns at Medical College of Virginia; obviously higher than the 4.0's and high scorers on the MCATs. My GPA and MCAT predicted I would flunk out of medical school. In my eventual practice in Nephrology (kidney disease) I was very well respected by my peers, partners, and staff, and loved by my patients and their families. Brown's training was intensive in both the humanities and in science. In fact, we all had to do a masters degree (research and thesis) in some area of science during our six year stay at Brown. In order to fit all that into our curriculum we remained in school during all our summers. We all transferred to another medical school (I went to Medical Col. of Virginia as a protégé of David Hume, chief of surgery and transplantation) to finish my last two years of medical school during which I also continued my masters research in a particular area of transplant immunology under David Hume and HM Lee, two of the grandfathers of transplant surgery as well as helping George Abouna, an expert liver surgeon, on ex-vivo liver (pig and baboon livers) perfusion in patients with acute liver failure due to hepatitis, and being part of the transplant team. According to the GPA and MCAT I was supposed to flunk out no less do all this extra work and get the highest mark at MCV on part three of the National Boards. So, I guess the GPA and MCATs didn't correlate in my case. I remained at MCV for seven years for all my training. However, because I couldn't smoke in the operating room I switched to medicine training and became a Nephrologist. There must have been something good about me. Besides my picking them for my training they also picked me to train. What's the thing that the Times missed about the utility of hard science courses versus straight humanities in college and medical school? It is the fact that in hard science you learn how to think. You learn how to use critical thinking along with the scientific method in analyzing medical problems and problem patients where as you get none of that in humanities. Humanities teaches you how to make things up that may sound nice but don't make the right diagnosis and choose the right treatments (what you're tested on in the 3rd part of the medical boards). That's why the medical students who take only humanities go into psychiatry where the ability to bullshit is emphasized and critical thinking is minimized. That's why we addicts don't want psychiatrists running addictionology. That's why addictions have remained out of control for the last hundred years. But the Times doesn't see this even though I've been writing to them about this discrepancy since 1995, and despite this writing they still refuse to look at it. You want lousy medicine? Teach your medical students humanities. 7/5/10 Re: Think You're Operating on Free Will? Think Again, Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2000994,00.html#ixzz0spLeYita   14 years ago, when I wrote my book about addiction causation, Hypoic's Handbook, there were two major critiques: 1) Where's God? and 2) Decisions to use drugs and get addicted had everything to do with conscious decision making - bad willful decisions. Addicts were seen as people with bad character (they still are today). "Lack of remorse for what you didn't do but could have." is still believed to be an important reason for getting addicted. This theory, the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH), remains the prevailing theory in addiction causation. "You did it to yourself, so why should we give you a break." But in Hypoic's Handbook I promulgate that getting addicted is not a free will choice and has everything to do with unconscious beliefs and decision-making. I was ridiculed for that even though at that time there was plenty of evidence favoring that theory, the genetic theory of addiction causation. Bill Wilson and his followers said no to that, that addictions were caused by conscious decisions and character defects, "If you drink long enough and hard enough you will become an alcoholic." This their proof for the willful nature of alcoholism. "Who would drink that way except an asshole who deserves whatever happens to him because he did it to himself. They still believe this way - except, hey wait, today's article says no to this theory. It says, "There may be few things more fundamental to human identity than the belief that people are rational individuals whose behavior is determined by conscious choices. But recently psychologists have compiled an impressive body of research that shows how deeply our decisions and behavior are influenced by unconscious thought, and how greatly those thoughts are swayed by stimuli beyond our immediate comprehension. Unconscious decision-making has more to do with human decision making than we had previously believed. That's what I said in my ostracized book. We punish addicts exactly for that reason. We have the drug war exactly for that reason. Our jails are full exactly for that reason. Conscious bad decision-making is the reason addiction is believed to be a moral issue and that addicts, like me, are bad people who need more remorse and repentance. Our prevention and treatment methods revolve around this belief. Of course, that's what my book explained 14 years ago and why - "the part of the brain that causes addiction, the limbic system, is an unconscious part of the brain run by altered genetic alleles of decision-making genes." That one statement is the reason my book was ignored and ostracized. This can't be true. It just doesn't fit what the bible says. But it turns out it is true, and the HBH, the theory pushed by NIDA and ASAM turns out to be the wrong theory. And, until we dump the HBH and replace it with the right unconscious theory of addiction we will continue killing addicts and their families consciously. I explain the science behind all this in my book and major paper, "http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ " Read them. You might learn something - that we could have fixed the addiction epidemic 14 years ago if we'd used the right theory of addiction causation, the unconscious theory - Hypoism. It's interesting. for 14 years Hypoism has been ignored and censored for saying these things, but now, they say the same thing and they still want to ignore and disbelieve Hypoism, the theory based on that tenet. You can have your cake and eat it too??? Ha Ha. 6/29/10 thanks. but i need more support. it is lonely out here. i do feel alone and isolated. i need you guys out there writing letters too; or writing letters to these papers telling them about what I'm doing and why. this isn't a joke as you well know, but if the media thinks i'm an isolated lone nut job they will treat me like one. send your support to the media and copy it to me. send letters to the media about what i have done and am doing and why---what hypoism is and where it comes from --- the science and the book. and why -- and why - and why. and that the pimmpal complex is killing our brothers and sisters for a buck. it can't just be me. you guys have to get involved and do some work from us to the media. thanks. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jerry Gaither To: dan umanoff Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 6:32 PM Subject: Re: Bill Wilson's Gospel once again well written.  You are a very bright man fighting a very lonesome battle.  But you still have supporters out here.  Thank you, jerry   6/29/10 Re: Bill Wilson's Gospel; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/opinion/29brooks.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y   Too bad Ebby Thatcher died doing exactly what he told Bill W. to do. That doesn't mean anything about the program? And, of course, we know nothing about Bill's use of psychotropic drugs and other addictors because there was no forensic fluid analysis available. We have a pretty good idea that was a people addict and sex addict, but I guess that doesn't count either. I agree that what he did do was exemplary and a good start because it showed the administrative model that needs to be used to set up a recovery program. Nothing else about AA has ever been proven to cause recovery, however, including the AA program itself. In fact, AA recovery rate is identical to non-AA recovery rate - 5%. Its scientific basis just doesn't exist anywhere in the program's literature. Even today, 70 years later we don't have the scientific basis of addiction though we're getting close, and it's about dopamine activity deficiency, nothing about "spirituality" or anything else in AA's program. I can't remember the last addicted rat that got addicted by ignoring spiritual principles in his life. But Brooks can just write away and make up whatever he wants and the Times will publish it. As we know about most things, people will believe whatever they want to believe, right or proven wrong. Also, this article has nothing to do with right or wrong, merely what Brooks believes and wants to believe. The big problem with this kind of writing is that method of dealing with disease kills people with the disease because they use proven wrong methods. I don't think any other disease recovery model is based on such criteria, and when it is, it is talked about and finally resolved - eradicated. Not so for addictions. The longer we use Wilson's model the more entrenched the program gets, just the opposite of what should be happening. That's how belief works though, even when disproven - so it goes. I've written the Times over a thousand letters explaining this problem and its consequences but not one of them has ever been published. Many of these letters are on my web site. My book is filled with these kinds of principles.   Brooks says, "Because the soul is so complicated, much of what we do fails." It's funny, his use of the word "soul," because I define soul in my book on addictions to equate to the FOKS, that part of the brain where low dopamine activity (genetic diversity of the reward cascade) causes addictions, just the opposite of what Brooks attributes addiction causation. Addictions are caused biologically, not spiritually. It's not because the soul is complicated but because we don't know how the FOKS works and won't look at it the way it needs to be looked at. NIDA is responsible for this misperception. This, the biological nature of addiction causation, has been proven over and over again but not acknowledged. Read this review of addiction, what it is, what causes it, and what is needed for recovery, not from drinking alcohol per se, but from the underlying biological disease that causes that drinking. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ It's 2010 already and we still don't have a biological model for addiction causation; all addictions, not just drug addictions. The reason for this theory deficiency is caused by the AA program, just one of its liabilities, not the opposite which is true in all other diseases based on science rather than belief. I'm not the only sane person saying things like this. But AA surely isn't one of them. They have a slight conflict of interest that interferes with their objective views on the science of addiction. There's an entire industry, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/pimmpalcomplex/ , that makes its living from these false beliefs (see commandment number 1 in the 10 commandments). That's what makes AA a scam or cult and Bill W. a guru. When diseases are administered by a cult run by a guru bad things tend to happen. This is why there are so many dead addicts lining the roadside. And, "But it also means that A.A. is decentralized, innovative and dynamic, is a complete misstatement. There is no method for AA to change one iota or to be dynamic despite Brooks' remark. New ideas are pushed out the door of AA meetings. In fact, Wilson admonishes anyone from changing the program as he wrote it with relapse and death as the punishment for trying to change it. Brooks didn't read the Big Book and the 12 and 12? AA dynamic? Please. Read the AA literature, especially non-AAers.   "Alcoholics have a specific problem: they drink too much." And this sentence shows how little Brooks knows about alcoholics. You'd have to give him a Zero on that answer.   "In the business of changing lives, the straight path is rarely the best one. A.A. illustrates that even in an age of scientific advance, it is still ancient insights into human nature that work best. Wilson built a remarkable organization on a nighttime spiritual epiphany." This conclusion is nonsense. I'd say penicillin for syphilis is a straight line. Tell the people with Syphilis who never got penicillin that straight lines are bad treatments.The fact is that Brooks is ignorant about addictions and has no place writing about them. But leave it to the Times to do exactly what would piss me off the most - Brooks writing about addictions, a topic I've worked on since 1990 and most people have no idea what Hypoism is and how its biological model has been worked out but not used because of AA's conflict of interest and their need to be in control of addictions despite the million addicts who die each year in America just from this inaction, ignorance, and bias. 6/13/10 Re: To Err Is Human. And How! And Why. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/books/11book.html?ref=books   The Times reviews two books on why and how experts are wrong and why you should or shouldn't trust them. Many similar books have been written. The best ones are the ones that explain why we are wrong most of the time and how this happens. "To Err is Human," and "House of Cards," are two of these. Another one, "Why People Believe in Weird Things," is another excellent one because it lists 25 clear cut ways people make mistakes - thinking mistakes. My guess is these new books don't add anything to these past works. People ignored the first books and they are going to ignore these as well. The problem isn't that people can make mistakes and believe these mistakes (bias), but that they want to believe these mistakes because they believed these mistakes before they ever did the first bit of research looking into the particular matter.   I read something very critical to this concept about a year ago. It was an article on how Nora Volkow had spent her entire undergraduate and graduate career preparing to become the next Einstein of psychiatry. She had already been picked out to be that genius by the field and all she then had to do was do the prerequisite reading, writing, and arithmetic's and out of this would come the "theory of addictions." This theory would then cure the world of addictions - problem solved - end of story. Moreover, everyone knew this was happening so when the time was right the media would announce it and it would appear. That's what happened too, except for one thing, she was wrong - her theory was wrong. But the field and the media had already decided she was right, before she had even written it. What this did was to kill the field of addiction theory. No other theory was going to be looked at or evaluated because no one else was capable of deriving the right theory but her. Thus, we find ourselves ten years after her being anointed chief of NIDA in the same place we were in 11 years ago. The field of addictions is still wrong and continues to kill a million addicts a year with the wrong theory and its implications. Without realizing it I had written the book about this funeral in 1996, Hypoic's Handbook. In fact, I've been writing about this phenomenon for 17 years and censored - although I didn't know it was about Volkow until a year ago when I happened to read her biography that explained her previous psychiatric canonization.   But even in the face of this explanation the addiction field and the media continue to believe every word she says and ignore everything else. Without fixing a single thing in addictions she's probably going to get a Nobel Prize in addictions because the Nobel Committee will do the same thing - believe she's the Einstein of addictions without even reading her stuff that shows she's far from being anything close to the genius she's supposed to be. And addicts will continue to die by the millions and even blamed for their own demise. "Biology isn't destiny?" La-Di-Da. Bada bing bada boom. 5/24/10   Re: Cheap, ultra-pure heroin kills instantly, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37319358/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts//   It's funny that unknowingly the real issue of this article starts with the last sentence, "I know she was doing it," Sue Tayon said. "But she didn't deserve to die this way." What does this mean----to "die this way?" She deserved to die but not this way? Not by OD on pure heroin? What's a better way to die? There is none. The fact is that heroin addicts shouldn't die for any reason. The government makes sure they die. The moral issue caused by the hijacked brain hypothesis is that it is IMMORAL to give drug addicts drugs or heroin addicts narcan, a heroin antidote. So, to avoid being immoral, according to the government, it's better that these addicts die than be given safe heroin doses and narcan to their friends and families to stop an OD in its tracks. In fact, I heard General Barry McCaffery say exactly that when he was drug czar under Clinton. This "philosophy" is exactly why heroin addicts die. They are killed by the "moral" drug paradigm of the hijacked brain hypothesis invented and perpetuated even today by NIDA. It makes no difference what strength the heroin is. They die because of the "moral" code of the White House drug czar. Moreover, this same philosophy ensures the massive success of the drug cartels, because if the government were in charge of doling out drugs to addicts safely no addicts would die from OD and the cartels would go out of business. They'd have no clients!!!!! I've been writing about this harm reduction method since 1992 but because my writings have been censored and ignored no one knows about this way to save addicts' lives, ultimately giving them all a chance by living long enough to get into recovery or just stop on their own in some way. But by making sure they die fast they never get this chance - thanks to the government's "morality," and the media for censoring my work from the public. This is not about Heroin. It has nothing to do with Heroin. It's rather about the wrong theory of addiction causation pushed by NIDA and ASAM, the hijacked brain hypothesis. When will addicts get a chance to live with Hypoism, a completely moral and scientifically correct addiction paradigm? Give registered addicts pharmaceutical heroin in a safe environment and we stop their death and kill instead the cartels, exactly what we want.   5/24/10   Re: Moonshine or the Kids?, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/opinion/23kristof.html?hp     I've been writing the Times since 1995 about how to solve all the problems caused by alcohol, drugs, sex, and the hundred or so other addictors; things that stimulate dopamine in the reward system. Kristof mentions a few of these and how they ruin user's family's lives. He says he sounds sanctimonious, haughty, and callous. That's true. But he's also ignorant. He and the Times have ignored and censored a thousand of my letters explaining how to fix this mess while continuing to believe in prohibition and "just say no" as the solution. He hasn't learned yet that "just say no" doesn't work, either with booze, drugs, or sex even though it's been disproven many many times. But here we go again - "just say no" is his solution. Of course, the way he puts it makes it seem a no brainer that his advice should work. What's the big deal about just saying no, especially when your kid's lives are at stake? Why not just say no when it's so important? If you're really interested in being honest and forthright, read my book about how all this works in the brain and why it's so damned hard to "just say no," irrespective of the need to. That part of the brain is very powerful and works unconsciously. That part of the brain evolved to work the way it does, so that "just say no" doesn't work, over hundreds of millions of years. But sanctimonious know it alls like Kristof and the rest of the Times think they know all this. And where did they learn it? They make up what they want to believe and believe what they want to believe with their egos running the show. They don't need to learn anything new because they already know everything. "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind." That's their motto. and with this motto running the show they kill millions. They perpetuate the problem with this attitude. I've been writing about this mass murder for over 15 years. These guys are so smart they kill millions with their wrong beliefs. This article is a good example of this kind of murder. If only they would read my book and debate me. But they won't do that. They're so right there's no need to read or learn anything new or debate anyone with new ideas. The science is there but they won't even look at it no less do the hard work to learn it. They might find they're wrong about their beliefs and they don't like being wrong. They'd rather kill millions than be wrong. Kristof's beliefs are what is killing these kids and ruining these families. The Hypoism paradigm would solve this mess and save these kids and their families. But Hypoism doesn't exist, according to the Times and the idea is alien to guys like Kristof and the science dept. of the Times even though several world renowned addiction experts who read my papers and book agree with it. As long as the public can be kept from learning about it, as long as no one knows about it Kristof can get away with his nonsense. The addiction field has done the same thing and the murder continues while Kristof continues to be wrong and give wrong advice while acting like a hero. Self-righteous and sanctimonious journalists are no journalists at all. They're egomaniacs. They do more damage than good. We don't need their crap. We need the truth, not their pseudosuperman self-mythology. 