|
The Addiction Blog Current Letters to Editors 5/16/09 - 7/22/09 Send me your comments. If they're helpful I will post them under the emails. 7/22/09 Re: Gene Variations Can Be Barometer Of Behavior, Choices, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090720134242.htm "These genes affect dopamine processes in the basal ganglia portion of the brain. Frank said this is important for “simple reinforcement of learning processes that you might not even be aware of.” Genetic variations (alleles) of brain dopamine genes affecting "voluntary" choices unconsciously. Choices aren't conscious? Ha Ha. Maybe someone needs to read my book where I posit this as the basis for addictor decision-making and the pathophysiology of addictions. And a whole paradigm is formed. The reason these guys can say these things is that they aren't funded by the addictionology field. They haven't been bought off. I think this means something. Oh, right. It's just the scientific basis of Hypoism, that's all. And, of course, it's the basis of why the hijacked brain hypothesis is wrong from the outset. But, of course, how's it possible that Umanoff predicted this 17 years ago? Dumb luck? Whatever the reason, this stuff supports Hypoism and Hypoism genetically-based (genetic diversity) brain decision-making mechanisms. Of course it wasn't dumb luck. It's how everything in the body works, not just the brain. But why doesn't everyone know and accept this? Why wasn't Hypoism invented by a real expert? Bias against it, that's all. Non-professional non-scientific bias. But how did these non-professional biased scientists end up in charge of the field of addictions? Biased governmental authorities appointed them. They didn't earn these jobs. They were appointed to them by similarly biased politicians. That doesn't make them valid experts though, right? Right. So, why are they called experts? Duh. But how do they control the field? Money. They control the money. Get it yet? Money controls the integrity of the field of addictionology. Ha Ha. NIDA has the money and they buy off the integrity of the rest of the field. This is not about science. It's about people being and their integrity being bought and paid for and controlled while the public is bamboozled and screwed. and, of course, the media goes right along with it. Except these guys slipped through and got the truth out there. Good for them. 7/22/09 Re: What to Do With Drivers on the Phone, http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/what-to-do-with-drivers-on-the-phone/ Many years ago the NEJM published a study showing cell phone users were just as impaired while driving as drunks. This information is not new and not unknown. So, don't give me this, "We just didn't know. They lied to us," excuse. It is well known and nothing has been done about it. This is all about addict discrimination, nothing else. And addicts, especially recovering addicts, are responsible for maintaining it as I discuss below. Drunk drivers get harsh punishments particularly if someone dies while cell phone users and anyone else, for any other reason, don't. The odds are you were impaired by something if you killed someone with your car. Car accidents are not accidental. Maybe it was your recent breakup or the death of a family member. Maybe you were putting on your makeup on the way to work. What difference does it make? I personally don't see the difference between the two. Killing someone with your car should be treated the same way irrespective of your blood alcohol level. You shouldn't be driving no matter what is impairing your concentration. Similarly for doctors who cut off the wrong leg or any leg, for that matter, from the wrong person. But it isn't. Addicted doctors are treated like mass murderers even if they never injured a single patient while non-addicted doctors can repeatedly injure patients and just get slaps on the wrist. God forbid you should do anything to another person while drunk. You're going away for a long time while you get no punishment if you weren't drunk. In fact, you're screwed many times even if you did nothing other than be addicted. Being addicted is the worst thing you can be, so you deserve being punished for it even if you did nothing else. Addicts are punished severely for even minor offenses compared to the same offenses done sober. They are punished severely for doing the same things sober people do routinely. Why is this and why is this OK with all of us? And why do addicts, especially recovering ones, go along with this? Because addiction is seen as a conscious and willful decision and an anti-social one at that, even by addicts themselves. Driving, or anything else, while addicted is seen as 100% preventable because it is willful, while doing the same thing sober is 100% not preventable. The diabetic that gets hypoglycemic while driving and kills someone is not seen the same way because no one believes having diabetes is willful misconduct, so they get off scot-free. It's always been this way. And whatever you do while being addicted is seen as purposeful and intentional as well, unless it's something good. Then it was just dumb luck. Doing something good while addicted gets no credit. There's no excuse for being addicted under today's addiction paradigm and don't tell me otherwise! That's why people, even addicts themselves, hate Hypoism so much. Hypoism makes addictions symptoms of a real "against your will" genetic disease, just like hypoglycemia is a symptom of the treatment of a real "against your will" disease . Even if it's scientifically correct we will have nothing to do with Hypoism because it gives addicts an excuse and that's unconscionable; impossible. Diabetics can have their excuses because they deserve them but addicts can't because they don't. Addiction is their fault, period, no matter what the science shows. And the real science does show that. That's why NIDA is allowed by the public and the media to lie about the science of addiction causation. Their paradigm may be wrong but it allows us to continue to hate and punish addicts, something more important than the correct understanding of addiction. Even if Hypoism solves the addiction mess we can't have anything to do with because it "lets addicts off the hook." We can't let addicts off the hook even if Hypoism completely solves the addiction epidemic and ends addictions; even if it ends DUIs altogether which it would. We would rather have addictions and all their dire consequences rather than the solution to them just so we can keep blaming and punishing addicts. We would rather sacrifice our kid's lives than allow Hypoism to be known and used. Now that's some real hatred. In fact, even addicts believe this. AA, for example, hates Hypoism as much as or even more than anyone else even though it saves them and their doomed families. They believe the same wrong things about the nature of addictions as everyone else and act on these beliefs the same way too. That's the best evidence for addicts being irrationally hated than any other I can think of. They hate themselves even more than do non-addicts. And that's why nothing about addict discrimination is changing. Addicts say they want to destigmatize addictions but they really don't. Otherwise they'd be supporting Hypoism like mad. But they're not. Addicts hate addicts as much as everyone else. This is unbelievable to me but true. It's the only explanation for their not learning about and supporting Hypoism. Addict hatred and discrimination will continue until addicts stop hating themselves and believing their own willful guilt through the correct understanding of their own disease. 7/21/09 Re: U.S. Withheld Data on Risks of Distracted Driving, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/technology/21distracted.html?hp When Umanoff says the government (NIDA) has been lying about the scientific basis of the current addiction paradigm, Umanoff is told the government doesn't lie. They don't say, "Let's look at what Umanoff is talking about. Maybe this can help a few (million) people." This is similar to other whistleblowers being ignored by the government or the media. Well, here's [another] instance of the government lying for no rational reason, just about money - haha. And this lie has only killed a few thousand innocent people where NIDA's lies have killed millions besides ruining the lives of hundreds of millions of families over the last 14 years I've been writing about this stuff - and wasting 500 billion dollars a year as well. Now, is anyone going to look into this now that we know the government does lie? 7/21/09 Re: When Weight Is the Issue, Doctors Struggle Too , http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/health/21klas.html?_r=1 I'm surprised they, the fat doctor and her expert advisors, didn't talk about child and sexual abuse as the cause of obesity. That's the rave. Maybe the good doctor could share her story about her sexual abuse by her parents with her patients, if that were, in fact, true; or maybe all the other psychobabble nonsense coming from psychology and psychiatry about the environmental causes of obesity. The Times love that crap. I wonder why it wasn't the major part of the article. On the other hand, we also don't see mentioned that obesity is about 80% (if not totally) genetic and environment has essentially nothing to do with obesity causation except that it makes the fattening food available; available, not causal. I loved seeing this article not present the hypocrisy of how they approach addictions in themselves versus their patients. Are they two different diseases? Doctor addictions being one nicey nicey disease while patient addictions being another altogether different "badness" or "personal failure" or "defective character" disease derived from parental abuse and neglect. The paternalism of all this is sickening. How is it at all real that a non-recovering doctor addict even has the right to say anything about her addiction to anyone no less their patients as the Times makes it seem right in this article? In fact, we see addicts in articles like this opine daily on the nature of their disease when we don't do likewise for patients with diabetes or other complex diseases. "Well Mrs. Jones, what do you think is the cause of your Rheumatoid Arthritis? You've had it for 30 years. You certainly should know by now." Being a patient with a disease doesn't make one automatically knowledgeable about the basis of the disease or knowledgeable about anything about the disease. Why do addicts in rehabs get interviewed about their addictions when, in fact, they are totally clueless about the cause of addictions? Why is it any different for a non-recovering doctor addict and even an ordinary doctor for that matter when the reality is that essentially no one knows anything about addictions whether they're a doctor, a patient, or just anyone on any street corner getting interviewed? These same people don't get interviewed about the scientific basis of any other disease. Why is this so different for addictions? Because the cause of addictions can be known by merely having an addiction or knowing someone with an addiction? This is nonsense and articles based on this nonsense are misinforming the public daily. The funny thing about all this is that ASAM, the organization of medical addictionologists that run addiction medicine in this country, has its basis in this same exact nonsensical misbelief. These guys got together one day at a recovery meeting and said to themselves, "Well, we're addicts and we got clean and sober, so that makes us experts on addictions and we should be in charge. We will call ourselves ASAM, write a book, make up a test, and credential all other addiction specialists. Who's going to know better?" No other medical specialty was established this way. All other subspecialty organizations are based on actual expertise, not merely just having experience with having the disease, and therefore pronouncing, "We're the experts." Expertise is based on verifiable knowledge and the use of this knowledge to help people with the particular disease in special ways no one else is capable of because they don't have this specialized knowledge. How has ASAM done this, by just saying it? There's no expertise in the field of addictions. I was a member of ASAM long ago for the main reason of establishing paradigmatic and legal precedents to be able to advocate for addicts from the medical point of view, theoretically a compassionate and knowledgeable point of view, things that didn't then and still don't exist. I sent them two copies of my book, Hypoic's Handbook, to begin this process [As it turns out my book's concepts are for the most part accepted today as reality although the public doesn't know it exists. Behavioral addictions are seen as true addictions and the HBH has been disproven.] The next thing I knew I was kicked out of ASAM because (the real reason) I had the stupidity to say and actually show that addictive "behaviors" were addictors physiologically equivalent to drugs, true addictions. ASAM's "position" was that only drugs (not behaviors) were true addictors and were the cause of their addictions (the hijacked brain hypothesis - HBH) and that there was a genetic disease behind all addictions, the same disease for behaviors as for drugs. And, there were important implications on prevention, recovery, and public policies derived from this paradigm. This disease was to be the (my) medical basis of the needed paradigmatic and medical/legal precedent changes required to save addicts and their families from their disease and from the cruel and damaging drug war, the war ASAM's [scientifically disproven] paradigm, the HBH, started and maintained. Well, you all know the outcome of this. [My book was heresy to ASAM even though they never read it or debated the science with me, something they still need to do.] The HBH and the drug war are still the ruling paradigm, killing a million addicts a year and filling the jails with addicts across the country; ruining millions of families as well. ASAM, along with NIDA, is the medical specialty organization responsible for the medical justification of this medical/legal paradigm/policy. Somehow this organization with the help of NIDA, and vice versa, has convinced the public and the government their medical paradigm and legal positions are in the best interest of addicts and their families. This is no different from Dr. Klass telling her fat patients what to do about their obesity. They get screwed. And the Times supports all this with this ridiculous article and all their other similar articles I've written about since 1995. It's all bullshit and the reason the addiction epidemic grows each day. Can't someone from the medical community just say honestly that they know nothing about obesity and other addictions so the public will know to keep looking for the right paradigm and remain open minded about policies? Of course not. They can't do this, because if they did they'd be admitting to having lied all these years about the expertise which they don't have. Wouldn't that be a shame. Someone, however, needs to tell this to the public. Ho Hum. 7/20/09 Re: Why we say yes to drugs, http://www.salon.com/books/review/2009/07/20/this_is_your_country_on_drugs/index.html The article states, “Grim thinks that D.A.R.E. and similarly wasteful programs persist simply because they relieve parents from the duty of having awkward (and possibly "hypocritical") conversations with their kids about drugs. ALSO BECAUSE NO ONE KNOWS WHAT ELSE TO DO.” The capitalized sentence summarizes the problem except for one thing: I wrote the book about all this in 1996 and I know what to do to solve this mess. The book, Hypoic’s Handbook, clearly delineates the addiction problem and its solution. The problem is that you don’t like it, and that’s without even reading it. Sorry. But that’s no excuse. The solution has existed for 13 years. You have chosen not to read or use it. My book (and my web site for the updated science since 1996 - http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/) explains why people use drugs and other addictors, why only certain people get addicted, the brain mechanism and genetics responsible for this, and how to use this information to solve the addiction epidemic and all its consequences. I have a web site dedicated to this paradigm and have written thousands of letters and comments about this paradigm (such as this one) to people supposedly interested in solving this mess. I’ve sent them my book for free, something I won’t do anymore because they just throw it in the garbage unread. I’ve even written salon.com about it. Now the author says “no one knows what else to do.” ???? Wow. Sorry. I don’t buy that. I’ve been telling people about what we can do and why since 1992. I’ve been ignored and censored. People may not know what to do but simultaneously they don’t want the solution because the solution, as I have handed it to them on a silver platter, isn’t what they want it to be. They don’t want the solution. My book, Hypoic’s Handbook, explains the science-based theory of drug use and addiction and it’s just not what people want it to be so they throw it away. People want the solution to be their theory of addiction plus their policies about addictions, even if it’s wrong and ineffective. They don’t want it to be the actual and correct theory of addiction and the potentially effective policies derived from that theory. Well, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. The solution to the addiction epidemic and its consequences just happens to be the actual theory of addiction causation, what I have named Hypoism, and the policies derived from that theory, like it or not. That just happens to be reality, just like the earth going around the sun, not the sun going around the earth. The answer to the addiction mess is here and is in writing for all to read and use. All you need to do is read it and use it. It’s otherwise absolutely free, as long as the government pays for what we need it to pay for, the infrastructure. Anyway, it’s all explained in the book. Your choice is whether to read it or not, but don’t say it doesn’t exist. It exists and is as real as real can be. The web site is: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism. 7/20/09 Re: Marijuana Is Legal, Will Addiction Rise? http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/if-marijuana-is-legal-will-addiction-rise/#comment-108367 [I submitted this comment to the comments section of the article. Let's see if they censor it.] You can see that none of these experts has learned anything in the last fifteen years of my writing about addictions. The question isn’t whether marijuana addiction will increase if it is legalized but whether the number of addicts will increase. In the last 10-15 years we have learned something new that these experts for some unknown reason don’t know. Instead of the usual assumption, stance, and belief that “anyone can get addicted,” as the current paradigm wrongly states, we can change this to “only people with the genetic disease that causes addictions, Hypoism, can get addicted.” That’s 10-15% of the population. Also, all hypoics, for the most part, will get addicted to something (due to the inexorable nature of the disease). Then, under this new paradigm, the question becomes will numbers of addicted people increase if marijuana is legalized? The answer has to be no. But they will get addicted to different addictors such as marijuana instead of something else like alcohol, or to both alcohol and marijuana, or, to pot instead of a hundred other addictors. There would be 101 legal addictors instead of