5/19/10   Re: Our Nation's New Drug Policy - NOT! , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-dimond/our-nations-new-drug-poli_b_580460.html   There's a new bandwagon for the anti-drug war people. And Huffington is now part of it. I'm one of the first anti-drug war people myself, having written against it in 1992 in my first Hypoism paper, a copy of which was sent to the Lindesmith foundation and William Buckley's magazine, the New Republic. Ignored. That paper has evolved to the Hypoism Hypothesis paper: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . Also ignored. A few years later I wrote a paper for a CATO conference in Wash., DC in 1999 called the Drug War War: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/articlesbyandforhypoicspage2/ . Likewise ignored. Since then I've been very outspoken against the drug war on my web site and in my book, Hypoic's Handbook. But the reason for my stance is not based on mere opinion or misinterpreted studies, like the Portugal one, but by the correct science (theory) of addiction causation, Hypoism versus the hijacked brain hypothesis. You're going to need to read these before you can compare their rationality - why the policies derived from Hypoism will work while the ones derived from wrong theories don't. The fact is that the Portugal study did not work as Diane Dimond says it does because  they measured only drug use not drug addiction, and their program came out of the novel 1984 rather than being volitional. The data did not prove the results they claimed it did. For that argument see my blog's discussion of that white paper by Greenwald. That paper is pure propaganda, not science. Greenwald's a lawyer, not a scientist. Don't get me wrong. I am for decriminalization but not the way Portugal goes about it. Decriminalization must be done according to how Hypoism (the disease of addictions itself) dictates it to be done. By the way, the Portugal method does show an increase in drug use under their method in certain age groups, something the White Paper documents but is lied about by the people pushing it. My blog on that paper shows how this was done. And, we don't need any more lies about this stuff for biased reasons. My guess is that Dimond did not read that paper and is merely repeating what others have said about it. --- Bad journalism. The only way to improve a bad situation in medicine caused by a bad theory is to find the right theory and use it. The right theory is Hypoism and my book shows the pathophysiological reason behind the right prevention and treatment methods. Moreover, today's treatment doesn't work, as Dimond says, so getting all drug users into treatment, even if it is by coercion as is their method, won't help anything anyway. They have no long-term data to support that as it is and no data on addiction rates and recovery rates or recovery lengths to verify it either. The data they need to prove their case was not accomplished nor measured. It's just not there but they say it is anyway. Thus, the Portugal study and its methods are not what we need to follow. Instead we need to use the Hypoism theory and its methods. If we don't do this we will have in the future a supermassive mess compared to the big mess we have today. Decriminalization needs to be done but done correctly. Keep this letter in mind when you look back ten years from now and find that I've been correct as I was ten years ago and ten years before that - the mess have enlarged as I predicted many times under the Hijacked Brain Hypothesis. It will enlarge under the Portugal method too. This way you're just going to make the problem bigger and you will be sorry you didn't follow my advice rather than the advice of a couple of lawyers, an untrained drug addict, and a PR maven with tons of money behind him. Since when does money make you right? The anti-drug movement has followed these people for 20 years so far and it's gotten us nowhere. Why should we continue the same path led by the same people? That's no different from following Volkow (and her predecessors at NIDA) and ASAM, the opposite side of the issue who have started and kept us in this mess. 5/17/10   Re: Most High Schoolers Cheat -- But Don't Always See It as Cheating, Study Finds, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100511173829.htm   How about this? You’re writing up your study which shows ADHD is highly associated with low reward activity in the reward center of the brain. [Evaluating Dopamine Reward Pathway in ADHD, by Volkow and Wang, et al., JAMA. 2009; 302(10):1084-1091] You even mention in your paper that low reward activity is associated with addictions in general. Then you remember that Dan Umanoff, M.D. gave a lecture in the year 2000 in your very own conference room on the disease he named Hypoism as the disease of low reward activity that causes all addictions and a few other symptoms. In fact, he wrote a book called Hypoic’s Handbook and gave you and Dr. Wang a copy after the lecture. It was all about genetic low reward activity and what that does to the human brain; hypo for low, thus Hypoism, the disease of low reward activity. Umanoff referred you to his web paper, Hypoism Hypothesis as well - http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . But in your “Evaluating Dopamine” paper you failed to mention Umanoff’s 1996 book, updated 1992 paper, “Hypoism Hypothesis,” or videotaped grand rounds at Brookhaven Labs on this subject. It was made to seem like it was all your idea and that not much work had ever been done on it before you. The truth is that Umanoff had delineated an entire paradigm of Hypoism to explain the cause of all addictions in 1992 and beyond, and through this cause, prevention and treatment methods. Weren’t you taught in your training that you’re supposed to make reference to previous work in the topic of the paper in the introduction and discussion? Otherwise I think it’s called plagiarism. Or, like these high school kids, if you feel like it you can make believe there’s no such thing as plagiarism and that it’s not cheating. 5/14/10 Re: Leave the Gamblers Alone; http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/13/leave-the-gamblers-alone#comment form   To say that human's have control over things addictive is ignorant. I've been writing about the disease that causes addictions since 1992. I named this disease Hypoism after hypo for low reward activity. These people, about 15% of the population, have genetic low reward activity in the decision-making apparatus - the reward center - and get addicted to things that raise the reward activity which are human instincts, the evolutionary reason for the reward center, and drugs that stimulate this brain region and thereby raise the reward activity. These people are the ones who get addicted and they have absolutely no control over that. The rest of the population with normal reward activity don't get addicted because they can't. They have complete control. There's no overlap. The addictionologists have been deliberately wrong about this for a hundred or more years in order to keep them a moral issue for political reasons. Read the science about this and its implications here: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ and http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . Until we get the theory right we will do all addiction policies wrong because we're using the wrong theory to devise policies. My book, Hypoic's Handbook, goes through all this in detail. 5/3/10 Re: Addiction: Not single pathway, no single cure, http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20100502/OSH0101/5020342/1987/Addiction-Not-single-pathway-no-single-cure Yes, this is an excellent summary of the P/R paradigm perspective on substance addiction. The problem is that it is all wrong---100%; something that hasn't changed in a hundred years. It's still blame the addict and the drug when it fails, and thank the program and its methods when "it works." A good example of this is kicking out the guy who kept relapsing thus giving the program a bad name. Solution? Kick out the person to falsely make the numbers look better. That's called medical fraud. From one issue to the next this article can't validly document any of its conclusions and attitudes. "Studies say this and studies say that." what studies? Can we have the references so we can see if the methods and conclusions are valid and correct. Instead, it's just a story. My paper (and my book, Hypoic's Handbook) on the same issues, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , set out the issues and answer them while also referencing the answers and critiquing the methods and conclusions. From the beginning ("addiction is a disease") to the end, success depends on patient's motivation and who he hangs out with, "there's no one answer to each addict's addictions," the article is all wrong and has all been debunked. How would anyone know whether this is true or not when the entire paradigm that is used is 100% wrong? Too bad the author of the article didn't ask the right questions and look for the valid answers. Well, here's my attempt to inform the author of his mistakes in writing this article. Let's see if he responds appropriately by contacting me, going through the same issues, documenting the answers, and see if we can then use these answers to solve the problems with a single methodology - Hypoism Recovery done in the program called Hypoic's Not-Anonymous. My guess is that he will not do it; just go on to the next story and ensure the mess remains a mess. 4/19/10   Re: An Alcoholic’s Savior: God, Belladonna or Both?, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/health/20drunk.html God, Belladonna or Both? How about neither? How sickening is this article? Very. This is the kind of addiction essay the NY Times loves; mystical psychobabble and its associated unsubstantiated claims, actually scientifically disproven no less, solving an insoluble human problem that remains insoluble though that is likewise denied. What is going on here - bringing a hundred year old myth into the present as if it had a realistic basis just because a few million people believe it? Sounds like a religion, no? Well, it is a religion. There's no proof, no evidence, unless you consider lies evidence – Read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/theaddictiontreatmentfraudfinallyexposed/ (after all these years, that AA – and other “psychosocial treatments,” are no better than chance.) Even AAer's don't believe in today’s story. So what's happening here? Nonsense is more believable than science. Too bad the nonsense kills so many people. That's been the problem with addiction prevention, treatment, and public policies from the beginning; grasping at straws and belief in the unbelievable surrounded with spiritual hocus-pocus – ignoring science altogether. Yes, this is a cult based on a religion. Some people do get "sober," whatever that means in reality, who attend AA meeting and "practice," the 12 steps, whatever that means. Bill Wilson was a sex addict during his so-called sobriety. Dr. Bob was on downers such as Phenobarbital during his so-called sobriety. Most AAer’s are doing “other” addictions while claiming to be sober and these addictions kill them as easily as their primary addiction. Psychosocial treatments of all sorts have never been shown to be better than chance, however. Plenty of people get sober doing all kinds of programs and taking all kinds of medications, most of them addicting. Let it be known that I got sober in AA in 1978 -for 8 years -and in 1990 for another 20 years. I did all the AA stuff I was required to do and more – I wrote a book in 1996 on the actual disease, Hypoism, that causes alcoholism, a symptom of the actual disease; not a disease itself. I believe the work I did with my sponsor based on the Hypoism theory and its recovery methods is what kept me sober in all areas of my life, not just about not drinking. My sponsor used the Hypoism methods rather than the AA methods. Although a great supporter of AA for 50 years and a professional counselor he used the Hypoism methods with me. We did it by the book I wrote. He also tried to get AA and the Long Island Alcoholism Counselor Association to use Hypoism but they wouldn’t even look at it. So, what’s the point? That when people who know nothing about addictions write about addictions they hurt all addicts especially when people who read what they write believe them, especially when addicts and their families read it. And, when papers like the Times publishes it. It’s about the nonsense getting read and perpetuated closing the doors to the truth about addictions. There’s been no progress in addiction in over a hundred years. This disaster happens especially in addictions because the gap between the nonsense and the truth is so great and the nonsense is so damaging. We have been putting up with this problem for over a hundred years as is evident from the dates of the nonsense documented by this article, the early 1900’s. And the Times just loves to publish the nonsense – almost every day. Read my blog and see how often the blog has to deal with the nonsense and how rarely any good information gets discussed by the Times. It’s truly unbelievable how often we get harmful nonsense from the Times about addictions – truly unbelievable. 4/19/10 Re: What we learned in Oklahoma City, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/opinion/19clinton.html   The author of this op-ed, Bill Clinton, a known and proven liar to the American people, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," is ironically picked by the NY Times to explain one aspect of democracy to us today, anti-government crazies. Too bad Clinton didn't pick political dishonesty as the most important lesson we didn't learn from the bombing. The government still lies whenever it is given the opportunity and the Times likewise publishes their lies. Of course no one should resort to violence in the context of political disagreement, but it's damned hard to get a letter to the editor published by the Times. I wonder how many times McVeigh sent letters to the Times that weren't published but I do know how many I've sent - over a thousand - that weren't published by the editor or responded to by the public editor. Every one of my letters have been about government lies in one form or another. NIDA is a governmental agency, part of the NIH, in charge of drug addictions. NIDA has consistently lied about the cause of addictions since its inception. Because of this the addiction epidemic has soared and the drug war, one of NIDA's massive policy blunders based on its bogus hijacked brain hypothesis, has enlarged and worsened in regards to drug use, addiction, wasted money, morbidity and mortality. Drug theory has been deliberately misinterpreted to support the drug war. But you'd never know it because my letters to the Times about that have been censored, the worst behavior in the context of a democracy. This censorship has kept the public in the dark and maintained the wrong theory in charge of addiction policy. Read my arguments concerning addiction causation and its policy implications on my web site: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , my blog, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/currentletterstoeditors111209/ , and in my book, Hypoic's Handbook. This censorship has had the effect of a murderous crime since 1995, the date of my first letter to the Times. Much good change could have occurred since then had the public been allowed to know about Hypoism. But the Times and NIDA chose to censor and ignore it. This behavior has killed many more people than any bomb could have.  The addiction epidemic is the biggest problem our country faces. Much bigger than any terrorist threat. This is why Clinton should have discussed governmental dishonesty instead of the misbehavior of a few angry and violent anti-government nuts. Our government is the problem when it comes to the addiction epidemic and nobody knows a thing about it because of its censorship by all media but especially the Times. Hundreds of letters to them (14 plus pages) are on my web site dating back to 1995. We need a complete change in administration at NIDA if we're ever going to make any progress in addictions and it needs to start with an honest appraisal of the science of addiction causation. 4/3/10    Re: The Addiction Conspiracy It's Not Just A Celebrity Problem, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/184138.php   We have a new leader at ASAM, the American Society of Addiction Medicine, the clinical side of addiction theory and treatment, Dr. Lee Tannenbaum. Much like the Communist party line in the 50's the ASAM party line is detailed here. Because of this we can assess the validity of this addiction perspective and decide whether the public is being well or ill-informed by these so-called experts (self-appointed). Rarely does ASAM or any other addiction policy group state the scientific theory their policies are based on. Luckily they have done so today. Here's an opportunity for us, the public, to hear their side of the story. Moreover, because they wrote the article themselves, as opposed to some independent journalist doing it, we get their view, perspective, and party line from the inside of the organization. Let's see what ASAM says about addiction theory and its clinical and policy implications.   The first thing Tannenbaum, the new president of ASAM, says is that, "Conflicting messaging and the degradation associated with addiction often mislead people from understanding it as a disease, caused by an imbalance of receptors in the brain. American Board of Addiction Medicine certified specialists, like Dr. Lee Tannenbaum, are well versed in the brain chemistry associated with addiction and provide patients with medication-based treatment, allowing them to regain their lives and get past the conspiracy that addiction is a choice and a weakness." Translated this means that the public has been misled about the causes of addictions being voluntary bad choices and moral weakness rather than a disease caused by an imbalance of receptors in the brain. The article says Tannenbaum is well versed in the brain chemistry but for some reason leaves out of the explanation the actual brain chemistry that causes addictions; especially the genetics and whether the imbalance of brain chemistry comes before or after the onset of addiction - in other words, who gets addicted and who doesn't when using the same drugs. In this paragraph he says it's the imbalance of brain receptors that causes the addictions but later in the article he says its the chronic ingestion of the drug that causes the receptor imbalance: " Understanding addiction means understanding the basics of brain chemistry and how drug use actually alters the brain, teaching it that it needs the drug to survive." So, which is it, what comes first, the chicken (drug use) or the egg (underlying genetics)? He clearly says it's both and it's neither. There's not one mention of any underlying genetic disease preceding the drug use and addiction. He says the disease exists only after taking the drug and the drug making the brain changes. This is the hijacked brain hypothesis. So, who's doing the misleading here? He is. The article does not state the sequence of events that lead to addiction in some drug users and not in other drug users. It promotes both theories.   Then, because of all this, out comes addiction: "Addiction isn't a personal failing (not a moral issue)or voluntary behavior that can be easily controlled, (is a moral issue)" says Dr. Tannenbaum. "It's a complex, chronic disease that deserves to be treated as aggressively as other serious diseases like diabetes, asthma, and depression, but with the privacy and confidentiality the patient deserves." There's still no mention how all this comes about - that it's a disease is merely stated, not defined (and is supported with anecdotal testimonies), and because of this it somehow deserves to be treated like a real disease with privacy and confidentiality. What this means is that addiction isn't a personal failing, not a moral issue, but additionally is a moral failing because it's still a voluntary behavior though not easily controlled (what disease is easily controlled and what does this little caveat do to change the understanding of it? "A voluntary behavior not easily controlled." What does this mean? Well, it's pretty clear - it means it's still a voluntary behavior - it's still a moral issue. It's both a moral issue and not a moral issue simultaneously. He continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth - it's a real disease but still voluntary. By definition, a disease is not voluntary, whether it's easily controlled or not.   