just 100. Looking at the issue this way, nothing changes except to what the particular hypoic gets addicted. Under the Hypoism paradigm I don’t differentiate different addictions from one or another. They are all dangerous to the hypoic and therefore our emphasis should not be on specific addictions and addictors but on the disease, Hypoism, that causes all addictions. What I’ve been calling for is the introduction to the public of the disease of Hypoism, the correct addiction paradigm, so they know what they’re dealing with to begin with, followed by the development of the Hypoism paradigm recovery methodology across the country to begin Hypoism addiction prevention and recovery programs. Hypoics can go into recovery at an early age, long before they ever have contact with addictors of all kinds. This is true prevention and can happen on a massive scale. Likewise for addictions that get past the prevention methods. This program and its theoretical basis are discussed in my book about Hypoism, the science and the policies, Hypoic’s Handbook. Putting this paradigm into effect changes everything for the first time in the history of addictions. It allows the public to know about the real disease that causes addictions and how it works. It puts into effect, finally, the methodology dictated by this theory for addiction prevention and recovery and ends the addiction epidemic, for all addictions (behavioral and others), not just drugs. It allows for a rational basis for all addiction related policies. Irrespective of what policies are put into effect, but I expect Hypoism policies to be put into effect, changing paradigms solves the addiction epidemic. Chasing drugs and addicts (continuing the illegality of drug and many behavioral addictions, except for a few addictions that impinge on other people such as pedophilia, rape, crime, and violence addictions) is just not part of this paradigm because there’s no need for it. Interpersonal addictions must remain illegal, but they will also decrease very significantly because of the paradigm change. The recovery methodology takes care of them too. However, if Hypoism derived policies as listed in my book are used they will put an end to the drug cartels because they will go out of business – the government will safely supply drugs to registered addicts in ways that prevent damage to addicts. Addicts will have no need to get their drugs from the cartels. If this paradigm change does not occur, however, it won’t matter what policy changes are made, the addiction epidemic will continue unabated. That's up to you. 7/19/09Re: Attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder and reward deficiency syndrome Blum, K. et al, Attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder and reward deficiency syndrome, Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2008 Oct;4(5):893-918 Everyone interested in addictions needs to read this paper in conjunction with this email and my book, Hypoic's Handbook. That's why I included a copy of the paper with this email. I will also put a link to it in my web site blog, adhd and reward deficiency syndrome - hypoism.pdf Except for the deficiencies of the stated theory, Reward Deficiency Syndrome, this paper is an excellent discussion of Hypoism. Ignore these delineated theory deficiencies and you have an excellent discussion of Hypoism. In October of 2008 I was in the hospital getting my back operated on and missed the publication of this paper. Better late than never. Apparently a lot of people missed this paper because no one told me about it. For some unknown reason, ha ha, Ken Blum, the lead author, didn't notify me about the paper coming out nor did he reference Hypoism in the paper. Why should he? Hypoism is the last thing Blum wants anyone to know about. Well, in 1993 I sent Blum a copy of my paper, "Hypoism - A Real Disease," the same paper rejected by 12 addiction journals for non-scientific reasons although acknowledged by one of its honest editors, an addiction journal somewhere in a some Texas state university, as a correct and important hypothesis that should have been published, the paper that has evolved over the years into "The Hypoism Hypothesis," http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . This view was corroborated by Eliot Gardner, M.D., a world renowned addiction scientist currently at NIDA, in his email to me after reading my book on Hypoism in 1998 which said, "I think you know (from previous exchanges between us) that I have been - and continue to be - receptive to your concept. I think it has much merit as I have said previously." As you all know, none of my papers on Hypoism has ever been published but the addictionology community knows about them and my book but has ignored and censored them because of their conflicts of interest, making money off the wrong theory of addiction causation, the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH), maintaining the drug war which is based on the principles of this wrong theory, and irreparably harming millions of addicts and their families. You all know about this because I've written you about it since 1995. These letters are on my web site in several locations. Of course, all these letters to the editor have been ignored and censored as in order to maintain the HBH and other wrong and ineffective theories such as Blum's Reward Deficiency Syndrome for the same conflicts of interest. We all know the outcome of this censorship. The addiction epidemic is still out of control and the drug war remains intact despite its infinitely harmful consequences, except, of course, to the addictionology experts who thrive from this censorship. I've written hundreds of letters saying that adhd is part of Hypoism and the science behind this claim much like today's paper except this paper uses the Reward Deficiency syndrome instead of the Hypoism theory. I've written much about the scientific critique of the Reward Deficiency Syndrome. In fact, I reserved much space in my 1996 book, Hypoism Hypothesis, criticizing this theory because it, in its original presentation, was just about one gene and its low activity allele, the A1 allele of the dopamine D2 receptor and the because of the theory's absence of the brain mechanism where this allele does its damage (the instinct regulating apparatus). As you can see now, Blum has expanded his theory to include many other genes and their low activity alleles, exactly what I said was necessary in my book's critique. But his papers get published while mine don't. The reason for this as I've said many times before is that he has a drug company making pills to treat addictions based on this theory despite their never having been shown to work, except by anecdote and "testimonials." Because these drugs are "nutritional supplements" they don't fall under the aegis of the FDA! Thus, they are not regulated as real drugs have to be and the claims made about them don't have to be scientifically valid. This is a major deficiency of the FDA and the laws of its establishment. Despite all this, a lot of the scientific backing of the Reward Deficiency Syndrome, especially his revised version which now includes many genes (polygenetic) rather than just his one pet gene, are correct and therefore should be read to understand the real disease, Hypoism. In fact, his current version of the reward deficiency syndrome is almost exactly the same as Hypoism, giving even more support for Hypoism as the correct addiction causation theory. Of course, he leaves out the instinct regulating apparatus, the decision-making apparatus, the FOKS, and the evolutionary reasons for these brain machines, which are the basis of the Hypoism theory and the things that make Hypoism real (genes don't work in a vacuum). These brain machines are the basis of Hypoism prevention, recovery, and public policies, and are therefore quite important besides their being the real pathophysiology. Thus, except for his theory's deficiencies, the Reward Deficiency Theory is Hypoism except that Hypoism is the complete theory. And, of course, as I've said many times in the past, ADHD is part of Hypoism. This paper discusses this in detail and is a good discussion of this point. You should all read this paper many times and use it to in conjunction with Hypoic's Handbook's theory and prevention and recovery methods. Hypoism was discovered by me in 1992 (synthesized from the existing addiction science available at that time which included Blum's work). Because my papers about it have been censored no one knows about Hypoism. Daily it is being proved correct (as today's paper does) but is still ignored and censored, in my opinion because the outcomes of it are not what the addiction community wants. That's a fraudulent reason for censorship, however. In fact, there is no good reason for censorship but one thing is certain, that unless this censorship is stopped the addiction epidemic will continue to grow. Today's paper on the reward deficiency syndrome is a good discussion of and proof of Hypoism, and it should be used as such so we can move on to dump the bogus hijacked brain hypothesis and replace it with Hypoism and Hypoism's prevention, recovery, and public policies, exactly what we need to end the addiction epidemic. The reward deficiency syndrome, because of its scientific deficiencies, will not suffice. 