The question he's supposed to be answering for the public without misleading them is whether addiction is a disease or not and if it is a disease, what is its pathophysiology (biological cause). If it's a disease then it's not a moral issue and does not deserved stigmatization and punishment, like all the rest of the diseases. If it isn't a disease then it does deserve all this. Which is it? Clearly he says its both and this conclusion requires us to give addictions full and vigorous treatment (good for the treatment industry) but continue to stigmatize and punish addicts who don't get clean and sober the way these experts want them to (bad for the addicts).   I wrote an article years ago about this similar conspiracy: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/15replacingalanleshneristheonlywaytoendthedrugwar/ . Nothing has changed since then because NIDA and ASAM continue to support the hijacked brain hypothesis (the voluntary use of drugs causes addictions.) Here we have the same conspiracy except they now use both the hijacked brain hypothesis and the disease model simultaneously. How do they get away with this nonsense? The conspiracy still exists - both diametrically opposite theories of addiction causation are used simultaneously so they can do whatever they want to do at any particular time with any particular addict. If they use the hijacked brain hypothesis they can continue the drug war, stigmatize, discriminate, and punish, while if they use the disease model they can push the addict into treatment. And they can go back and forth, using both theories depending on which they want to do to the addict.   This is why the public is so confused. They're told diametrically opposite theories depending on the context the expert wants to use. This confusion needs to be clarified. We need to have a public debate on the science of addiction causation and use the results of this debate to pick one or the other of these two conflicting theories. The debate is the critical action here. Only a public and scientific debate can solve the riddle of addiction causation and then lead to the best policies and attitudes. We can't continue to arbitrarily use whatever theory we feel like using depending on how we feel at any particular moment in time. Here's my take on addiction theory: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ My book, Hypoic's Handbook, similarly explains the disease of Hypoism and debunks the hijacked brain hypothesis. Read them so we can have the debate and begin to use the winner for prevention, treatment, and policy-making. 3/30/10 Re: Junk Food 'Addiction' May Be Real, http://www.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=637430   "May be real?" That's funny. I said the same thing in 1992. This is neither a new finding nor does it explain the cause of addiction. We've known for some time that human and animal addicts (gambling, food, and drug addicts) have low dopamine receptors; particularly D2 receptors, and low reward activity. This study confirms this finding again. The real issue is why do only some people get addicted to begin with while most don't, seeing that all addictors are equally available to everyone. The experiment that needs to be done is to measure reward activity in a large group of subjects and follow them for many years to see if it is only people with low reward activity who actually get addicted. This has been done and validated in rodents, but for some unknown reason, not in humans even though I've asked [Jack Wang] for this study long ago when I lectured Brookhaven Labs on Hypoism in 3/2000. The closest they've come to doing this is the study by Volkow and Wang who showed that [supposedly] non-addicted genetically low reward activity people get ADHD, a disease that is associated with very high rates of various addictions. For some reason they didn't follow up on these people (both groups) for later development of addictions either, something they still could do. Eric Stice came close to doing this in his study, Relation of obesity to consummatory and anticipatory food reward, Physiol Behav. 2009 Jul 14;97(5):551-60. The fact is that I wrote the first paper, "Hypoism - A Real Disease," on genetic low reward activity (what I named Hypoism) as the cause of all addictions though it was rejected for non-scientific reasons by 12 addiction journals in 1992. That paper has evolved into my book on this subject, Hypoic's Handbook, and the web paper, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . These explain in detail the scientific basis for all addictions as well as debunk the current addiction causation theories. It seems pretty clear that addictions are caused by genetic low reward system activity. Addictions also cause reward activity to decrease further due to neurophysiological adaptation (down regulation of the reward system). The critical issue, however, is the cause of addictions, Hypoism, so we can begin to use this theory for developing prevention and treatment methods, methods I discuss in my book and on my web site, as well as destigmatizing and decriminalizing addiction. 3/29/10 Re: The Tiger Bubble, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/magazine/28Woods-t.html?pagewanted=1&hpw The article states: “Maybe I shouldn’t say this, but in the last couple of years the tour has been aware of the fact that the negotiations of TV contracts and sponsorships are coming up, and in advising us on what to do, the one thing they’ve said is that we need the superstars to play more and no scandals, no controversies,” Harrison Frazar, a veteran of the PGA Tour, told me a couple months ago. “Well, it’s unfortunate that what’s happened right now is the ultimate scandal in the history of professional golf, and it’s happened to the absolute wrong person.” "WHEN A BUBBLE POPS, it instantly exposes the false assumptions that fueled its inflation. Tiger Woods didn’t suddenly create a new reality for golf when he drove his S.U.V. into a fire hydrant, but he did reveal some troubling indicators that had been easy to overlook while he was dominating the game." I don't see it this way. I'd say it's happening way too late and with exactly the right person; the best in his field. Also, it exposes false assumptions, but not about golf. They're about addiction - Tiger as a "junkie," "The athlete who dominated a sport of discipline, focus and self-control — his father, an ex-military man, once compared him to Gandhi — was a sex junkie - the pejorative word we used to use for scumbag heroin addicts but now for all kinds of addicts, implying scumbaggery. In other words we have the paradoxical epitome of golf, hard work, discipline, self-control, focus, and all the other adjectives used to describe a champion simultaneously being a junkie and all the adjectives used to describe one of those. This paradox is the real story here, not the bursting of some fictitious bubble. I'm a doctor junkie and have written a book on the real nature of addiction; the neurobiology of addiction causation. This book explains that not anyone can be an addict (the old paradigm). Drugs don't cause additions, Hypoism does. Only people with the right genetic neurobiology, people with Hypoism, can be addicts. Addiction is caused by a genetic disease of the reward system, low reward system activity, part of the instinct regulating mechanism. This theory is proven in my web article - http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . In medicine, the same paradox existed in the founding surgeon of John's Hopkins Hospital and School of Medicine, William Stewart Halsted. On October 11, 1884 Halsted read a report, from Dr. Carl Koller, describing the anesthetic power of cocaine when it is instilled into the eye. Halsted realized that cocaine may be a great local anesthetic. Having learned the scientific method when he was in Europe, Halsted, together with his students and fellow physicians, began to experiment with cocaine. They injected each other's nerves and showed that cocaine when injected into a nerve can produce safe and effective local anesthesia. Halsted became addicted, and was eventually sent to Butler Sanatorium in Providence, Rhode Island. There they attempted to cure him by converting his addiction from cocaine to morphine. After being discharged from Butler in 1886, Halsted moved to Baltimore, Maryland to join his friend William Welch at the soon-to-be-opened Johns Hopkins Hospital. Halsted was named the first chief of the Department of Surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital when it opened in May 1889. He was named surgeon-in-chief in 1890 and promoted to professor of surgery in 1892. At Johns Hopkins, Halsted was credited with starting the first formal surgical residency training program in the United States. Halsted is credited with many firsts in the field of surgery. Halsted was the Tiger Woods of surgery in his day despite being addicted to opiates his entire career. He was addicted to opiates his entire exemplary career as chronicled by Dr. Osler in The Inner History of the John Hopkins Hospital. This fact was kept secret until 1969 and still not discussed in medical circles because it is so damaging to their need to discriminate against addicts. Johns Hopkins Hospital doesn't advertise this and neither does NIDA, the AMA or ASAM. Hypoics are getting and remaining addicted because we are using the wrong theory of addiction causation. There's also no prevention whatsoever and treatment is ineffective because of this. Hypoics don't know what they have so they get addicted willy-nilly and haven't a clue why, but they are stigmatized, demonized, and discriminated against because of this - if they get caught. Tiger got caught. Halsted didn't. The fact is that addiction is caused by an involuntary and unconscious brain disease, Hypoism, that causes addictions against one's will, not willfully. That includes sex addiction. This works exactly like any other real medical disease. There's no morality involved. Tiger doesn't know this. The PGA doesn't know this. Tiger's sponsors don't know this. His treatment center doesn't know this. His mother doesn't know this. The NY Times doesn't know this (although I've been writing them about Hypoism since 1995). No one knows this because the current fraudulent addiction paradigm has a political monopoly on addiction theory despite its being proven wrong in many ways and Hypoism has been censored from the public by the addiction establishment for the last 17 years. Thus, we have Tiger apologizing and making amends to the public and others for something he is not morally responsible for causing although he freely admits having done so. He was made to do this by the people running his life. This is the moral paradigm of addictions (the hijacked brain hypothesis), the current paradigm, and this paradigm is the theory that is maintaining the addiction epidemic: wrong theory - wrong treatment. So, instead of using Tiger as an example of the failed and wrong theory of addiction causation, and giving him the help he needs, he is being used and abused by the fraudulent addiction field that needs to keep things the same at his and other addict's expense. 3/22/10 Re: For Drug Users, Coalition Serves as Voice in Albany, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/nyregion/22union.html?scp=1&sq=colin%20moynihan%20drug%20users&st=cse   Let's start with this quote from the article: "Indeed, many people are surprised to hear that an organization exists to advance the cause of drug users, usually regarded as criminals who made bad choices rather than as citizens with legitimate grievances. The Users Union, which members said was the only group in the country consisting of drug users, was founded in 2005 by advocates who wanted to create a platform for a constituency without electoral clout."   I have been writing the NY Times about Hypoism, the proven cause of addictions, since 1995. I informed the Times about the National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts, Inc. (N4A) since its inception in 3/00 and as a not-for-profit 501 c 3 since 2001. Our brochure, explaining what we do and why, is on my web site at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thenationalassociationfortheadvancementandadvocacyofaddicts/ As you can read for yourself, the N4A, not the users union, is the first organization of addicts for addicts primarily based not on arbitrary policy changes such as legalization of drugs but on the scientific basis of drug use and addiction of all kinds - drugs and behaviors and their policy implications; a completely new concept at the time of the discovery of Hypoism in 1992. Obviously the author of this article knows nothing about Hypoism or the N4A and it's also obvious he didn't even try to find it. I did a google search for "addiction advocacy" and found two pages about the N4A, one being the brochure, in the first five pages of the search results; likewise for the Users Union which is supported by the drug policy alliance run by Ethan Nadelman. I wrote a paper for Ethan and his friends called The Drug War War at #4 http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/articlesbyandforhypoicspage2/ explaining why we will continue to get harmful and damaging policies under the wrong theory of addiction causation; such as exists today under the scientifically disproven theory called "the hijacked brain hypothesis,"  pushed, for moral, political, and financial reasons, by NIDA and ASAM. Once Hypoism replaces the hijacked brain hypothesis, all the policy changes best for addicts will happen automatically. [Read - The Hypoism Hypothesis at http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ ] Despite this and his claims of his use of science to help change bad policies, Ethan has consistently ignored Hypoism, the proven science behind addictions. It's nice that he supports groups like the drug users union, but he's being disingenuous when he says he also supports science to help change policies. In fact, he supports all the wrong science, exactly the reason policies have not changed. The hijacked brain hypothesis is the theory that ensures the drug war remains alive and well, and that's the science he supports. This has been the problem from the beginning. Nadelman thinks he knows and understands the science of addiction causation when in reality he couldn't make a scientific argument about addiction causation if he were asked, something his interviewers never seem to do, and because of this he's leading his followers off a cliff. In doing all this he is hurting the cause he says he's fighting for while in the meantime his ignorance of the science is what is helping maintain the drug war.   What the author of this article needs to do is learn the science of addiction causation and report on that. This will do what the public needs because only by knowing the true science behind addictions can the public make informed decisions on policies, something they are not able to do today because they are being force fed the wrong science by the so-called experts who make their living from the results of this bad science; no prevention and very low recovery rates. Only the right theory of addiction causation can fix that. Moreover, only the right science can get the legislators to change the policies currently derived from the wrong science. 3/8/10 Re: Forget the Cocaine Vaccine. Low-tech treatments work better[?] (my addition)http://www.newsweek.com/id/234518   There are better arguments for this article's title and they are scientific rather than editorial.   The fact is that no cocaine addiction treatments work [better than chance or placebo, unless you count other dopamine raising drugs that are also addictive, but even those are as rare as hen's teeth] . So, what's she talking about? Obviously she must have been talking to one of the neutraceutical pushers who make their fraudulent livings off treating addicts with neurotransmitter precursors, as if they also worked. Whatever.   Anyway, this article is full of misinformation and disingenuousness. True, Freudianism is a lie, and also, "such as the discovery of brain circuits that underlie dependence and craving, and the dopamine and other neurochemicals that fuel it; fMRIs have shown the spike in activity in the reward circuits of an addict's brain when he sees drugs, proving that addiction is a brain disease, not a moral failing." This is true, and from here she should have made the transition into Hypoism (dopamine deficiency as the cause of all addictions - my book), but instead, for some unknown reason, she moved into GABA deficiency, a field that has not been proven effective but makes money for its owners because it sells pills despite being unproven. Raising dopamine has never been shown to cure any addiction. In fact, that's what causes addiction. Every known addictor raises dopamine. Likewise for GABA. Raising GABA is what all the addictive benzodiazepines like valium and alcohol do. Do they also cure addictions? I don't think so. They do cause switching addictions. The field of neutraceuticals? "treating neurotransmitter deficiencies with neurotransmitter precursors," doesn't work either even though it is being forced on addicts of all kinds by their treatment doctors for some unknown [financial] reason.   "And although the media laud the smallest steps toward a cocaine vaccine, when a study shows—yawn—that rewarding abstinence can get addicts off meth, that couples counseling can treat alcoholism, or that cognitive-behavior therapy can break the grip of coke addiction … silence." I guess she forgot she's part of the media. But, she's right about the cocaine vaccine. Behavioral therapies, however, are not good. I don't know where that 67% number comes from, but it's not long term abstinence. Naltrexone might cure heroin addiction. Too bad they won't take it. Antebuse, however, is not an alcohol blocker but actually a drug that turns alcohol into a stronger poison, making the drinker on antebuse sick as hell, and also doesn't cure alcohol addiction because they won't take it. Then she moves into the treatment realm that supposedly works------   "Addiction is a behavior, with social and psychological causes, so behavioral therapies that target those causes last longer than medication and are better at preventing relapse." They do? Where's the proof for this one? "So is the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which has been terrific in funding behavioral approaches to addiction. It has had so much success in developing and validating behavioral therapies "that we don't need more research to show they work," says NIDA director Nora Volkow." Ha Ha. Prove that one! This is her evidence? Please. Nora Volkow is not really serious about this because if she were they would put her in a looney bin. There's no VALID evidence for this one. NIDA is pulling the wool over the public's eyes. Volkow is very good at that.   Suddenly, the article stops! I was all ready for the truth about some treatment that actually worked to cause long term abstinence, but instead the article ended. Begley is implying here that behavioral treatment works better than chance or placebo or other treatment, and that we should just stick to this. I'd like to see that study. My guess is that if there is one it is invalid either scientifically or clinically (too short, not about abstinence, but decreased use). Here's an article about one such study. I laughed out loud when I read it. Read this: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/theaddictiontreatmentfraudfinallyexposed/ I'll bet she was going to use this one as her proof. Ha Ha. I bet not one layperson in the world knows about this fraudulent study and the liars who wrote it. Hey, they're still called experts when, in fact, they should all be in jail. Ha Ha.   So, what was her point? That simple behavioral therapy is the only thing that works and that we should stick with it. Forget all this other complicated nonsense that doesn't work anyway. Let me tell you - behavioral therapy does not work [abstinence] either. The truth is that we are using the wrong theory of addiction causation, the hijacked brain hypothesis, and all its derived treatments don't work. As long as the public believes something works they will not be demanding we look for some one paradigm, a correct one that actually works. And, that the journalistic sin of this article. She makes unsubstantiated and false claims and backs them with an addiction celebrity, Volkow, who has a severe conflict of interest - her looking like she knows what she's doing and is successful at it. This could not be any further from the truth. Volkow doesn't know what an addiction is no less know what cures it. I would start with 1) asking Volkow the neurobiological definition of an addiction, citing the science that proves her definition correct, 2) the cause of addictions and its referenced proof, and 3) how does current treatment relate to this science? Proof for this. and then let me comment on her answers. Publish the whole thing in your magazine.   The public, including Begley, has been snookered and because of this addicts die and their families are ruined by the millions. I've been fighting this genocide for 17 years to no avail. The public needs to know this so they can demand a change. Too bad they don't know it's happening - because of articles like this one.   