7/16/09 Re: NY hospital warns of possible hepatitis risk, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31940883/ns/health-infectious_diseases/ This is just some of the crap we have to put up with under today's wrong addiction paradigm. I've already written about all this in stories about the dead kids. Do we need more of this? Is it time we do something about this nonsense? That over 6000 people can be at risk of Hepatitis from the behavior of this addict should make people take a look at our addiction policies and our addiction theory because the addiction theory dictates policies and policies dictate behaviors, like it or not. In other words, how has our addiction theory caused the policies that caused this disaster, do we acknowledge this and take responsibility for it, and is there anything we can do to prevent it from happening again? Or, do we just blame the addict, punish her, and learn nothing, ensuring the repetition of this mess? Of course, you all say, this wasn't caused by any theory. It was caused by a person, an evil person. It's just that simple. But that's just wrong and stupid. There's no way in the world that this nurse set out to give hepatitis to 6000 people. There's no way she set out to be an addict. In fact, I've been writing about this kind of thing happening as the result of our using the wrong addiction theory since 1992 when I wrote my first paper on the correct theory of addiction causation and why we need to replace the current theory with it. The current theory of addiction causation, the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH), says addiction is caused by the drug's effect on the brain, anyone's brain, after a person voluntarily uses it. According to the HBH, addiction is bad and therefore the addict is bad because addiction is self-induced by a willful bad behavior. Thus the HBH insists on the criminal model for addiction policy-making. The addict is a criminal and is treated like one. Likewise for the demonized drugs. Thus, we have the automatic policies derived from this theory that make up we know as the drug war. Theory dictates policy. Now, what's a person who finds themselves addicted do, turn himself in knowing he/she's going to be treated like a criminal and face all kinds of punishments and losses? For whatever reason, most addicts do not do this. They go underground and do whatever they can to not get caught. This is standard behavior under this paradigm. Everyone says to turn yourself in but this just doesn't happen. Eventually, many addicts find they can't keep this up because things go wrong in many ways and go for treatment, many don't. But in the meantime many bad things happen to these addicts and to people they have contact with. This is the nature of addiction under the HBH. This is what happened to Parker. This is what happened to Michael Jackson and millions more addicts. The HBH demands and dictates this. I've written about these consequences thousands of times but we continue to insist on believing and using the HBH and its policies despite these disasters. If the HBH were scientifically correct, well, we would have to deal with these consequences. What else could we do? We'd have to live with these disasters. But, it turns out that the HBH is scientifically wrong. Addiction is not caused by drugs (or other addictors) but by an underlying genetic brain disease, Hypoism, that makes the hypoic seek out and use addictive drugs and behaviors (addictors) involuntarily according to the dictates of the instinct regulating mechanism altered by hypoic genetic alleles. This is why only certain people get addicted after using addictors, not anyone. In fact, only a small percentage of people who use any addictor actually end up addicted. This theory, Hypoism, and the science backing it are discussed in my paper, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . This paper also shows the scientific disproof of the HBH. The instinct regulating apparatus and how it works inexorably is discussed here: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ Thus, the HBH is not correct and its policies and their consequences are not inevitable. Instead, Hypoism is the correct theory and allows us to use the policies derived from this theory to deal with addictions, addictors, and addicts. It turns out that this theory and its policies are diametrically opposite to those of the HBH and addictions are seen as medical issues, not crimes. Addicts are seen as patients, not criminals. Drugs are seen as inanimate objects, not evil. And they aren't the cause of addictions, Hypoism is. Thus, under the Hypoism paradigm, all we need to do is help hypoics deal with their Hypoism and everything else takes care of itself, exactly like any real genetic disease should do, the complete opposite to today's micromanaged and criminalized situation. Under Hypoism there is no punishment or things taken away from addicts. In fact, addicts are allowed to be addicts and given their drugs under controlled and healthy environments, if they choose - real harm reduction. They can go into treatment and recovery at any time and for free. This policy ends the drug cartels which go out of business under Hypoism because addicts can get their drugs safely from the government. Moreover, under the Hypoism paradigm, they are actually protected from discrimination and stigmatization so they don't have to go underground and therefore can go into recovery very early, even before they ever get addicted, true addiction prevention. This reduces to an absolute minimum the consequences of addictions, things that are maximized today, as in today's case. Everything we hate about addictions, crime, destructive behavior, and spread of disease, under the HBH (and caused by the HBH) is ended under Hypoism as it should be because Hypoism is the correct addiction theory. Correct theory results in correct (effective) and healthy policies. So, it's not this addict that caused all this disastrous stuff but the HBH and the people pushing this fraudulent theory on us. Under Hypoism none of this happens because the addict doesn't have to get her drugs illegally or secretively nor hide her addicted behavior from anyone. Moreover, addicts can go into recovery very early in the course of the disease (even before addictions occur - true prevention) without facing any repercussions from which they are protected by law, future law that is, when Hypoism finally goes into effect. 7/16/09 Re: Evil Spirits , http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/opinion/16abourezk.html This is a very peculiar article and one that I applaud. It's an article that proves and utilizes one particular theory of addiction causation, Hypoism, a theory that has been censored by the Times since 1995, the date of my first letter to the Times about Hypoism. Without going into the science of addiction causation at all, not a single mention, the article clearly acknowledges this censored issue that I've been writing about since 1992, that addictions are caused by genetics (the genetic disease of Hypoism), not environment, psychobabble, or even evil spirits. The peculiar thing is that this censored theory gets published without it being named, mentioned, or explained, just utilized. It has done something that I have failed to accomplish since 1995, getting the theory introduced to the Times readership that some people have a high genetic susceptibility to addiction and thus need to be protected from addictors such as alcohol. And it does all this without even mentioning it, just acknowledging it. The problem is that without knowing about Hypoism specifically the correct policies will never be accomplished. The proposed policies, prohibition and the drug war, don't work. The fact is that indigenous Americans have a very high incidence of Hypoism and its resulting alcohol and other addictions and their consequences. This is why, "The result has been murders, spouse beatings, child abuse, thefts and other undesirable consequences of the free flow of alcohol into the reservation." All this happens because of alcohol addiction, a consequence of the high incidence of the genetic disease of Hypoism present in Native Americans that causes all addictions. By understanding this the author suggests policies to prevent this from happening, the buffer zone, an ineffective solution. It would make a lot more sense for the author of this op-ed to explain the whole story of this genetic susceptibility which he implies but doesn't explain mainly because he doesn't know what it is but does know it exists intuitively and has its inexorable effects. Once understood, Hypoism leads to better and more effective policies, other than prohibition and the drug war, and could be used to help not only Native Americans but all hypoics around the world. These preventive and recovery methods are discussed in my book, Hypoic's Handbook. The Hypoism paradigm of addictions can be used to end the addiction epidemic around the world, and not by useless and harmful prohibition and the drug war but by utilizing the Hypoism prevention and recovery methods specifically designed for use by hypoics while leaving non-hypoics to use addictive drugs and behaviors safely - they don't get addicted because they can't. They don't have the right genetics. I think if hypoics around the world learned about this paradigm they would put it into effect on their own thereby taking responsibility for their disease and their recoveries, something they should be given the chance to do. Without knowing about Hypoism there's no way for this to ever happen and things will have to remain the same as they have for the past hundred years. 