Puke. 3/6/10 Re: Big changes proposed in psychiatric diagnoses, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35319386/ns/health-mental_health/   I've been writing health@msnbc.com about hypoism for many years already. One hypoism issue is that behavioral addictions are equivalent to drug addictions. I said that in my 1992 paper called Hypoism - A Real Disease, and I showed the pathophysiologic mechanism for this is the genetically hardwired reward deficient Decision-Making Apparatus, the pathophysiological basis of all addictions. This has finally been proved by Nora Volkow herself (see my 2009 blogs) and psychiatry has caught on by allowing pathological gambling to be identified as the first behavioral addiction, gambling addiction. Of course, these psychiatrists don't say what the mechanism is for this to be an addiction or what it means or how it relates to the causation of all addictions. My 1992 paper has evolved to the hypoism hypothesis, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , links to which I have sent msnbc many times, but they have never read it, informed the public about it, or learned anything from it. Psychiatry is 18 years behind Hypoism and still hasn't recognized or acknowledged it although some addiction psychiatrists secretly have. They all know it's right but unethically refuse to do the right thing and publicly admit it. This is fraudulent science at its peak. Can you believe they are afraid to make this change because they will be fired from their jobs by NIDA and lose their research grants from NIDA if they do? Please. I don't believe Nora Volkow or ASAM are that desperate. Almost but not quite. ASAM kicked me out of their club because I wrote that behavioral addictions are real and are addictions to human instincts. The paradigm hasn't yet changed though and thus addicts are still dying by the millions from not knowing about their disease, Hypoism. All this could change in a nanosecond if a story were to be done about my work. Can you imagine saving the lives of all these hypoics at one time? When it happens it will be quite a weird day. 3/6/10 Re: Pentagon Shooter John Patrick Bedell Had Troubled Past, Run-Ins With the Law, http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/alleged-pentagon-shooter-john-patrick-bedell-troubled-past/story?id=10020408   Article: San Benito County, Calif., Supervisor Reb Monaco: "To the outside world, this tragedy is the first and only thing they will ever know of Patrick. To us, he was a beloved son, brother, grandson, nephew, and cousin. We may never know why he made this terrible decision. One thing is certain, though -- his actions were caused by an illness and not a defective character."   Comment: Oh, well then, if he had a troubled past then it's OK. He couldn't help it. He's a victim. Does anyone else get sick of this blame someone else for everything society? Posted by: wearetheroses   This article and its comments show just how severely addictions are misunderstood and addiction terms and concepts misused and abused by both sides of the addiction argument. Both the quote and its comment are very true and right but used completely wrongly, and therefore are just wrong, period; both of them. Just because a mental illness can cause a particular behavior doesn't mean that it can be used an explanation and excuse of that behavior. The real issue with the disease concept of addiction is not that it then can be used as an excuse for particular behaviors associated with the person with that mental illness, the old "get off the hook" argument against the disease concept of addiction, but a more valid and important issue, that of, "If we better understand the brain disease this person has (as opposed to his behavior being caused by bad character) we can then use that understanding to prevent and better treat the person and his disease to ensure minimal consequences of that disease for him and for society." This should be the argument made by the commenter against the current disease concept of addictions --- that we are using a wrong understanding of the disease that causes addictions, a wrong theory on the cause of the disease of addictions, and because of this we have to put up with maximal consequences of this disease. The fact is, and I've been writing about this for 17 years now, that today's theory of addiction causation, the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH), has been proven scientifically wrong, and to continue to use it in the face of its wrongness, ensures the continuation of the addiction epidemic and maximizes its consequences. One of these consequences is today's article. Everyone is to blame for this by ignoring and censoring my writings on addiction science, especially the addiction experts who are responsible for the continued use of the HBH. Read the disproof of the HBH at my web site and specifically: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . It's not the disease that needs to be blamed but the addiction experts whose conflicts of interest make them fraudulently support the HBH and the media that lets these experts lie to the public about the science of addiction causation. Read my blog and its letters to the media.   Until the public learns the correct science of addictions, the disease called Hypoism, and can then force the experts to change paradigms, we will see the continuation of the addiction epidemic and its maximal consequences. 3/5/10 Re: A Developmental Twin Study of Church Attendance and Alcohol and Nicotine Consumption: A Model for Analyzing the Changing Impact of Genes and Environment. Kenneth S. Kendler, M.D., and John Myers, M.S. Am J Psychiatry 2009; 166:1150-1155 Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Church attendance is one of the most consistent predictors of alcohol and nicotine consumption. The authors sought to clarify changes in the role of genetic and environmental factors in influencing church attendance and the interrelationship between church attendance and alcohol and nicotine use from early adolescence into adulthood. METHOD: The authors used data from two interview waves 6 years apart of 1,796 male twins from a population-based register, in which respondents were asked about current and past church attendance and psychoactive drug use. Structural twin models were fitted and tested using the Mx software program. RESULTS: As twins developed from childhood through adulthood, the influence of shared environmental factors on church attendance declined dramatically while genetic factors increased. In early and late adolescence, the negative correlations between church attendance and alcohol and nicotine consumption resulted largely from shared environmental factors. In adulthood, the inverse relationship between church attendance and substance use became stronger and arose largely from genetic factors. CONCLUSIONS: As individuals mature, they increasingly shape their own social environment in large part as a result of their genetically influenced temperament. When individuals are younger and living at home, frequent church attendance reflects a range of familial and social-environmental influences that reduce levels of substance use. In adulthood, by contrast, high levels of church attendance largely index genetically influenced temperamental factors that are protective against substance use. Using genetically informative designs such as twin studies, it is possible to show that the causes of the relationship between social risk factors and substance use can change dramatically over development. An article about this study at: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/44/20/19.full?sid=4a4fef64-d1ec-4b60-a20e-e84d08e21b6c It's too bad this article misses the importance of this study which is instead:------------   So, what does this all mean and why is it important? For one thing, it gives a reason for the falsely low heritabilities of addictions when the heritability study is done on people under 40 years old - heritabilities peak after 40. This changes everything about heritabilities as I said in my book and on my web articles. They all need to be redone. Secondly, it again shows that the heritabilities are actually much higher, for this and other reasons discussed in my hypoism hypothesis paper. Remember, every time one of these experts quotes a heritability number without also saying the number is falsely low, they are lying. All this confirms what I've been saying about the lies from the experts about heritability of addictions over the last 15 years. ----- The heritabilities are much higher as is the role of genetics in the realistic cause of addictions. The public needs to be aware of this lying about the role genetics plays in addiction causation. No longer can the experts get away with saying, even though they still do say, addictions are 50/50 caused by genetics and environment!!! It's more like 100%; everyday getting closer to the 100% number. As usual, Kendler did another great study which needs to be on the front page of all newspapers with its implications on the cause of addictions and the state of the addictionology establishment and their lies - much like what is going on in the global warming argument.   I forgot to mention this stuff (from the article  http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/44/20/19.full?sid=4a4fef64-d1ec-4b60-a20e-e84d08e21b6c ) : Read----- “[A]s individuals age, they increasingly shape their own social and religious behavior in large part through their genetically influenced temperament,” wrote Kendler and Myers. Thus, more than parents' wishes or advice, personal temperament—mainly influenced by their offsprings' genetics—directed the twins' choices in post-adolescent life: college, careers, new friends, romantic partners. Those environmental factors in turn played a role in everything from church attendance to smoking and drinking. That understanding may ultimately have some clinical value, they suggested.“ Of course it has clinical value. It's the value of my entire paradigm, the hypoism paradigm of addictions, because this is how hypoism works. This whole VERY IMPORTANT concept - that "environmental" choices are made via genetically controlled [regulated] brain mechanisms - was discussed in my book in 1996. Of course it was deeply criticized even though it now has been proven correct by Kendler. The implication of this is that these "environmental" choices are really genetic, not environmental at all. I discussed this concept in the section of the book about peer pressure [being a genetic influence, not an environmental influence] as discussed by Judith Rich Harris in her book The Nurture Assumption . Kids use genetic mechanisms to make peer choices which end up being "environmental" influences on the back end. In other words, peer pressure isn't actually an environmental influence but actually caused by genetics and therefore is a genetic cause of whatever the eventual behavior turns out to be. 2/27/10 Re: Anti-Drinking Ads Can Increase Alcohol Use, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/180300.php   The article states, "Public service advertising campaigns that use guilt or shame to warn against alcohol abuse can actually have the reverse effect, spurring increased drinking among target audiences, according to new research from the Indiana University Kelley School of Business." How many times have I said, "prevention is 0% and treatment is 5% successful; actually no better than chance because chance is 5% too?" Now we see that the mainstay prevention methodology, advertising, is actually worse than 0% - actually causative of increased drinking. Geez!! I've detailed my reasons for this in my book, Hypoic's Handbook, but no one wants to read it because it blows the current beliefs out of the water. current beliefs about addictions, what we call "intuitive" turns out to be worse than zero. My book discusses in depth the [negative] value of intuition when dealing with addictions of all kinds and their prevention and treatment methods. How often have my predictions been validated? Pretty much all of them. And it's for a good reason. My paradigm is right and their current paradigm is wrong. In fact, the current paradigm is proven wrong on a daily basis but the experts make sure it stays alive and in control nonetheless. I remember calling the producer of a cablevision show on addiction prevention and treatment while I still lived on Long Island in the late 90's, advising him that the paradigm of the show was wrong and all it did was to make things worse and help kill more addicts. His response wasn't, "Oh, OK, let me read your book and we'll do a show on it." It was instead, "Well, let's see how this show works and if it doesn't improve things we'll get back to you." That was 12 or so years ago. I still haven't heard from that guy. I've notified countless media outlets and addiction advocates for 17 years about the wrongness of the current paradigm and have received the same attitudinal response - basically, get out of my face. We know what we're doing. Don't bother us anymore. Well, we're still at 5% recovery and less than 0% at prevention. When is this going to be acknowledged and the paradigms changed? The worst part of all this is that the addicts are on the wrong side of this issue along with the experts and ensuring their and their kids destruction by supporting the wrong paradigm - out of need for their beliefs rather than recognition of the actually correct science. 2/25/10 Re: At Closing Plant, Ordeal Included Heart Attacks, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/25stress.html?hp   If you google or research the addiction literature on "stress and addictions" or "stress and addiction relapse" you will find countless peer-reviewed studies and articles making these clear connections. If you are lucky enough to read the transcript of one of my two license restoration hearings which they didn't post on their web site and done at a time when I was 8 years documented clean and sober with full license restoration advocacy by the NYS CPH, the committee that monitors our recovery, you will find a question by the panel asking, "Why did you relapse so much in the beginning of your recovery?" This question was meant to imply that I wasn't sincere about my recovery, relapse was supposed to be proof of that, and was at a high risk of future relapses and danger to patients. Well, if you read the relapse literature you will find "stress" at the top of the list of causes of addiction relapse. My answer to the question was, "I was under a lot of stress at the time, but once I got past that time period my recovery was spotless and continuous for the next eight years up to the day of the hearing. At the time I had just finished writing and publishing a book, Hypoic's Handbook, about the disease, Hypoism, that causes addiction. This book clearly showed and discussed the proof that this disease is genetic; the cause of addictions was a genetic disease. Addictions are caused by genetics." The panel had full access to this book but never looked at it. Relapse is primarily caused by stress. They asked, "What stress were you under?" I answered, "Well, I was fired from my job and my income stopped, got kicked out of my house for bogus reasons claimed by my wife without documentation, and was forced to pay large sums of money to my wife while not earning a salary. Many people to whom I leant money stopped repaying me. I was highly addicted and had no recourse to the drug I was addicted to except illegally at the time following loss of my license - and other things only a new addict would know about and experience, like stigma and ostracism and inadequate and deficient detoxes. I found these issues very stressful." In their letter to the medical license commissioner, the person whose job it is to restore or deny restoration of a revoked license, they translated this explanation to: " He is still in denial. He blames his addiction on his partners, wife, and everyone else in the world. Therefore he has no insight into his addiction and would be too dangerous to have his license restored." And that's after eight years of solid and documented recovery in AA. The NYS commissioner used that assessment of my explanation for the early relapses and denied my license restoration. A few years later I too had a heart attack but was saved by an excellent cardiac interventionalist. If you read the transcript of the hearing (I have a copy of it in my file at home. The Health Department neglected to post it along with their letters to the commissioner) you can easily comprehend that I never blamed my addiction or relapses on my partners, job, or wife, but rather on stress, a vague and mysterious phenomenon that must be dealt with firmly in any addict's early recovery; a completely different issue and well documented at that. The addiction literature clearly supports this explanation and phenomenon. But this hearing panel turned what I said upside down and made my stress explanation into a denial issue (despite being clean and sober over eight years at that time - pretty good evidence for good recovery). We appealed this misstatement to the NYS courts, making the argument I just made, and the judge upheld the hearing panel's misstatements and the commissioner's denial of restoration. I was refused a trial where I could have cross-examined the hearing panels. Appeal of that ruling was too expensive for me to undertake, and that was that for my license - end of medical career, a career that everyone in Nassau County knew quite well was an exemplary one - but that was completely ignored. You can read the whole story in detail in the following web site article: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thedoctordrugwarwrongandwastefulp1/ Stress does a lot of hurtful things to humans and addiction relapse is just one of them. In the hearing I said stress caused the relapses. I never said it caused my addiction. Besides, my book, already published, clearly stated unequivocally that addictions are genetically caused, not caused by stress or any other environmental issue, They deliberately misconstrued those remarks to make it look like I was a jerk and had "no insight" into my addiction. Heart attacks is another. By turning my answer to their questions about my early relapses into something I never said about the addiction itself was abuse of the system; abuse of the power granted by the state to these hearing panels because I never had the opportunity to correct their written mistake in the letter to the commissioner. One funny thing about this incident is that Elliot Spitzer was the NYS Attorney General and prosecutor for the state against my license restoration, backing in NYS court the fraudulent argument made by the hearing panel without ever reviewing the hearings or even speaking to me about any of it. This system desperately needs to be changed. Be that as it may, Tiger is getting a similar lynching by the media and the public because of this well loved misunderstanding of addiction in general and sex addiction specifically. Too bad Tiger is talking because he knows nothing about any of this and being made to look like a fool. He really should keep quiet and ignore the public's and media's desire to interview him at a time when it is too premature. Someday the paradigm of addiction causation will change to the correct one and none of this disgusting abuse will ever have to happen again to any addict/hypoic. The public needs to demand it, especially the addicts if they ever organize as they should under the auspices of the N4A. 2/20/10 Re: Can a Tiger Rehab His Stripes? , http://www.womenshealthmag.com/life/tiger-woods-and-adultery   Cheating is not synonymous with sex addiction. In fact, most cheating has nothing to do with sex addiction. Today's article is full of misconceptions and errors, as usual for any article about any addiction. Why? Because the experts don't know what addiction is to begin with, and they're the ones interviewed to explain this issue to the journalists. As usual, the journalist doesn't ask any tough questions and doesn't demand documentation of the answers. For example, "There's no "substance" involved—which is why the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) won't acknowledge sex addiction as a "disease". Yet many rehabs treat sex addiction as a chemical dependency as well as a behavioral one." What does this paragraph mean? Read my article, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , to understand what addiction and disease are, and the cause of addiction. My book, Hypoic's Handbook, goes into this well also. 1) "There's no "substance" involved." 2) Addiction is not a disease. Does this mean that only substances can cause addiction? Well, that's wrong. The DSM writers believe this is true and define addiction wrongly as well, as you will see if you compare my writings with their writings (ASAM and NIDA's writings too). They define addictions as diseases and addictors as causes of addictions. That's the hijacked brain hypothesis. Substances are addictors, not causes of addiction. The cause of addiction is the disease and the disease is not the addictor, it's the genetic disease of Hypoism. Read my article and book and you will see the difference. Moreover, the addiction is not the disease. The addiction is a symptom of the disease, Hypoism (genetic low dopamine activity), and addictions can be to substances and behaviors, but special behaviors only - instinctive behaviors. Read this article to understand this connection called pathophysiology: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ . Sex is an instinct, thus sex is an addictor and can be an addiction in those people who have the genetic disease of Hypoism and ONLY those people. In fact, everyone has sex but only hypoics (a low proportion of the population) get addicted to them because to get addicted you need to have the right physiology, the genetic low dopamine physiology. This has been proven but you don't see it in today's article anywhere. Thus, Tiger's behavior was not voluntary or rational. Addiction is always unconscious, involuntary, and irrational just like any other symptom of any other disease. But Tiger is acting like his behavior was consciously controlled, willful, volitional, and immoral. Those ideas come from today's wrong theory of addiction - the theory these experts use to explain addiction - the wrong theory. The science of addiction causation, as documented in my papers and book, completely disproves these ideas though they are still used daily to explain addict's behaviors and the cause of their addictions. Right - all the experts quoted in this article are absolutely wrong about everything they said in this article. The whole article is wrong, and Tiger's speech is all wrong in its motivation and fact. The whole Tiger circus is wrong. The whole field of addictionology is wrong.   Last, to keep a long story short, where's the peer reviewed study proving spouses need to be involved in the addict's recovery for it to be successful? Where's the study showing, "Thus "family weekends" are encouraged at some clinics, where relationship and individual counseling are offered, upping a couple's post-rehab success rate to 80 percent." This doesn't exist, but the journalist didn't ask for it.   The whole thing is a mess because addictionology is not a science - it's entirely based on many lies and myths based on these lies. But the media doesn't care. They continue to write whatever these so-called experts say, maintaining the massive misinformation of the public, leading to continuation of the addiction epidemic (good for the experts - bad for the addicts and their families). The pubic needs to be informed about this scam and allowed to read the real science of addictions, only written by me and a few other people referred to in my papers and book. Clearly, Tiger needs to be allowed to read this too.   This is a complicated mess but can be straightened out if the media will cooperate to help the public know about the correct science of addiction causation instead of blindly believing the lies coming from the experts who have deliberately screwed up the addiction field for their own conflicts of interest. All this is documented on my web site and in my book. 2/19/10 Re: Tiger to speak publicly for first time since crash, http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/35443754/ns/sports-golf/   So, Tiger made his apology and described his shame, remorse, and all the other nonsensical feelings addicts are forced to have if they are to be allowed back into society for breaking the rules by being an addict. That is what the current moral paradigm of addictions insists on today. Where's the medical/biological paradigm all the experts including NIDA and ASAM speak of? It's not there, because if it were there he would not be having to apologize. When did you ever hear a new leukemic or breast cancer victim apologize for getting their diseases? Never. So, why does Tiger have to admit he did this to himself and is sorry for it when, in fact, a disease did it to him? Because the experts say it's a disease but their paradigm doesn't back that up. Their paradigm maintains addiction as a moral issue. You don't see letters to the editor like this one from Volkow or ASAM correcting Tiger's misconceptions of what has happened to him do you. Where are the remarks of the addiction experts correcting Tiger's errors in his understanding of his behavior? They don't exist because they still believe addictions are a moral issue. Why does the public stand for this? Because they don't know better either. What about cigarette addicts? These things aren't required for them. Isn't that an addiction? Isn't smoking addiction a moral issue too? Why aren't they treated the same? What about Obama being an addict and being treated like one too? Only certain addictions are immoral and others aren't? What's really going on here? I'll tell you - it's all massive bullshit and the science of addictions hasn't made any inroads into changing attitudes and beliefs about addictions or addicts because that science has been misinterpreted deliberately by the experts (from whom you don't hear) to suit their needs rather than the needs of the addicts.   After 17 years of my writing about Hypoism, the genetic/biological disease of addictions, and its proof, there has been no change in the understanding or handling of addictions or addicts. They still are forced to go through the hoops of ostracism and rejection with demands for public apology, remorse, contrition, and promises of good behavior in the future before they are allowed to be forgiven and let back into society. What other disease is like that? Why do the recovering addicts allow this to continue? Because their program says the same things. Their program says addiction is a moral issue and addicts require all these feelings and behaviors before they can "recover."   What does all this nonsense do in real life? It maintains the addiction epidemic and kills millions of addicts because of that. It ruins their lives and families and causes relapse. The disease doesn't cause relapse. The fraudulent paradigm causes the relapses because the addicts don't know what they have or what to do about it. Recovery is pure luck and chance for addicts today and relapse is practically inevitable because of this. Moreover, there is no prevention whatsoever under this paradigm because "you don't have the disease until you get addicted." This is because they call the addiction the disease. Under Hypoism all this changes. You can get diagnosed with the disease of Hypoism long before you ever get addicted and can begin recovery for it. This is real prevention, something that's impossible today.   Anyway, Tiger did his amends to the public and now what. We just have to watch, but like most addicts he will relapse and no one knows what will happen when that occurs --- mostly bad things. Sorry Tiger, but you have a choice for your recovery if they let you know about Hypoism which they won't. I'll be here if you find out about it and want the real thing. In the meantime you're going to take a lot of shit and be forced to recover under dangerous and humiliating circumstances and be blamed for all of it. We all can do something about that but we won't because we don't want to. We are the liars and the bastards. Have fun. 2/18/10 Re: Tiger to make public apology Friday, http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/35443754/ns/sports-golf/   So, now the sports section is giving lessons in addiction recovery. Tiger is going to make an apologetic speech on TV to begin "making amends" to the public, "part of his recovery process." To the public making amends is supposedly part of the 12 step recovery process as advertised on all the TV shows about addiction recovery. Let me give Tiger some advice here. The steps need to be done correctly and in order for the hypoic to get any benefit from them. If not they will be useless and damaging. They build on themselves. Doing them out of order or guided by someone who knows nothing about the disease that causes addictions for reasons other than recovery from Hypoism is dangerous. Recovery is a private issue done for one reason only, to recover from the disease of Hypoism. They're not done to be forgiven. They're not done to manipulate anyone or any situation.   The "making amends" step is the 9th step. Much work needs to be done before the 9th step is undertaken. There's no way the 9th step is appropriate here for Tiger. He hasn't even begun the first three steps. Tiger is doing this speech not as part of his recovery but part of his manipulation of the public, the same kind of nonsense he did in the past to produce an image of himself that the public would love. Instead of using a sponsor to run his recovery he's using a public relations expert. What Tiger needs to do now is to shut up, go to meetings, and do recovery with a valid 12 step sponsor in complete privacy, no matter what the corporation, media or the public want. He needs to be as invisible as possible even if that means not playing golf for a year or so. Recovery has to come first, not his image or his job, or anything else. Otherwise there's no way for him to even begin the recovery process. John Daly's recovery mistakes are a good example of how pubic relations got in the way of his recovery which never happened. Take a look at John Daly today. It's not funny.   I would advise Tiger to read my book about Hypoism, his disease, dump his current advisors who are working for themselves, not him, get a real sponsor just like any other recovering addict and do the 12 steps correctly, in order, and anonymously. Manipulating the public, even trying to manipulate the public, is the worst thing he can do. This disease has dangerous and even deadly consequences especially when the recovery is done wrong. 2/14/10 Re: Substance-Related Disorders , http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/Substance-RelatedDisorders.aspx   I've written you about this before, but I'll do it again if it helps you get the message. You said, "Please find below a list of disorders related to the diagnostic category, Substance-Related Disorders. The Substance-Related Disorders Work Group has been responsible for addressing these disorders. Among the work group’s proposals is the recommendation that the diagnostic category include both substance use disorders and non-substance addictions. Gambling disorder has been moved into this category and there are other addiction-like behavioral disorders such as “Internet addiction” that will be considered as potential additions to this category as research data accumulate.  Further, the work group has proposed to tentatively re-title the category, Addiction and Related Disorders. The work group had extensive discussions on the use of the word “addiction.”  There was general agreement that “dependence” as a label for compulsive, out-of-control drug use has been problematic. It has been confusing to physicians and has resulted in patients with normal tolerance and withdrawal being labeled as “addicts.” This has also resulted in patients suffering from severe pain having adequate doses of opioids withheld because of fear of producing “addiction.” Accordingly, the word “dependence” is now limited to physiological dependence, which is a normal response to repeated doses of many medications including beta-blockers, antidepressants, opioids, anti-anxiety agents and other drugs. The presence of tolerance and withdrawal symptoms are not counted as symptoms to be counted for the diagnosis of substance use disorder when occurring in the context of appropriate medical treatment with prescribed medications. Finally, the work group is addressing the disorder pathological gambling, which is currently listed under the diagnostic category Impulse-Control Disorders Not Elsewhere Classified. We appreciate your review and comment on these disorders." This is not new.   In 1992 I wrote my first paper [Hypoism - A Real Disease] on the disease that causes all addictions, Hypoism. That includes addictions to substances and behaviors because the physiological mechanism is exactly the same. That paper has evolved into two major web papers, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ and http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , and my 1996 book, Hypoic's Handbook. All this is discussed on my web site, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism. There are many other behavioral addictions in addition to gambling and they are all derived from human instincts as discussed in the papers and book. Also derived from this mechanism is the treatment methodology as well as the addiction prevention method. These could have been used over the last 15 years if my work had not been ignored and censored by your group and the addiction establishment. It's time you read my papers and book and let your members know about this paradigm and its prevention, treatment, and public policy implications. 2/8/10 Here's more evidence for why the addiction epidemic and the drug war will continue indefinitely. I didn't invent this stuff. I just tell it like it is. You can trust me with no axe to grind and no conflicts of interest, or trust the addiction establishment, with many axes to grind and many conflicts of interest. Your choice.   Here are two articles written by people who know nothing about addictions [the huffington post should know better, but they don't (in fact they never have written anything correct about addictions and their consequences)], sent to me by a friend tonight for comment: RE: Tiger cured http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/tiger-cured-of-sex-addict_b_454295.html   Should drug addicts be paid to get sterilized? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8500285.stm   this is the kind of crap that gets brought up whenever there's a wrong paradigm running any particularly complicated issue - cure the victim by destroying his brain, or kill the victims as if they were the perpetrators. I already wrote my response to this kind of nonsense except no one wants to read it no less consider it----http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/entitledtoyouropinionnotanymore/ . what we need is a completely new paradigm - (when the old paradigm doesn't work, find a new one that will work) - except that no one knows about it. I wrote the book, Hypoic's Handbook, about this new paradigm but no one wants a new paradigm and because of that no one wants to read the book - catch 22. the public thinks there's only one addiction paradigm, the current one, the hijacked brain hypothesis (and all its variations). they don't know the real science of addictions leads to the correct paradigm, Hypoism, the paradigm that fixes the whole addiction epidemic, not just one shitty policy after another, as we are presently doing, and don't want to know it!!!!. There's no solution to this kind of thinking as long as NIDA, ASAM, and the rest of the addiction establishment continue forcing the public down the same old road of deliberately misinterpreted and fraudulent science. Because of this addicts of all kinds are screwed. moreover, they themselves want to go down this same old road because it's become a religion to them -- the so-called spiritual disease, whatever that is. what century do we live in? This is no way to practice medicine, which is what these people are doing. telling the addicts they are killing themselves and their brothers and sisters by using this wrong paradigm just makes them hate me, the messenger. what a predicament that is!! that's our problem in a nutshell. there's no way to get the message across because it's seen as criticism and heresy. this is my catch 22 and I have no idea how to move this issue from a religion to science. the religion feels good but is killing the addicts while the science, the real science, feels bad but solves the crisis. how to get addicts to side with the right science that feels bad but solves the mess is the enigma. 2/7/10 Re: Miller: 'He's damaged the game of golf', http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22825103/vp/35274219#35274219 What the hell does Johnny Miller know about any of this stuff? The Tiger Woods story will go down one day as the worst covered story in the history of journalism. The main reason for this is that neither journalism nor addictionology (psychology, psychiatry, and the so-called sex addiction experts) knows anything about sex addiction though they're the ones spouting off about it in the media. Today's media output is a series of video interviews with various psychologists and golf journalists blabbing about many of the Tiger Woods issues: diagnosis, golf, marriage, wedding rings, wife, business sponsors, etc. as they relate to Tiger Woods and his "sex problems." Not one of the interviewees has a clue about Tiger's behavior, diagnosis, and what's best for him and his family because they are completely ignorant of the psychological and biological motivation behind his behavior or others with similar behaviors. From what I heard on these interviews the assessments and suggestions about and for Tiger are both wrong and hurtful for him and his family. That's the scary part. As I discuss in my book on addictions, Hypoic's Handbook, there's only one issue that needs to be dealt with right now and that's his diagnosis and plan for recovery. Not golf. Not family. Not media. Not anything except his diagnosis and recovery plan. Everything else needs to put on the shelf and he must begin Hypoism recovery as detailed in my book. What to do about those other things? They all need to get the same kinds of help independent of Tiger. Golf will go on and the family needs to go to alanon and leave Tiger alone even though they're compelled to remain connected to Tiger's diagnosis and recovery. They're all addicted to Tiger as much as Tiger is addicted to sex, and they each need to do their own recoveries on their own. Tiger's recovery needs to be run by a sex-addiction sponsor of his choice on their own and with no contact with anyone else, especially the media and his wife; and especially not determined by what Tiger thinks he needs. I now this sounds wrong, but if you read my book, Hypoic's Handbook, you will see the biological imperative caused by the disease of Hypoism itself that demands this separation and Tiger's surrender of control. If you listen to the advice given by the golf and psychological interviewees you will see their advice is diametrically opposite to this and will, if used, produce the worst possible outcome. The OJ - Nicole Simpson story is that story. We don't need another one of those although that story is repeated a thousand times a day by people who refuse to read my book and then use me to help them use the information within it. Continuing to use the same failed paradigm (today's paradigm) can only do one thing, give us the same failed outcomes. It's your choice which paradigm you use. Why continue to use the wrong one? We already know it doesn't work. "Doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is one definition of insanity." It's your choice. It certainly didn't work too well for John Daly. Why use it on Tiger? 2/6/10 Re: Dopamine Levels in Brain May Determine Social Status, http://www.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=635699 I guess these authors didn't read my book, Hypoic's Handbook. In 1992 I wrote my first paper on the disease of low dopamine activity called Hypoism (Hypoism - A Real Disease); hypo for low - low dopamine activity. The book, Hypoic's Handbook, explaining and defining the disease, followed in 1996. In secret many addictionologists agreed with its premise and implications. I have their emails saying just that. In public though they all disclaimed it. It was heresy, and their grant money from NIDA, the bosses of addictionology, the ones with all the grant money, depended on sticking with the "consensus" theory of addiction causation, the hijacked brain hypothesis, the wrong theory that has maimed and killed millions of hypoics since 1992. So, they ignored and censored it as did the media. They had a conflict of interest - money. Addicts have been dying for lack of integrity. So, now what? Now, the "emperor's new cloths" gets published. "The study also may help improve understanding about why certain people are more likely to abuse alcohol and drugs. Previous studies have suggested that lower levels of social status and social support contribute to the risk of substance abuse." So, when does it get the right name, Hypoism? Read the book and see what you think. 1/28/10 Abusing Not Only Children, but Also Science , http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/health/26zuger.html?em The Times and other media outlets do this everyday (abuse science and children). Read my blog for more evidence for this. The statement is made, "Even without all these practicalities, the moral of Dr. Clancy’s story is clear: science should represent truth, not wishful thinking. When good data fly in the face of beloved theory, the theory has to go." [Child abuse has been used as a cause of all kinds of later problems in these kids. The abuse excuse."] Does this sound familiar? Maybe something like, "Wrong theory - Wrong policies." Tell me I haven't been writing this for 14 years while being censored and ignored by the Times. Once again - here it is by someone else, someone other than me, and the Times finds it OK. The same was found and ranted against by the reviewers for Judith Rich Harris's, The Nurture Assumption. Here's another similar one debunked in today's papers, "Teens Who Drink With Parents May Still Develop Alcohol Problems" http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/177356.php - drink with your kids to prevent alcoholism in your kids. Again, the wrong concept (theory) is that drinking and alcoholism rates are learned bad and dangerous behaviors, so it only makes sense to teach your kids how to do these things morally and correctly in the safety of your own home, and you will prevent the addiction. DEBUNKED!! - just as I debunk many addiction causation myths like this one in my 1996 book. The fact is that all these behaviors originate genetically, not environmentally. The data is all there for this theory. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ [But don't read this paper. It has all the data you don't want to see.] The P/R paradigm is again debunked. Nonetheless my book, the book detailing the genetic theory of addictions, will continue to be ignored and censored because they, the media and expert power people, want it that way. Thus, killing millions of addicts who get the wrong theory of addiction shoved down their throats by the environmentalist experts and never get the benefit of learning about the genetic theory of addiction causation and using that theory for prevention and recovery methodology. 1/22/10 Re: Sentencing: Offer addicted offenders jail or rehab, http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/Sentencing+Offer+addicted+offenders+jail+rehab/2466522/story.html I read articles like this one everyday of the week. They make me sad. They're written by or about all kinds of people who think they have the answer to some addiction-related problem but they don't. What exactly is this article trying to cure? Cure addiction? Cure crime? Cure wasted tax money? Cure the enlarging criminal justice system? Cure immorality? Cure addiction-related sexually transmitted diseases? Today's recommendation by the author of the editorial, a journalist, is: "Anyone with two or more convictions for drug possession, plus two or more convictions for theft, must upon a third conviction in B.C. for either choose a jail sentence or a long-term drug-treatment program." Where's the data supporting this policy or is this policy just an opinion out of thin air? Is there any evidence that either jail or long-term rehabs for people who meet these criteria do what we want them to do? If there is, it's not in the article anywhere. The fact is that there is no evidence for effectiveness of this policy. Clearly, it's well documented that jail does not solve any addiction problem. What about treatment? Also NO. Treatment providers lie about this everyday but when asked for the data from valid long-term studies they can't come up with any. There's only one policy that significantly reduces the social consequences of addiction and that's giving drugs to addicts in government run clinics. The best documented program like this is the Swiss PROVE program for heroin where heroin addicts are given heroin in a safe and clean environment, but I think this same program would work just as well for any drug. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/harmreductionprototypeswissproveprogram/  This policy reduces every known addiction-related consequence except for the addiction itself. However, when recovery of some kind is offered, these people enroll in it at higher rates than if they were not going to these clinics. Wouldn't it be nice if the recovery programs actually worked? Then we'd have a solution to all addiction-related problems. And it would all be voluntary and very cheap as well. By the way, this program should be free of charge for all addicts and large enough to accommodate all addicts. The major impediment to dealing effectively with addictions is our using the wrong theory of addiction causation to devise policies. Today's ruling paradigm is called the hijacked brain hypothesis even though it's been proven wrong long ago. Read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ The hijacked brain hypothesis has failed to solve a single addiction-related issue yet it continues to be used because it maintains the moral nature of addictions, something people want even though it's both wrong and ineffective. Once we change paradigms to the Hypoism theory, the proven theory, we will be able to devise effective policies for all aspects of addiction-related problems because only the right theory of addiction causation can give us effective prevention and recovery methods and policies, exactly what we don't have today. So, my recommendation is for you to read my papers and book and then use them to help you devise effective programs for all aspects of addiction-related problems. I'd be happy to help. They're all discussed in the book, Hypoic's Handbook. 1/20/10 Sex and the Digital City, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/sex-and-the-digital-city/?hp Another person writing about something they know nothing about. This always helps clarify issues, right? The blind leading the blind. Geez. For one thing, sex addiction is not infidelity which is why divorce is a stupid response to sex addiction while it is a correct response to infidelity. In the former case sex is a drug, not a willful choice and divorce has nothing to do with addictions even though today it is the standard knee jerk response. Values have to do with willful choice, and sex addiction has nothing to do with values because it's done against one's will (preferences), as in my definition of addiction. There is a diametrical difference between the neurobiology of values and preferences, something you will never appreciate until you read my book. In other words, all sex is not the same, something Wright knows nothing about even though he's been told about this neurobiological distinction by me personally. Read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ Self-righteousness impairs one's ability to distinguish between "willful" and "against one's will" behavior. I've been writing about this distinction for 17 years but no one seems to be interested in seeing the difference. Thus, stupid articles like this one, articles that only mislead and don't help anyone except maybe the writer and the journal it's written in. To make this distinction one must read my book on the origins of addictions, the difference between infidelity and sex addiction, and think deeply about it. Robert Wright should know better because his book, The Moral Animal, goes a long way into clarifying the genetics and neurobiology of these differences. Shame on him. To get a clear picture of this difference one needs to read his book as well as mine, Hypoic's Handbook, follwed by a public debate to cement these differences in people's minds. There are many other very important reasons for people to read these two books. 1/19/10 Narrowing an Eating Disorder, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/health/19eat.html?hpw The NY Times Health Department could care less about this letter. They will publish what they want to publish whether it's pure nonsense or just plain ordinary nonsense. Maybe they just like Abby Ellin and want her book to sell better. Who knows? Whatever their motives, publishing this article will help no one; just the opposite. The fact is that this essay is not only wrong but irrelevant and misleading, all for the same reason, as if the DSM had some kind of validity, especially in regards to addictions and more specifically, eating disorders. The DSM makes medical diagnoses according to lists of symptoms, something the field of medicine has been trying to get away from for a very long time. Modern medicine is based on pathophysiology, biology, not prosaic descriptions; one from column A and 2 from column B. Of course, this author didn't go to medical school, but if she had asked someone who did she might have learned about pathophysiology and thus could have realized that the DSM is wrong, irrelevant, and misleading because of this deficiency. There's no pathophysiology. The DSM can't be fixed. It needs to be replaced. And what do we replace it with? Real medicine. Pathophysiology - biology. Just like all other medical diseases. The biology of weight regulation and diseases of that system. Once that is accomplished we would all be able to see that weight control (for the most part unconscious) is a complex biological system not dependent on grandmothers but mostly on the genetics of eating and weight regulatory genes, a whole different understanding of the weight issue. In fact, the entire field of addictions, including "eating disorders" would originate from a similar scheme as described in this 2000 paper: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ . This paradigm changes everything and allows for the understanding of and dealing with everything addictive. Addictions come from the genetic perturbation of the instinct regulating mechanism, an idea dating back to my first paper in 1992, Hypoism - A Real Disease, yet to be known by the public because of its censorship. Moreover, we would see the end of silly essays on various addictions like the ones the Times loves to publish. The correct paradigm is derived and discussed here: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ The last resort would be my book, ignored and censored by the Times: Hypoic's Handbook - the whole story. This book helps everyone; if it were allowed to be known about and read by everyone. 1/18/10 Re: Words Used To Describe Substance-Use Patients Can Alter Attitudes, Contribute To Stigma, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/176030.php The article states, "Changing the words used to describe someone struggling with alcoholism or drug addiction may significantly alter the attitudes of health care professionals, even those who specialize in addiction treatment." It's not that the words used change the attitudes of people talking about addictions and addicts but rather the attitudes of the people about addicts and addictions cause these people to choose these demeaning and degrading words to begin with. The choice of these words is symptomatic of the existing discriminatory and biased beliefs of the people using them, even those in the addiction field. From the very beginning I have made this assertion, and that the ones most guilty of this stigma and discrimination producing vocabulary are the addiction experts themselves. Even the name of the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the major governmental (of the people) organization concerned with drug addiction, uses this stigmatizing vocabulary, something I've complained about since 1992 when I wrote my first paper on Hypoism, a judgment neutral word. One of the main reasons I found the need to develop a new vocabulary used in talking about drug addictions was that the current vocabulary is stigmatizing and demeaning. The name of NIDA needs to be changed to incorporate the name of the disease that causes addictions, Hypoism, rather than a word symbolizing the stigmatizing attitude of the organization, "abuse," as if addicts go out of their way to ABUSE drugs willfully and immorally. It should be called the National Institute of Hypoism, the disease, not some demeaning and pejorative word describing the attitudes of the people working for this institute. The same holds for the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, an organization supposedly advocating for addicts yet there it is, the stigmatizing word - ABUSE - implying that addicts willfully abuse alcohol and drugs. What a joke that organization is. Not only does it have a pejorative name but it does nothing to help or advocate for addicts. Thus, the need for the N4A, the National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts, Inc., the 501 c 3 organization I started myself. See its brochure on the Hypoism web site. Compare the NCADA with the N4A on paper and you will see that the NCADA does not do what addicts need them to do, only the N4A does. Yet, the N4A is ignored and censored while the NCADA is supported by the addiction community, just the opposite of what should be the case. The NCADA is part of the problem, not the solution. In fact, the entire addiction field uses these kinds of words to describe addicts and their behaviors while claiming they're trying to rid the world of stigma against addicts. They do just the opposite. They increase the stigma just as does NIDA and the rest of the PIMMPAL complex - http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/pimmpalcomplex/ The article also states, "We found that referring to someone with the 'abuser' terminology evokes more punitive attitudes than does describing that person's situation in exactly the same words except for using 'disorder' terminology," says John F. Kelly, PhD, associate director of the MGH Center for Addiction Medicine, who led the study. "Reducing the use of such stigmatizing terms could help diminish the shame, guilt and embarrassment that act as barriers, keeping people from seeking help." The fact is that we need to use the right disease model, Hypoism, for any of this to happen. Nothing will change for the better until this happens, and the funny thing is that the addicts themselves don't see the need for this and in doing so shoot themselves in their own feet. You don't see AA or any of the other addict recovery groups complaining about this pejorative nomenclature because they're all part of the problem themselves, using the wrong disease model; having the same wrong attitudes about addicts and addictions, the attitude that discriminates against and kills addicts. My book and web articles discuss this issue at length and now, finally, some one in the field has studied and acknowledged it. 1/10/10 Re: The Wrong Story About Depression. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/opinion/09warner.html?em Quoting from the NY Times article, "This is the big picture of mental health care in America: not perfectly healthy people popping pills for no reason, but people with real illnesses lacking access to care; facing barriers like ignorance, stigma and high prices; or finding care that is ineffective." Like I didn't say these same things in letters to the Times 13 years ago? And I was ignored and censored. Still am. In fact, that's what I was angry about back then and was ridiculed for being angry. What hypocrites! Now they're angry about the same things and they write and publish their own op-eds while my old op-eds and letters get to rot in their trashcans and the issues not dealt with then still aren't being dealt with - the lies about diseases and their forced ineffective treatments and other forms of psychiatric abuse. 13 years later the Times complains about the same stuff. But addicts remain abused and screwed. And I remain ignored and censored. Ha Ha. 1/6/10 Re: Obama Says Plot Could Have Been Disrupted, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/us/politics/06obama.html?hp After 9/11 we had hearings, a commission, and a report, but nothing has changed. Long before 9/10 we had the dots but the dots were never connected. I wrote emails about that back then. I also wrote emails back then comparing the intelligence mess to the addiction paradigm mess, the biggest mess we had as a country then and the biggest problem we have today, where we had the intelligence but, “It was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.” Obama added: “We have to do better, we will do better, and we have to do it quickly. American lives are on the line.” Ha Ha. It can't happen. How can it happen if Obama isn't getting the information? The problem isn't intelligence. It's arrogance, the most common trait of those in power. People in power think that merely because they are in power they are both right and infallible - PRIDE - and don't need to listen to anyone outside their group. Pride is the number one human instinct. Pride keeps us from being able to evaluate a crisis correctly because it produces an immediate BIAS in favor of those in power by those in power, the ones who allowed the crisis to happen to begin with. We call it "group think." Unless the in-group comes up with the right answer from within its own ranks, a rare thing because that would necessitate admitting they were wrong all along, the right answer from outside will always be ignored and censored as in the case of the addiction paradigm mess. I first wrote about the addiction paradigm mess and its solution in 1992 with my first paper about Hypoism, "Hypoism - A Real Disease." - that the ruling addiction paradigm was scientifically wrong and needed to be replaced with the correct theory of addiction causation, the genetic disease I called Hypoism, before any progress can be made in the correcting the addiction mess.  In other words, I said we had the dots (the science) but we weren't connecting them correctly (misinterpretation of the science). That original ignored and censored paper evolved into my current ignored and censored paper, Hypoism Hypothesis, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , my 1996 book, Hypoic's Handbook, and my web site. That same message has been my message since then, that the people in control of the addiction field were deliberately misinterpreting the science of addiction causation to support their biased beliefs about addictions for conflicted reasons. I've written the NY Times about this since 1995. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/nytimesletterstotheeditor/  These letters to the editor are on my web site. I've written a thousand of them and not one of them has been acknowledged or published. I sent them a copy of my book which they ignored and censored as well. This same information has been sent to Congresspeople, media people, addictionology people, addiction foundations, and even the respective Presidents. The answer to the addiction crisis has been sent to all the people in charge of correcting it but they act like they never received it. I have collected the dots, interpreted them correctly, connected the dots, devised the solution, and informed the people in power, but none of this work has been responded to or even acknowledged. The addiction crisis, the biggest crisis our country faces, continues unabated as if my work on Hypoism never existed. How can Obama use this information to correct the mess if it never gets to him? The addiction field and the media, especially the NY Times as documented in my letters to them, have made sure Obama never gets it by their ignoring and censoring behavior. 1/4/10 Re: Acute Stress Leaves Epigenetic Marks on the Hippocampus, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091231153341.htm This phenomenon is VERY important, and so is its interpretation or misinterpretation and implications. Epigenetics, the mechanisms for how the environment can alter genetic activity without changing the DNA code sequence, is a direct biological mechanism for how the environment causes behavioral differences in various genes that relate to behavior. But if you look at this mechanism more than superficially you can see that these epigenetic effects are mechanistic effects on gene activity, in other words, genetics. Epigenetics is genetics, not environment. It may be affected by the environment but conceptually it is still a genetic mechanism. Calling epigenetic effects environmental is wrong. It's still genetics (altered genes and their regulatory mechanisms) that causes the behavioral differences, not things like "psychobabble effects", the phrase usually used to describe environmental causation. This is what I mean by "interpretation." For example, let's say toilet training difficulties (stress), the prototypical Freudian "psychobabble" (environmental) causation factor, so-called "anal personality," are associated with some particular psychiatric symptom or illness (OCD). If the heritability of OCD is then determined to be 60% genetic and 40% environmental, this might be interpreted to mean that toilet training problems are a viable cause of 40% of OCD. This interpretation may then be used to determine the wrong treatment of OCD (implications), dealing with toilet training issues via psychotherapy, when, in fact, it was the epigenetic genetic changes that caused the OCD, requiring completely different treatment. It's not only completely different treatment but also completely different perspective on the meaning (implications) of OCD - not a neurotic (psychobabble) symptom but a genetic disease altogether; two completely different things that require completely different perspectives and attitudes surrounding this disease especially as it relates to the role of willful self-causation decision-making (and/or so-called self-destruction) versus involuntary biological causation - blame. In other words, this new understanding of causation mechanism changes what and whom is responsible for causing the behaviors; the former blames the patient and the parents while the latter blames DNA, biology, the right place to put the blame. OCD is not a moral issue but a biological one. The same mechanism holds for addiction causation where heritabilities are found to be 60-80% and where epigenetics may account for the 20-40% now called "environmental" as a way to imply psychobabble etiology - as a way to blame the addict and allow for moralizing addictions and their associated behaviors. Epigenetic (genetic) alterations will be found to account for much of this this 20-40% and help to clean up the etiology mess (misinterpretation) in addictions - purely genetic. [Read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ where I discuss epigenetics and I also discuss other reasons for the heritabilities of addictions to be less than 100% without having to imply "environmental" effects.] The purely genetic addiction causation theory is called Hypoism as discussed in this paper. The Hypoism paradigm explains everything about addictions and gives us a meaningful prevention and treatment method (Hypoism recovery) as well as providing the basis for rational and humane public policies. Read my book: Hypoic's Handbook whose science is updated by the Hypoism Hypothesis paper. Implications: Hypoism is a 100% amoral, involuntary, unconscious, and genetic disease even if some of the genetic mechanisms are epigenetic. Epigenetics merely explains the existence of the non-genetic ("environmental") percentages in its heritability calculations - a methodology issue, not an etiological issue, or how a less than 100% heritability trait can be 100% genetic in causation. To remove this confusing terminology, obviously, heritability needs to be redefined methodologically in the face of this new and important phenomenon, epigenetics. 