7/13/09 Re: Drug Addicted Doctors Create Patient Risk, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=8061143&page=1 I'm not for addicted physicians practicing while under the influence. I'm am for prevention and treatment of all addictions. And mostly I'm for the truth about addictions. This article doesn't tell the truth and because of this stigmatizes addicted doctors, even doctors in recovery because it basically makes the claim that they are dangerous addicted and in recovery because of a variety of bogus issues. The article says addicted doctors are a risk to their patients implying they are more of a risk than their non-addicted colleagues; implying they are the main cause of preventable patient injuries. We already know that as a whole doctors are a risk to their patients, but are addicted doctors more of a risk? I didn't see the evidence for this excessive risk in the article. In fact, whenever I read articles like this I never see the studies that show this. Where are they? Well, I searched the literature for them, and guess what? They don't exist. In fact, all studies about doctors injuring patients show that the risk is no different between addicted and non-addicted doctors. There was a large study of preventable deaths called, "To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System," Linda T. Kohn, Janet M. Corrigan, and Molla S. Donaldson, Editors; Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine. This book was written by the National Academies of Medicine, not me. It studied over 100,000 death producing medical errors. I read the book. You need to. There wasn't mentioned one word on addicted healthcare workers of any kind. I called the lead author just to check, and she told me they found no evidence for addicted doctors as a cause of this mess in any way and therefore didn't even mention it. Other studies have shown equal error rates and lower malpractice rates comparing addicted to non-addicted physicians. I could not find a single study showing they had higher rates of patient injury. This issue is discussed in many addiction textbooks, but not publicly, and in particular it has been found that doctors in recovery from addictions and monitored by the state had zero incidence of patient injury caused by drug impairment. So, we have equal patient injury for actively addicted doctors and "zero, ZERO, injuries caused by drugs in monitored recovering doctors" (Doug Talbot, M.D.). Nevertheless, these doctors are seen as the most dangerous doctors in practice and frequently have their licenses revoked for addiction and never restored despite solid recovery and continuous monitoring. Why? Because of articles like this. Fear and Bias. Pure unsubstantiated discrimination. The fact is that doctors who injure patients are the ones who are the most dangerous and most of them are not addicted but impaired by real things like ignorance, carelessness, negligence, greed, laziness, hastiness, outside interests, etc., issues that health departments could care less about. These people repeatedly injure patients but get slaps on the wrist while addicted doctors who never injured anyone get revoked. This is an issue completely separate from addiction altogether but the addicts are taking the brunt of the blame. The Health Departments make it a false issue so they can show the public they are doing something to stop patient injuries (by ruining the lives of addicted and recovering doctors in the name of public safety), something they have failed to do altogether. But they can surely say they are getting rid of addicted doctors because that is what they are doing, including the three thousands suicides by addicted doctors the wrong addiction paradigm is responsible for. Most addicted doctors never injure patients ever, clean or addicted, and never will, and addiction has nothing to do with medical errors that injure patients, as the above book, To Err is Human," pointed out by its absence. The fact is that the doctor drug war doesn't prevent patient injury but definitely injures many good doctors, their families, and their careers, people we need to continue being doctors. This whole issue needs to be re-evaluated publicly just so the public can see what is happening to addicted and recovering doctors and their lives by the false impression that they are the cause of most patient injuries and that getting rid of them solves the patient injury problem. Not only doesn't it but it actually makes it worse for a variety of reasons discussed in my book, Hypoic's Handbook, the Hypoism Paradigm of Addictions; the censored addiction theory that solves the addiction epidemic. Addicted doctors have been made into scapegoats due to the moral bias against them caused by the current addiction paradigm, the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH), fraudulently maintained by the government (NIDA) for the sake of maintaining the drug war in general. The public knows nothing about this and being injured by it. Today's article is a good example of the unsubstantiated lies that bias the public against addicts and addicted doctors in particular. The whole system for dealing with addictions in health care workers is wrong and damaging to the addicts as well as to the public. But you never hear about this because the discussion is blocked and censored by the addiction establishment and the various authorities who don't want the public to know anything about it except that they are taking care of it, which they're not - just one of their lies. 7/13/09 Re: Passion or Recklessness? Rock Climber Falls to Death, http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/comments?type=story&id=8061175 This article is in the travel section. LOL. One of the comments said, "What, exactly, is the debate, and who is stoking it? I would suggest that ABC news is the only one stoking anything, in this case, idle comments from people with no information on but this story.It's worth remembering that Bachar had a thirty year track-record of safety--how many drivers can say the same? The guy was a good dad, a good son, a good friend to many, and he was the only person capable of judging what was "safe" for him. Had his decision-making skills been poor, or had he been prone to erratic or careless choices, he would have been dead decades ago." Ha ha. Michael Jackson was over 50 when his addiction finally killed him as are many addicts who die from their addictions. Does that mean their decisions were all good ones and their deaths were just a tragic accident? Risk addiction is a real addiction. It's part of Hypoism. And it's origins are unconscious, not volitional, like many commenters mentioned incorrectly, as are all addictions including injecting heroin or propofol, god forbid. People need to know this. People need to understand addictions correctly, not the way they do today. But I'm not for or against addictions and addictors. I am, however, for the right understanding of them, two different things. Just saying, "This was his passion and he died doing what he loved," is pure ignorance. You can say the same thing for any addiction, but this one was romantically acceptable for some reason, it's purity, whatever. Nonsense. John Denver, a "recovering alcoholic," and hypoic, died the same way. His passion was experimental airplanes. Please - risk addiction was substituted for alcohol addiction. All this is just bad understanding of addictions. You can't get high with a rope or a net. So, no rope or net. That's a good decision? It's a hypoic decision. Hypoism has methods to deal with all addictions, especially to prevent them, not just treat them, frequently too late. Learn about Hypoism and how it can stop the whole addition epidemic and deal with all addictions, not just a few drugs after the fact. 7/13/09 Re: After 2 summits, Obama savors Ghana moment, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31877216/ns/politics-white_house/ In his speech Obama said romantically, "I have the blood of Africa within me." And everyone there got chills up and down their spines. Of course, those were racist chills. Cough cough. One of their own has become the President of the United States and now all is right in the world. I wonder, however, where Obama thinks the rest of us come from, Mars? Or did other folks evolve as separate species in some mysterious place of Caucasian, Asian, Indian, etc. ancestry? Does Obama realize his little remark is actually a massively racist statement? Does Obama not realize we all have African blood in us or was he just pandering to the biologically ignorant Africans who fell for this instinctive xenophobic trap? When I first heard Obama mention that little sentence I waited for the CNN newspeople to correct him. But they didn't. Over the next days I waited for the correction to happen somewhere but it never did. The world must also actually believe Obama's misspoken remark. What kind of world do we live in that doesn't know all living humans are derived from the same African tribe about 100,000 years ago; that all of our "eves" actually existed back then in the same place and she was black. All this good science of recent human evolution has been ignored by this otherwise brilliant man? If this is so, then how does he actually see the human world of different colors, shapes, faces, and brains? That they all just appeared at the same time in the various different places where they exist today in the form they were created? If this is what the President believes, then what do ordinary people think about all this? No wonder creationism is so widely believed. Evolution is not getting to the public. Apparently, it's not getting to the media either which didn't make the correction. So, what other explanation could there be? Of course, under this belief system racism has to be real. Humans of different races have no connection to each other in minds like this. No connection, no identification, no empathy, and no caring. No spirituality. Read my book. The real meaning of this word is discussed at length in Hypoic's Handbook because it is a necessary concept required for understanding of addictions and addicts, concepts that are likewise deeply misunderstood today. This ignorant concept of human derivation must be why addicts (another biologically derived group currently believed to be a morally different species) are so easily seen as alien; another species not deserving of the title "human," and thus mistreated the way they are. There's no connection, no identification, no spiritual connection between them and us. This is the reason why demonization of different kinds of humans, especially addicts, happens so easily. Hypoic Genocide is real. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/entitledtoyouropinionnotanymore/ The biological connection of all living humans and the genetic reasons for their differences (as opposed to the creationistic differences) has not reached the public (or the government). Wow. No wonder we all hate each other. [Ha ha, I knew this all along.] Obama needs to review his little remark, get a quick education on human origins and make amends by giving the world a lecture on human evolution while he still has the bully pulpit on this trip to Africa. It should be interesting to see what happens after this lecture is given if he has the wisdom and courage to actually give it. It will be exciting to hear the discussion and its implications, if the media has the wisdom and courage to do it right rather than make a mess of it. 7/12/09 Re: Scrub tech causes major hepatitis scare in Colo., http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31866590/ns/health-infectious_diseases/ Let's stipulate that whatever they are saying about Parker, the syringes, and the sequence of events, actually happened even though that's another argument altogether. The fact is that we don't know exactly what happened yet. But let's say it really did happen the way the authorities say it happened. The real questions are 1) did it have to happen, 2) why, and 3) who's really at fault? The answers are, under today's environment dictated by the current addiction paradigm and its belief system, 1) yes, 2) because this is how we have chosen to deal with addictive drugs, addicts, and addictions based on the current addiction paradigm, and 3) both the people who have foisted this paradigm on our country and those who imposed the policies derived from that paradigm on us, NIDA and ASAM, and the state and federal legislators respectively. Yes. It is not Parker's fault. It is the fault of NIDA, ASAM, the government, and the media. The reasons for these three answers are that the current addiction paradigm, the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH) and its corollaries, make addictions by definition voluntary and immoral choices. Thus, they are dealt with by the "personal responsibility" moral code and the legal system similar to other voluntary misbehaviors. In other words, addictions and whatever goes along with them are illegal except for a few exemptions which make no sense but exist anyway, whatever. People addicted to illegal drugs and their related behaviors are criminal under this paradigm. Thus, for example, drug paraphernalia, like clean syringes and needles, are illegal as used by addicts and to get them is a crime. That makes it imperative for addicts to use dirty syringes and needles thus exposing them to HIV and Hepatitis as well as other infections, as was stated in this case. That's how Parker got Hepatitis, according to the authorities, and that only makes sense. Now, because being an addict is illegal, she has to get her drugs and paraphernalia illegally one way or another. She chose to get them in the hospital and did what she did to cover that up. That's the sequence of events and the reasons for them. That's what I mean by "the current paradigm and its belief system." NIDA is responsible for inventing this paradigm, ASAM is responsible for perpetuating it (by not being against it), and the government is responsible for the laws covering this paradigm. All this adds up to the prohibition of illegal drugs and the reaction to this prohibition by the addicts - their drug/addiction related behavior. Under the HBH paradigm that's the way it has to be. How could you deal with drugs and addictions with this belief system otherwise? History has proven that prohibition is the only possible way to deal illegal drugs under the HBH and its belief system. And the only response by society available is to put these addicts away, as the article states. Under this paradigm this is the way it is and its outcomes are inevitable, as described by the events in this article. If the HBH is correct scientifically and otherwise as NIDA and ASAM say it is and the government goes along with it then this sequence of events is inexorable and we just have to live with it. However, what if the HBH turned out to be wrong, a fraud, a lie? If this were so then all these inevitable happenings might not be so inevitable. There might be a solution. I wrote my first paper about this paradigm being wrong and its replacement paradigm and its policy solutions in 1992, 17 years ago. For non-scientific reasons that paper and every paper since then has been rejected for publication by countless journals. My book about all this came out in 1996 and has been ignored by the media and the addiction establishment. Thousands of letters to the editor about the HBH being scientifically wrong and its replacement theory have been ignored and censored. Many of them are on my web site. Read them. This letter will be ignored and censored even though it informs the public of the only way to stop this sequence of events from ever happening again, via policies derive from the correct addiction causation theory that turns out to be not only different from the HBH but diametrically opposite. Same science but diametrically opposite paradigm just because of one thing, the correct interpretation of that science. I am giving the country the addiction paradigm based on the correct interpretation of the existing science that will not only prevent this specific kind of disaster from ever happening again but will end the entire addiction epidemic, but for some unknown reason it is being ignored and censored. The correct addiction theory, Hypoism, not only prevents all addictions but deals with them if they do occur in such a way that consequences of addictions don't happen ever again; none - a simple concept called "harm reduction," policies that are NOT ALLOWED UNDER TODAY'S PARADIGM BECAUSE THEY'RE SEEN AS IMMORAL. These consequences aren't immoral but harm reduction is? Are you serious? I've been writing about this since 1992 but have been ignored and censored because the HBH was going to handle all this just fine. Well, it hasn't and it never will because it's wrong and its derived policies are not just ineffective but actually the cause of its dangerousness to all of us. Now, do the parents of this kid deserve to know about this possible solution to all their misery? I think so. Then why is this letter being ignored and censored? Again, it's time for Hypoism and its policies to replace the disastrously and immorally wrong and fraudulent HBH. 7/10/09 Re: Justin Veatch's Story: Suburban Heroin Overdose Highlights Drug's Pervasiveness, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=7895095&page=1 As usual I was tuned in to wfuv.org on the web, my favorite music station, while reading the morning's newspapers looking for stories about which to comment. Out of the speakers came this story about this kid Justin, a 17 yo musician who recently overdosed in the bedroom of his parent's house; a result of several years of addiction and failed treatment. WFUV is acknowledged in my book, Hypoic's Handbook, as the radio station that kept me sane and happy while I researched and wrote my book on addictions in my den. Years ago this station asked its listeners to send in the name of an important book. I sent in the name Hypoic's Handbook. They never acknowledged or listed it on their web site. Now, after M. Jackson's and Justin's deaths from overdoses, the station is talking about addiction. It told Justin's story and mentioned that Justin's family is setting up a scholarship fund for young musicians in his memory. I looked up this story on the web and out it popped on abc news web site. It told us about the drugs and the rehab and the parent's attempt to get Justin clean. It said, "Justin's parents hope others can learn from their tragedy." "I've been beating myself up from head to toe," she said. "Internally, I probably have black and blue marks. That's all I've been doing since it happened, just feeling like I failed. I am so angry at these evil forces infiltrating the communities," Marina said. "But we've learned an awful lot since then about substances and what's available." It says, "A new album of original music and covers is due out later this summer. The proceeds from that album will go to benefit the Justin Veatch Scholarship Fund, a scholarship for other young people who want to pursue music. "I have to do it. It's for him," Jeffrey said. "And it's for us. And it's for other people. I feel like it's my job in life now to celebrate Justin's legacy." WFUV is advertising and supporting this endeavor. I've been observing similar kinds of behaviors from parents of kids who OD'd over the last 17 years since I wrote my first ignored and censored paper on addictions and Hypoism, the disease that causes addictions. I can't tell you how many times I've written these parents and other family members about the best way to honor their kids with their support for Hypoism, the only paradigm that can prevent addictions and save these kids. Not a single family has done what you would think they would do - learn about and support Hypoism and the N4A. They all start their foundations in the kid's memory and completely ignore the cause, Hypoism. They completely ignore the prevention and treatment methods provided by Hypoism for saving other kids. They do everything but support Hypoism which means they help maintain the addiction paradigm that killed their kids, the current paradigm, the paradigm set up by NIDA, ASAM, and many foundations like the robert woods johnson foundation. They say they are "doing it for their kids sake," but they do everything but that. They support the paradigm that killed their kids. Now, how does this make any sense? In fact, WFUV is doing the same thing. So is all the media to whom I write everyday about this mess and am ignored and censored. The one thing that can save these kids if put into effect, the Hypoism addiction prevention methods, is ignored and censored by the same people who say "We are doing this for our kid." They don't read about it, learn about it, think about it, or do anything about it. They don't make the connection between the current addiction paradigm and their kid's death. In other words, they blame themselves and their kids, not the paradigm and the experts that are the actual perpetrators of the fraud that killed their kids. Thus, because they believe it was their fault, as the mother says and is quoted above, they support the ideas and people who's fault it really was, the experts who are lying to these parents about this stuff. This kind of response and reaction happens everyday and after every OD death. The parents blame themselves and put their undivided support into the people who are actually the one's who killed their kids with their lies about addiction causation and treatment, the same treatment that didn't work on Justin, the one who was blamed for its failure. Now, how many times have I written about this mistake being made by these parents? A thousand? Ten Thousand? And how many times has it been ignored and censored? The same number! Here we go again. The same thing happening after another one dies. And it's not that I have been vague or merely argumentative about my complaints. I've written detailed scientific explanations and critiques, a book and many free papers, articles, and blogs that have just not been read or published by these parents or the censoring media. And every day another kid dies for lack of this information and lack of the Hypoism paradigm being put into effect. And one more foundation in memory of the dead kid gets started that will not save a single kid. How is this foundation a memorial for the kid? It's the current addiction paradigm, NIDA and ASAM and AA, that is killing your kids by perpetuating the wrong science, wrong prevention, wrong treatments, and wrong policies. My papers and book prove this without a doubt. What about all this do you not understand? Ask me. I'll teach you. How is it possible for you to ignore and censor this valid and confirmed information? And more importantly, why? Well, here's Hypoism offered again to you on a silver platter. Let's see what you do with it. 7/9/09 Re: Is Addiction a Disease or a Human Failure? Tell Us What You Think on Facebook, http://uk.sys-con.com/node/1028893 A friend asked me to comment on this web site, so I did: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Is-Addiction-a-Disease-or-a-Human-Failure/89881708943?v=box_3&viewas=543881556#/pages/Is-Addiction-a-Disease-or-a-Human-Failure/89881708943?v=wall There's a link on that page to a report by the British Columbia Medical Society about addictions - "Stepping Forward." This report was written by addiction experts. It says addiction is a disease and needs to be dealt with like any other disease, as a medical issue. And it makes some recommendations for prevention and treatment as well as the need for state money to help in this endeavor. I read the report and nowhere in it did it define what a disease is or what the disease of addiction is. So, the question I have is, do these experts know what a disease is and how do they define what they call the disease of addiction. Since it's not there I have to say they don't know. The experts use these words but don't ever define them and then they expect the people reading it to understand these terms. If you now read the responses on facebook you see that they don't. The experts don't know what a disease is or what addiction as a disease is and the people don't know. I can say the same things about the addiction experts in this country. They use the same terminology and say that addiction is a disease but nowhere do they define the words or the disease. I have done this. My response in the facebook page gives a link to my web page which defines the word disease and to several web pages that define the disease that causes addictions; not the disease of addiction which doesn't exist because addiction is not a disease but the disease that causes addictions. There's a big difference between these two things. And if you can't define these terms you don't deserve to use them. When you do this it is lying by omission. It's basically a claim that you know what you're talking about without having to define it. You can't just say addiction is like cancer. That doesn't show that addiction is a disease or how it's a disease. Addiction isn't like cancer - at all. You can't say addiction is a disease because it's like cancer or heart disease or diabetes. That in no way shows what a disease is or why addiction is a disease. To say addiction is a disease you must define the word disease and show how addictions conform to that definition. Moreover, you have to be right about it as well, not just make up some nonsense. You have to be able to support your argument against scientific attack. You have to be able to and be willing to debate it. There has been none of this. Today's addictionologists, from BC or the US, don't do this. If they have done so please send me the reference so we can debate their claims. The fact is that I'm the only one who has done this and I'm the one ignored. No one puts these expert's feet to the fire of having to define disease or show how addiction is a disease, not journals, not the government, not the media, nor the public. This is why the field of addictions is such a mess and a scam. The whole field is based on a lie, the lie being that the experts know what addictions are and how to deal with them. If they can't define what an addiction is according to a predefined definition of the word disease then by definition they don't know what an addiction is. And if they don't know what addiction is why do we allow them to set policies for them? Someone's got to confront these lies. I have and I've been ignored. All this means to me is that no one except me is interested in the truth about addictions or is interested in doing the right and effective things about addictions. I've known this for 17 years when my first paper about all this, and nothing has changed since that paper was written, was rejected by 12 addiction journals for non-scientific reasons. I write about this everyday and continue to be ignored and censored. The fact that I have to write an email like this is a joke. People should be demanding this but instead they are asleep but complain nonetheless when someone like Michael Jackson dies from an addiction that nothing was done about. They blame the victim instead of the liars, the experts. Of course, this is what happens everyday. The reason addictions are such a mess is because this issue is being ignored and the field is being allowed to bullshit the rest of us into letting them handle it without criticism and debate. Well, it's your families and your kids who are dying. How can you just sit there and let this happen? There's going to be no solution to this mess until we define the terms and define the science that truly explains addictions as I have done. Only then will new policies be meaningful and effective. Until then they will just be meaningless Band-Aids. In other words, this report by the BC Medical Society is a joke and won't make a dent in the addiction problem because it's based on the wrong theory and understanding of addictions. I've been saying this for 17 years and haven't been proven wrong yet. Only Hypoism will solve this mess. 7/9/09 Re: What to Do About Binge Drinking? , http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/opinion/l09binge.html One thing that always seems funny to me about these opinion articles concerning policies about drugs and addictions is that we never seem to ask the public for opinions about the treatment and prevention methods on Lupus, or Diabetes, or Rheumatoid Arthritis, or Aortic Aneurisms, or Lime Disease, etc. Are you getting my drift? Right. We ask opinions from the public about addictions but not about any other medical diseases as if, for some reason, the public understands addictions so well they can have valid opinions about addiction policies but they don't know any other medical disease well enough to have valid opinions about them. I wonder where the evidence is for this presumption. Of course, it's bullshit. In fact, the public knows less about addictions than they do about any other medical disease they could be asked about. The fact is that addictionologists know less about addictions than any other medical specialists know about their specialty diseases and the public knows less than them. How do I know this? Because addictionologists are 100% wrong about the theory of addiction causation which makes the public more than 100% wrong about drugs and addictions. Now, that's pretty wrong. Yet they're asked for their opinions about this issue and freely give them, believing they are right no less. All this in the face of the reality that addictions are more out of control and in worse shape than any other medical issue known to man. Now that's pretty bad, but nonetheless the public still freely gives its opinions about this issue. You'd think that if the public knew so little about addictions and drugs they would say, "Hey, we know nothing about addictions and drugs so we're not going to be so presumptuous as to give our stupid opinions to this stupid newspaper asking us about it." In actuality, the public believes it knows a lot about addictions and drugs and this is why they so freely give their opinions - just the opposite of the reality. I find this funny. You? Now, for the real issue, the question, how should we deal