1/3/10 Re: Hitting Bottom , http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/magazine/03Pinsky-t.html?pagewanted=1&ref=magazine There's only one reason Pinsky gets away with what he's doing - the medical addiction establishment's lying to the public about the actual cause of addiction and their deliberate misinterpretation of the science of all this. Pinsky capitalizes on this confusion and misinformation: the psychobabble and pseudoscience model of addictions. Pinsky is good at extolling this nonsense. Too bad it's all bullshit. The media allows him to do it by not putting his feet to the fire scientifically and all my criticism has been ignored and censored. The same is happening with Nora Volkow, the chief of NIDA. Neither Pinsky nor Volkow have a valid theory of addiction causation or treatment. It's the "Emperor's New Cloths" all over again. But because the public and the media don't know the difference, he gets away with his nonsense, something the public eats up and buys. If Pinsky were cross examined on this stuff by someone knowledgeable in the science of addictions he would look like a fool. But you haven't seen that happen, either with Pinsky or Volkow. Show me that debate and I'll eat my hat. Why would they? They'd be out of business five minutes after such a debate. Likewise for Pinsky's clinical success which has never been detailed and proven statistically. The only way to end this scamming of the public is to have a nation-wide public debate on the science of addiction and addiction treatment, something I've been demanding for 15 years. The fact is that detox and rehab have nothing to do with long term outcomes of people who attend them. The detox/rehab model of addiction treatment Pinsky uses has never been proven to better than chance or no treatment. Most addicts get clean outside detox and rehab regimes. Professional treatment has never been shown to be more effective than chance or no treatment. Thus, televising them is pure showmanship and irrelevant to these people's lives and recovery. It's all about money and fame. And the techniques and methods used by Pinsky's treatment team have never been shown to be valid, effective, or even relevant to the future of the people undergoing them. Articles like this in the Times are just free advertising and false advertising at that. The correct science of addiction causation, that which the correct treatment should be based on, is unknown and unproven to this very day. We're still looking for it. That's what I have been writing about for 17 years. We have many hypotheses that have been proven wrong and several that need to be studied. The one's Pinsky uses have already been proven wrong but no one knows this because no one cross examines him on this. Prove me wrong. Ask him to cite his theory of addiction causation, where it's been proven correct, and where it's treatment methods have been proven effective. I've never seen that asked or answered anywhere. I write about the Hypoism paradigm of addiction causation and recovery, but all my work has been ignored and censored by the current addiction establishment instead of being debated and studied. This censorship should be seen by the media as a clue to the fraud going on. Instead, it is done by the media. Thus, no one knows about it. Clearly Chris Norris doesn't know about it or anything else I just mentioned, thus enabling the lethal fraud and the ensuing addiction epidemic to continue. 12/31/09 Genetic Studies Offer Clues about Addiction Risks, Treatments. http://www.genomeweb.com/genetic-studies-offer-clues-about-addiction-risks-treatments Ms. Anderson: I see you're interested in the genetics of addictions. You might be interested in reading this paper. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . I wrote my first paper on Hypoism, "Hypoism - A Real Disease," - in 1992. It has evolved into the linked paper and all the implications of it as detailed in the web site. Here's another important paper on the evolutionary origin of the genetic alleles that cause addictions: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ My 1996 book, Hypoic's Handbook, details the entire paradigm from theory to recovery (as well as addition prevention) methods, and public policy. I have written numerous letters to editors about all this and the implications. This includes my blog. Though the addiction field's research, especially recently, has supported this theory they continue to use the outdated and unscientific theory, the hijacked brain hypothesis, to dictate prevention, treatment, and public policy. I'm sure you know how disastrous this practice has been - very - and how ineffective the whole field has been over the last hundred years. Well, that's the reason. There's massive bias and conflicts of interest in the addiction field that are injuring and killing millions of addicts and their families over the recent past. The public desperately needs to know this story. 12/27/09 Re: Tiger Woods, Our Year and Ourselves , http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/opinion/l27rich.html?_r=1 First, read Tiger Woods, Person of the Year” . http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/opinion/20rich.html Rich calls Tiger a fraud? I think not. In fact, Tiger was defrauded as much as anyone. Tiger was a victim of this fraud as much as the rest of the country. The real fraud was committed by the addictionology establishment and the media which enabled addictionology to commit its lies to the American people. The fraud was and still is the entire addiction paradigm invented and maintained by the addictionology community and the media, especially the NY Times, that published their paradigm, the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH) day after day in the press despite my ignored and censored science-based objections. Read my blog and other emails I sent to the Times and other media outlets over the last 14 years. These letters clearly state that the addictionology fraud is their pet theory, the HBH, and the implications of this theory on all addicts (both to drugs and behaviors), helping maintain rather than cure their addictions. In 1998 I sent a copy of my book, Hypoic's Handbook, to David Corcoran, a NY Times science editor who still works at the Times. In three weeks, after not reading the book, he sent me a curt email - "This book is not for us." He didn't ask me a single question about the scientific veracity of the book's assertions, that the current addiction paradigm was scientifically wrong and was killing a million addicts a year; that there was a scientific basis for a new paradigm, Hypoism, that would cure the addiction epidemic; that my book proves both of these claims and if read by the public would lead to an end of the addiction epidemic. This deserves a lot more than his curt response. When I asked why not he replied that he didn't have to answer that. I think for the sake of the whole country he did have to answer that question. He still does. The fact is that the clear policy of the Times was to ignore and censor the Hypoism paradigm and its scientific basis from the public. Copies of all emails went to the ombudsman, an advocate of the public, as well who likewise ignored them. What's wrong with this you ask? Well, Hypoism is the proven correct addiction causation theory http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ and it explains Tiger's behavior not only to Tiger but to the rest of the world. Had Hypoism been known to Tiger, as opposed to the HBH which says only drugs can be addictors and many other errors, Tiger would have been allowed to know his behavior was an addiction, an insight he could have done something with. But, that's just Tiger. The HBH also gave the wrong impression about addictions and their associated behaviors to all 30 million hypoics (addicts and addicts to be) thus maintaining the addiction epidemic and all its consequences. Despite my thousands of scientifically documented dissenting emails to the Times about the HBH and the ill effects the HBH was having on our country and all its addicts, the Times continued to back the addictionology community and censor Hypoism. Tiger's addiction was part of that. The overall effect this censorship had on addictionology and addicts was to maintain the addiction epidemic while saying they had the scientific answer and were making progress in curing the epidemic. In fact, they were using the wrong theory and things were just getting worse, the complete opposite to reality. How is Tiger and the other addicts supposed to respond to this lie? Hypoism was the only theory that could help them but Hypoism was deliberately being kept from them by the addictionology establishment and the Times. Simply publishing one of my letters to the editor could have solved this mess by allowing the public to know about Hypoism, but they didn't publish a single one of them. Not one! So, Mr. Rich, who defrauded the public? I'd like to see an article telling that story. I'm available to help you write it. 12/26/09 Re: Tiger does not stand alone in his situation, http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/34593890/ns/sports-washington_post/ Everyone says they know what Tiger is. Just read the articles as they pour forth. He's an addict. He's not an addict. He's an asshole. He's not an asshole. He has a disease. He doesn't have a disease. Who's writing these articles? Journalists with no training in science who haven't even read the science of addiction causation; journalists who say they have the same disease - "recovering addicts" - who don't know the science of addictions. This credential is the most common. OK. Where's your written definition of addiction? Where's the science behind it? Everyone knows what Tiger is but they don't have a written definition. They won't write down what the science behind it is; the brain mechanism. I do. But they get their articles published. Here's another one: "The Addiction Habit," http://www.slate.com/id/2239010/ . There are thousands of them. They get published. They mean nothing. They perpetuate the mess. But my papers with real definitions and real science behind them (referenced) and scientific credentials don't get published. This kind of nonsense (anti-science) has been going on for a hundred years while the addiction epidemic worsens. AA came along with similar kind of non-scientific stuff and nothing changed. Same prevention and recovery numbers. Addiction experts do the same thing with their misrepresentation of the science that results in more nonsense that is unable to fix the problem. We still have 0% prevention and 5% recovery overall. The PIMMPAL complex http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/pimmpalcomplex/ grows despite everybody being right. Impossible. Everybody's right (in their opinion) but nothing improves? Something's wrong here. Science doesn't work this way. Medicine doesn't work this way. When the theory is right things improve. If things don't improve it's because the theory isn't right. That's why in 1990 I decided to explore this issue - the addiction mess. I read the science and in 1992 produced a theory, Hypoism, based on this science to explain it and the mess it was trying to figure out and fix. I argue the science, not my opinions. I argue interpretations of valid science, not opinions. I propose a new theory based on correct interpretation of all this science. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ I propose we use this theory to fix the mess. My book, Hypoic's Handbook, and web site, www.nvo.com/hypoism, are the results of this review of the addiction science. I wrote it down, defined the words, define the methodology, and sent it out to addiction journals and "influential" people in the addiction field. This can be debated but instead it's been ignored and censored by these experts, laymen, and the media. Their arguments aren't science based. They are bias based and nothing improves. It's just gotten worse. The nomenclature mess is caused by the mess in the science. Tiger's no different from all the many thousands of past celebrities who have ended up the same way going back a couple of thousand years and more. "Addicted without a clue." Random recovery; mostly not. But unlike successful areas of medicine that use the scientific method to explain and fix various medical mysteries, the addiction mystery remains because the scientific method is not used but instead uses personal opinion and beliefs without evidence (superstition). Before any progress gets made we need a public debate about the correct science and the correct interpretation of this science that is behind all this behavior. Not more of the lies. Laymen and journalists need to demand such a debate. This will result in a correct theory. We don't need articles like today's asserting opinions and beliefs absent evidence. Only correct theory can result in improvement. This must be our first goal - dump the wrong theories and replace it with the right theory, whatever the valid science shows it to be. We need to do this by having a public debate on the science, not recovering journalists making believe they know what addictions are. Anything other than this is a waste of time, effort, and people. Anything less isolates and injures Tiger and the 30 million other American hypoics. 12/21/09 Re: Use and Misuse of Alcohol and Marijuana Can Be Traced to Common Set of Genes, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091219073005.htm The article states, "In other words," said Hopfer, "the genetic influences on drug use are not specific to individual drugs, but seem to influence a general tendency to engage in drug use. This is important to note because there is a tendency to study drugs in isolation -- alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, etc. These findings add support to the notion of common mechanisms underlying all addictions."   I wonder what this means? Hypoism, what else? So, why not admit it? Not one word about Hypoism in the paper. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ I wrote the book, Hypoic's Handbook, about this disease in 1996. Why not let the public know about it already? 12/21/09 Re: Is sex addiction real?, http://www.salon.com/life/sex/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2009/12/20/sex_addiction This article presents all the manifestations and reasons for why the addiction field, and the media following the addiction field, are such a mess. It takes sex, because of some recent celebrity sex problems (Tiger), and asks whether there is such a thing as sex addiction but never gives the reader a valid answer. I have (see my recent blogs about Tiger). It never even defines addiction or sex, one of the hundred or so addictors, biologically or scientifically. It merely opines, for example, about sex experts such as Patrick Carnes or Drew Pinsky and what they think, "Patrick Carnes, the leading expert in sex addiction, defines it as "any sexually related, compulsive behavior which interferes with normal living and causes severe stress on family, friends, loved ones, and one's work environment," but never shows how this definition is derived or proven scientifically - [back to the old "personalities over principles" argument]. How has he scientifically proven himself to have expertise in the areas of sex and addiction and sex addiction, using the word expertise as it is meant to be used? Consensus is not science. Opinion is not science. In other words, if we dissect the phrase SEX ADDICTION into its component parts, addiction and sex, does this person know what addiction is and does he know what sex is - biologically and scientifically - and how they are addictable? Where's the evidence that they know this? There's no evidence for this in the article or on Carnes web site, http://www.sexhelp.com/index.cfm . Similarly for Pinsky. You'd think there would be a definitive definition of the words addiction and sex on Carnes web site somewhere. There isn't. The reason for this is that he doesn't know what addiction or sex are scientifically. Thus, he doesn't put it in writing. So, how can he be called an expert? Because he says he is. Ha Ha. How does he explain how sex becomes an addiction and in whom? He doesn't. Well, that's the problem in the addiction field and the sex addiction field. No one in these fields knows what these words, either separately or together, mean but they call themselves experts nonetheless. Thus, there is no expertise here. And that is why there is no answer to the question, "Is sex addiction real?" in this article. The people the author asks don't have an answer because they don't now what an addiction is or what sex addiction is. Thus, there's no answer to the question, just a lot of blah blah blah. Symptoms don't make an addiction, pathophysiology (biology) does. But the article does do a good job in biasing the ignorant reader's minds, the minds that don't know what the question itself even means, or what the answer would have to deal with if it were to be a valid answer. What we have here is just basically an advertisement for the experts. Heat but no light. The public gets injured by this. Of course sex addiction is real. Sex addiction is a symptom of the underlying genetic disease, Hypoism, the disease that causes all addictions. There's real science and real pathophysiology behind the word addiction and the phrase sex addiction. If you're interested in knowing the science and physiology behind these words you can read my papers http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ and  http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ and book, Hypoic's Handbook, that scientifically define both of these issues as well as develop a biological addiction paradigm that makes sense out them, how, why, and in whom sex is an addictor, as well as producing a methodology to use them to help sex addicts, and all other addicts. Neither Pinsky nor Carnes knows about this. Sex addiction is real but you have to ask the right people who will demand the right kind of answers from the real experts to get a valid answer about it. Pinsky and Carnes are the wrong people to ask. Tracy Clark-Flory needs to ask me. By the way, the comments to this article reflect the public's similar ignorance and misinterpretation of addictions and addictors although some of them seem to be asking the right questions, the questions the experts are not asking or answering. 12/19/09 Re: Marijuana, Alcohol Addiction May Share Genes, http://www.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=634259 "There is a lot of evidence that if you have trouble with one substance you will have trouble with others," Hopfer said. "Twin data shows that the genetic effects may be across substances." Someday they will add to that list all the behavioral addictions too. The issue is not the drugs nor the addictions but the underlying disease caused by the same genes and the same disease: Hypoism. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ Here's more validation. I've already written the book; thirteen years ago. Ha Ha. I've said this a thousand times. 12/19/09 Re: Bengals owner Brown on Henry: 'He was starting to blossom', http://www.newsweek.com//frameset.aspx/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsportsillustrated.cnn.com%2F2009%2Fwriters%2Fpaul_daugherty%2F12%2F17%2Fhenry%2F%3Fcnn%3Dyes Maybe the sports writers will get it right. Maybe they have the balls to demand the truth. Can they handle it? The article states, "Henry was a reformed man, living his second chance to the fullest. And then he died. The power of redemption is no match for the power of tragedy." "The sleuths will offer a cause of death, clinically. No one will ever be able to say why it had to happen. Cause without reason." Sorry. There is a cause and a reason, and they should have been known long before he died. They were fixable. Still are, but no one wants to know about them or use them. It's the same old story, "Anything but Hypoism." Chris Henry had Hypoism. That was obvious many years ago from his rap sheet listed in the article. The addiction that killed him? People addiction. Otherwise he wouldn't have been on the back of that truck trying to maintain his "relationship" with his drug, his fiancée. Reformed? Obviously not. In today's recovery people are reformed and there is a very high relapse rate. Reformed doesn't work. Recovery must be from the disease you have, not from one that has been invented to fit some goofy stereotype of an addict who needs redemption, reformation, etc. That's the moral disease model. Too bad the actual disease is not a moral disease. It's a biological disease, Hypoism. That's what he had and that's what was always going to kill him unless he got Hypoism recovery. The same disease Tiger has. Different addictions but the same disease. Read my book, Hypoic's Handbook. I've written about Hypoism for 17 years but the addiction experts don't want it so the hypoics don't get it, and they die by the millions. Hypoism's the cause but the reason is the lying about it by the addiction experts. You want to save your athletes? Well, then you have to give them the right disease. Hypoism. The rest is all in my book. 12/18/09 Re: Tiger Woods and the Perils of Modern Celebrity, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/weekinreview/13tanenhaus.html?hpw The problem Tiger Woods faces here is not one of celebrity but one of sex addiction. Not only are all addictions completely misunderstood by the public and the addiction experts, but sex addiction is even more misunderstood than the rest of them. I've been attempting to inform the public against massive censorship about this misunderstanding for 17 years and I can't do it here in 150 words or less. You're going to have to take my word for what I'm saying and then read my book, Hypoic's Handbook, and major Hypoism paper to validate my remarks. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ People are born with Hypoism, the genetic deficiency disease of the brain's reward system that causes all addictions, drugs and behaviors. Unless the hypoic somehow magically learns about his hypoism diagnosis he grows up without knowing about it. The disease makes him behave in a particular way in regards to things that raise his dopamine (reward) activity as all people do except that the reward deficiency makes him do things differently from people with normal reward activity levels - specifically to use reward raisers (addictors) in excess. These reward raisers happen to be certain drugs and all the instincts.  http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ The hypoic does his best to control his behavior in this neurobiological context, but because this brain system is unconscious and very powerful it makes him eventually get addicted to one or more of these "addictors" while he's trying to live an otherwise normal life. This kind of life is exasperatingly difficult and frequently paradoxical at the least. Of course, this is impossible without knowing about the disease, so all hypoics today end up addicted and trying their best to hide their additions. This happens to ordinary hypoics as well as to celebrity hypoics. Thus, their addictions raise their ugly heads out of the blue and the weirdness appears publicly shocking everyone, even the hypoic. And then the mess begins. The hypoic is blamed for the weird behavior. Can you imagine Tiger's surprise? Of course he was in denial. Denial is caused not by the disease but by hypoics not being allowed to be hypoics. He knew as little about his being a hypoic as the rest of us did. What's even worse is that he had no idea what Hypoism was or that it even exists. Nor do the rest of us, except for me and the few other people who know about Hypoism. So, as the mess increased against his will he was forced to cover it up and deny it. But the disease progressed nonetheless until it burst into public reality like a bomb. But it had been there all along without him knowing what was inexorably happening to him and without knowing what to do about it. Therefore it progressed and grew. Had he known about it he could have called me but he didn't. Now, the ignorant media is compounding the problem by forcing him to be a square peg in a round hole, something all hypoics are forced to do by someone, thing, or some administrative branch of government depending on where the bomb explodes. In the meantime, Tiger thinks he's a bad person and needs to be good as well as forgiven. Do diabetics need forgiveness? Please. What's happening to Tiger is all wrong and it's because of the wrong understanding of addictions by the experts and the media following them blindly. The correct understanding, the Hypoism paradigm, fixes this mess, but only if he and the public are allowed to know about it. How about we just let all Hypoics know about their disease so they can as a group do something about it as well as correct their behaviors by the recovery methods required by the disease. This is all explained in my book, Hypoic's Handbook, a book everyone needs to read because everyone has some stake in addictions. Once Hypoism is known to the public this kind of mess never has to happen again because the same recovery methods can be used in youngsters with this disease, many of whom are today wrongly labeled as ADHD, long before they ever encounter an addiction (true addiction prevention). Hypoism can prevent addictions as well as produce recovery based on the actual cause rather than on some superstitious nonsense. Isn't this what we want to happen? Well, it can only happen via the Hypoism paradigm. Let Tiger know about it before he and his family do irreparable harm to themselves. This holds for all other hypoics as well. Our whole country needs to know about it to stop the self-destruction it's undergoing in the name of the drug war. 12/13/09 Re: Mammogram Math , http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/magazine/13Fob-wwln-t.html?ref=magazine Today's article is a lecture about the meaning and purpose of science, ideas that most people never think about. Science is part of the superstition instinct, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/10thesuperstitioninstinct3100/ , the one instinct that separates and differentiates humans from all other species. "One big reason is that people may not like or even understand what scientists say, especially when what they say is complex, counterintuitive or ambiguous." The key word here is counterintuitive. The scientific method is a way of thinking that is used to clarify an observation into truth or falsehood, irrespective of intuition. Just looking at some phenomenon is unable to do this. Science was invented to make this distinction. For example, it appears that the sun goes around the earth and that the earth is the center of the universe. When this is studied using the scientific method it is discovered that the truth is exactly the opposite from the observation - the opposite. Thus, the truth is counterintuitive, the key issue. Our brains, however, are, for the most part, organized to believe our intuition. Beliefs are rewarded by our brain's reward system much stronger than mere knowledge, science. You can blame evolution for this. But, for whatever reason, and like it or not, it's true. This is why people hate science. Beliefs (intuition) feel good while science (counterintuition) doesn't. Science grates at our firmly held beliefs and our brains revolt against this because we believe what feels good. That's how our brains were made by evolution. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/   Thus, today's article about "mammogram math" by a mathematician, a rare breed of thinkers that get high rewards from scientific truth rather than intuition (genetic diversity of the reward mechanism, another thing most people don't think about or even consider). Paulos can write down the mathematical proof of this analysis from now until doomsday and most people alive today will ignore and reject it without reading it. The next generation, with the same brains, will accept this just as they did when it was shown that the earth actually goes around the sun. Eventually the truth (science) wins out, but sometimes, as with evolution and creationism, it takes longer than a generation. In the meantime people continue to get hurt by the false beliefs.   For those of us who are interested in preventing these hurts and are also willing to allow valid science to direct our decision-making ("informed hedonics" from yesterday's email) we need to continue to stand up for valid science, wherever it occurs and in whatever issue. This argument holds for mammograms as it does for global warming as it does for addiction science, my major interest. The issue is the science, not the people; not personalities.   The addiction field has been ruined with millions of addicts injured and killed by this exact issue - biased beliefs and biased intuition warping our thinking and decision-making. The paradigm that has been running the addiction field, the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH), is the intuitive paradigm that has been proven wrong by science over the last 10-20 years, but because of financial and religious bias, remains the ruling paradigm despite it not working to solve the addiction epidemic or even any one of a hundred or so issues raised by the addiction epidemic. The HBH is both dead wrong, scientifically, and ineffective, but remains the ruling paradigm nonetheless. As Paulos puts it, "Whatever the role of these biases, the bottom line is that the new recommendations are evidence-based. This doesn’t mean other right-thinking people would necessarily come to the same judgments. To oppose the recommendations, however, requires facts and argument, not invective."   Now, I raise the issue and I put forth my facts and argument in my book, Hypoic's Handbook, and my paper,  http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . The Hypoism paradigm is diametrically opposite to the HBH in all aspects. I show how the validly disproven HBH is killing and maiming millions of people each year in just the United States and that the scientifically correct theory, a theory I call Hypoism for good reasons, will, if used, cure the addiction epidemic. I've been doing this, writing the Times about this, for 17 years, fact after fact. Many of the letters are on my web site starting in 1995. However, the Times has yet to publish one of these letters or do a story about this murderous mess. Thus, the biased and destructive HBH continues to rule the field of addictions while the public remains ignorant and misinformed about all of this. It's way past time for the science of addiction causation to be known by the public so they can make decisions on it they need to make to save their kids. 12/12/09 Re: Woods Says He’ll Take ‘Indefinite Break’ From Golf, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/sports/golf/12woods.html?_r=1&hp Every so often we get the gigantic opportunity to showcase Hypoism as the major league paradox it is when a super-celebrity hypoic turns up out of the blue. Bill Clinton was one of these. The Kennedy family was one such opportunity. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/13thekennedycurseorkennedyhypoism/ They still are if they ever decide to be. Too bad they have allowed their opportunities to slip by. Today we have, incredibly enough, Tiger woods. What a boost for Hypoism acknowledgement it would be if Tiger became the poster child for Hypoism and actually used this paradigm to find his reality and recovery rather than having to be the best golfer, the best father, the best husband, the best whatever; whatever they want him to be rather than what he is - his need to be forgiven. “After much soul searching, I have decided to take an indefinite break from professional golf,” the statement continued. “I need to focus my attention on being a better husband, father, and person.” He can't do what is best for him and his family without knowing about Hypoism, the addiction paradigm that has been censored by the addiction establishment for their own conflicted reasons. Everyone is still making this debacle a moral issue rather than the biological one that it is. Hypoism is defined as the genetic deficiency disease of the reward system that makes the hypoic search out and use an addictor to change how he feels against his will. An addictor is a drug, behavior, belief, or person that raises the reward system activity. The major symptoms of this disease are addictions and decision-making and evaluation disasters. I wrote my first paper on this disease in 1992. This paper has evolved into Hypoism Hypothesis: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . My 1996 book, Hypoic's Handbook, defines the entire paradigm including the derivation of real prevention, recovery methods and changes in public policies that use the Hypoism theory to effectively deal with the addiction epidemic. Wouldn't it be something if tiger was allowed to know about Hypoism, use it, and in doing so help all the other 30 million hypoics of this country to do the same? Now that would be a real major victory. 12/11/09 Re: Red Mind, Blue Mind, http://www.newsweek.com/id/226324 Begley recently wrote a piece called, It’s in Our Genes. So What? Essentially, this article minimized the significance of the behavioral effects of various genetic alleles of various genes. Read that. Now she explains how political ideology is based on genetic traits; traits with high heritability. The issue here is whether humans have free-will in regards to a whole range of decisions or to what degree are their opinions and beliefs determined by genetic traits. The science behind this issue is clear: Like it or not, opinions and beliefs are strongly influenced, predictably, by behavioral genetics. This includes political opinions and beliefs. I wrote about this in my 1996 book on addiction causation as it relates to ability of people to change their opinions and beliefs about addiction issues based on new valid science. See: Table 1. Addiction Attitudes. Informed Hedonic, Uninformed Hedonic, and Agonic. These categories have the same effects on any issue. The two categories, hedonic (what she calls blue) and agonic (what she calls red), are genetically-derived social instincts defined and discussed in the book. UNINFORMED HEDONIC Liberal Attitudes INFORMED HEDONIC Spiritual Attitudes AGONIC Conservative Attitudes Instinctive Anti or Counter-Instinctive Instinctive Psychological/superstitious model Medical Disease model Religious/superstitious/moral model Psychological (pseudoscience+superstition) model of human nature. Societal Denial Scientific model of human nature. Realistic Superstitious model of human nature. Societal Denial Believes what he thinks he knows. Mistakes belief for knowledge and refuses to admit it. Truth is valued. Knows what he knows. Knows what he doesn’t know and admits it freely. Truth is valued. Believes what he believes absolutely. Never admits doubt. Truth is relative and not valued. Lies are highly valued. Unintentionally blames the victim. Rationalizes. Accepts the victim. Values reality. Intentionally blames the victim. Obfuscates. You and I can change. Change your thinking, change yourself into what you want, or should be, or wish you were (pride). Judgmental. You and I don’t need to change. Know your thinking. Know what you are (humility). Accept and love it. Non-judgmental. You must change. Avoids and denies the problem. I’m already what I want to be and I’m right (pride). Judge, jury and executioner. Thinks he is powerful, capable of changing himself, lives in fantasy of self-invention. Knows he is powerless (realistic). Believes he is powerful (deluded). Psychological orientation: Always asks why, then wants people to change when they find out why. Spiritual orientation: Doesn’t ask why, knows what he is. Accepting and tolerant. Knows why: Because he says so. Damaging and punitive. Can handle it if I can only find out why. Can’t handle it. Doesn’t have to handle it. Supports psychotherapy and chemotherapy. Knows and accepts reality. Lives recovery. Mandates psychotherapy, chemotherapy, and eugenics. Psychological delusion leads to anxiety and depression. Self-knowledge leads to acceptance and serenity. Delusion leads to blame, hate, and medical, religious, physical and intellectual violence. Searching: “Why me?” Acceptance: “Why not me?” Deluded: “Not me, you” Thinks problem is psychological (why) and attempts to get rid of it. Acknowledges guilt. Realizes problem is inside self, accepts it, and takes responsibility for it. No guilt. Knows can’t get rid of it. Problem is outside self and blames the victim. Insists on guilt and punishment. In pain; tries to get rid of it. Accepts pain. Denies pain. Rationalization: “What can I do?” Resigned. Realization: “We can do it.” Acceptance. Justification: “Make them do it!” Liberalization: Tries to cloak bigotry with pseudo-tolerance and “being nice.” We will help these poor people (right into their graves). Realization and Tolerance. Knows he’s a bigot and xenophobic. Accepts it and doesn’t act it out. Denies xenophobia by thinking he’s right: Intellectual rationalization and justification. Punishment and abuse of victim. “I’m not a bigot. Addicts, niggers, and Jews are scum, inferior, and bad.” Lost Free Enchained, rigid, robotic, convinced. Confused Open-minded Self-righteous Judges self, self-guilt, self-punishment. Accepts, loves, and helps. Judges others. Hate and punishment of others. Politically liberal Extrapolitical Politically conservative Does the wrong thing for the wrong reason (guilt, xenophobia, and self-righteousness). Is inadvertently hurtful through own guilt feelings. Does the right thing for the right reasons; whether he fails or succeeds doesn’t matter. He has acted with integrity.  Never hurtful, always loving. Does the wrong thing for the wrong reason (hate, xenophobia, and self-righteousness). Not only fails or worsens the problem but hurts people in the process. ENABLER  (DAMAGER) HEALER DAMAGER 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

12/07/09

Re: Addiction on 2 Fronts: Work and Home, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/science/08prof.html?_r=1&hpw

What'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.full

12/04/09

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, 10/3/97 - The current version is the HBH] and remains so despite having recently helped prove Hypoism correct with this study of hers: Evaluating Dopamine Reward Pathway in ADHD, by Volkow and Wang, et al., JAMA.  2009; 302(10):1084-1091. The HBH has been the standard theory in addictions for millennia in one form or another; blaming addiction causation on the addictive drugs and the addicts rather than the underlying genetic brain disease discovered in 1992.  Because she's in control of all the American money for addiction research she and her pet theory basically determine everything done in this country on addictions. The rest of the field follows her blindly out of fear of retaliation as does the media which has put her on an undeserved pedestal. The problem is that though the HBH has been proven wrong (see Hypoism Hypothesis paper), it still has a strangle hold on determining prevention and recovery methods as well as public policy, e.g. the drug war, due to Volkow's bias. There is no public debate of this science or its practical implications. The only debate on this issue is my unknown addiction blog linked at the top of this email. Thus, the public is unaware of this controversy, maintaining the addiction epidemic due to a faulty theory. Volkow is well aware of Hypoism because I gave a lecture on it in 2000 at Brookhaven Labs medical conference, her previous employer. I was invited by her previous right-hand man, Jack Wang, who is the Brookhaven Labs chief now. Because of this authoritarian monopoly by Volkow, the addiction epidemic remains in full force and continues to injure many thousands of addicts and their families as well as cause a massive economic and monetary waste estimated at 500 billion a year all tolled. Only the correct theory can reverse this disaster. This can never happen because it is being censored by Volkow who demonstrates most of the traits of the "double high" authoritarian in dealing with this issue.

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

Re: Statement on the politicization of evidence-based clinical research, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-11/acop-sot112409.php Below is supposed to be our unbiased governmental analysis of various medical problems based on "evidence." I chose the only ones they had evaluated on drugs and alcohol. Evaluate them (their validity) for yourself. I don't think they provide valid proof of preventive and treatment efficacy. Of course, they don't say they do. Ha Ha. Very honest of them. So, why does the government say the opposite? It looks like they are saying our country needs better prevention and treatment methods for drugs and alcohol. Too bad they don't mention why that is - that the theory behind it all is wrong and that we need a paradigm change, and what that change might be. Why do they leave this out? Would you say this area of medicine is being politicized or just biased or maybe just whitewashed or maybe just a bunch of lies? Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2009

Recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Preventive_Services_Task_Force#cite_note-1

Recommendation Statement

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)

• The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) makes recommendations about preventive care services for patients without recognized signs or symptoms of the target condition.
• It bases its recommendations on a systematic review of the evidence of the benefits and harms and an assessment of the net benefit of the service.
• The USPSTF recognizes that clinical or policy decisions involve more considerations than this body of evidence alone.  Clinicians and policymakers should understand the evidence but individualize decisionmaking to the specific patient or situation.

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 c