with binge drinking on college campuses or anywhere else? Well, we've tried making it illegal and it didn't work. We've tried punishment and it doesn't work. We've tried liberalization of the drinking age and allowance of drinking on campus and that didn't work. We've tried absolute prohibition and that didn't work. In fact, we've tried everything except public beheading and none of it works. Nevertheless, here we are again getting these same opinions all over again from readers who are certain they are right even after knowing none of them are going to work. That's another thing about all this that makes me laugh. Everything about this issue makes me laugh because it's incredibly repetitive and predictable - no matter what we try we are going to fail but we keep doing the same things from one extreme to the other. I find this funny. You? I don't think the dead kid's mothers find this so funny though. Every time they are asked about it they say the same thing in a predicable way. They all say the same thing. They say, "Something needs to be done about this." That's what they say every time they are asked. I call this dilemma the "Anything but Hypoism" solution. That's the Time's answer. Anything but Hypoism is better than Hypoism because we refuse to allow Hypoism to answer any question about addictions or anything else. It's like the radio show called All Things Considered should really be renamed All Things Considered except Hypoism because Hypoism is never considered. You would think that under this circumstance someone would say about all this, "Hey, we've tried everything and it doesn't work. Shouldn't we, maybe, be looking for something new? Shouldn't we approach this issue from a totally new perspective and point of view? Isn't it possible after being wrong so many times and for so long that maybe we are actually wrong? Maybe we and the addiction experts are wrong? Maybe we should consider Hypoism. Umanoff says Hypoism has an effective prevention and treatment methodology based on a real brain disease that is based on real science. He wrote about it and detailed the science and the methodology. We could read it, no? Maybe we could read it and not just continue to ignore and censor it and say bad things about it and its author seeing that we don't even know what it is because we haven't read it. It is possible that the entire field of addictions could be wrong seeing that this has happened in the past many times and seeing that we have failed repeatedly doing it their way. It is possible that the one thing we haven't tried and actually willfully ignored and censored might be the answer. Shouldn't we at least let the public know about it. Isn't that the ethical thing to do? Wouldn't that be ethical journalism? How could it hurt? You know, Eliot Gardner, M.D. PhD at NIDA says the Hypoism theory has merit. He wrote those words to Umanoff in an email many years ago after actually reading his book, something we haven't done. To Dan Umanoff, M.D.: "I think you know (from previous exchanges between us) that I have been - and continue to be - receptive to your concept. I think it has much merit, as I have said previously." ---ELIOT L. GARDNER, M.D., PhD, NIDA/IRP
He's a world renowned addiction scientist at NIDA. Maybe we should take his word for Hypoism having "MUCH MERIT" and try to use it. Maybe Hypoism has the answer to binge drinking on campus and all the other addiction issues we have failed at improving. Is it worth one more dead kid just to censor Umanoff? What do we have against Umanoff anyway? What if he's actually right? No, that's not possible. What was I thinking? Nevermind. Ha Ha.
7/8/09 Re: Is Addiction a Disease or a Human Failure?, http://uk.sys-con.com/node/1028893 The problem with this question is that no one knows what the word disease means. So, how can they answer it? So, I'll let people know what "disease" means and then they can read the addiction literature (science) and see if there is enough information there to decide if there is a disease involved here and what that disease might be. Let me share my work on this endeavor. After reading the science of addiction causation I wrote down these ideas. 1) what is a disease and is addiction a disease or is addiction just symptomatic of an underlying neurobiological disease? http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/diseaseconcept1aperspective/ 2) the evolutionary origin of this disease - http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ 3) the complete theory of the disease that causes addictions as well as the disproof of the current theory of addictions used by NIDA and ASAM, and its implications - http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/
When this is better understood, policies can then be decided on. My book, Hypoic's Handbook, goes into great depth on required policy changes. 7/8/09 Re: Dopamine for “Wanting” and Opioids for “Liking”: A Comparison of Obese Adults With and Without Binge Eating, Obesity (2009) 17, 1220–1225. Here's a paper on the "Hypoism" of obesity, or, how obesity is part of into Hypoism as I've been saying for 17 years. 7/8/09 Re: Jackson memorial made fans into family, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31789413/ns/entertainment-gossip/ If you added up all the time and money spent on covering Jackson's death and its aftermath and used just one percent of it to explain the cause of his death, Hypoism, to the public and help set up Hypoism recovery programs across the country you'd be helping many millions of people prevent from happening to them what happened to Jackson (and millions of anonymous hypoics around the country). But all you do is ignore this information and waste time and money entertaining the masses while the addiction epidemic gets worse. I've been writing you about Hypoism for years. Please explain. 7/7/09 Re: Reps. Kennedy and Sullivan Out of Rehab, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2009/07/reps_kennedy_and_sullivan_out.html?hpid=news-col-blog Patrick Kennedy says a lot of things about addiction. For some reason he says his experience with his own addiction makes him an excellent advocate in the area of addictions, what he calls his "niche." However, we know one thing about him. Whatever he might know about addictions none of that has gotten him clean and sober. So, I wonder how he could consider himself an advocate of a system that has failed to get him clean and sober over a period of over twenty three years of using this system. How could anyone consider him a valid advocate of this theory and treatment system when it has failed him so miserably and he has failed it so miserably? Nowhere in this or any other article about him is this question ever raised or answered. I'm going to answer it right now. He's not a valid advocate for anything about addictions. In fact, he's completely full of shit when it comes to addictions. Whatever he thinks he knows about addictions, all of it wrong by the way, learned at a variety of bogus treatment centers and AA, hasn't helped him or anyone else get clean and sober. Yet he has convinced the people in Rhode Island to keep re-electing him despite this and his continual lying about his knowledge about addictions and how this knowledge makes him a good legislator. In fact, he's a major puppet for the treatment industry which is what he advocates for, not addicts. You'd think they'd have done a better job getting him clean and sober before sending him out into the world to advocate for them. Ha Ha. They obviously could care less as long as they get what they want, more money and more credibility none of which they deserve. [find the studies that show that what they do and say - teach - actually gets addicts clean and sober better than chance. you can't because they don't exist.] Kennedy is advocating for an entire treatment industry that if put under the same microscope as drugs and devices never would get the approval of the FDA. Aren't they "lucky" that there is no regulatory agency for addiction treatment. Is it luck or is it that they have paid off the legislators well enough to get them not to pass laws for the regulation of their industry. He's one of their "lucky" legislators who cooperate with this stupid and dangerous policy. The whole field of addiction treatment is a scam supported by people like Kennedy with absolutely no regulation, something they need. They need it because the whole field is a lie, from theory (scientifically proven wrong) to prevention (0% success) to treatment (5% success) to public policies (0% success). How could a medical field with this degree of success go so long without regulation? Because they blame their failures on the addicts. This is the only medical field that gets away with this nonsense. Can you imagine the field of hematology/oncology blaming their poor success in treating leukemia on the patients? They'd be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. The only thing the Kennedy experience shows is that the field of addictions and addiction treatment is bogus and has been for a hundred years but because god is in charge of it no one has raised a red flag, except me, and I'm ignored and censored. I don't make this claim lightly. I am an addict myself and I need the right theory and effective recovery methodology. Funny, I had to discover it myself with the support of my AA sponsor. This story is in my book Hypoic's Handbook. The main difference between what I did from what Kennedy did is that I read the whole literature of addiction science, evaluated it, and reinterpreted it (diametrically opposite from the interpretation made by the field of addictionology) to result in the actual disease that causes addictions, Hypoism, and out of that, the recovery program that I then used with the help of my AA sponsor to get and keep me clean and sober twenty years. My sponsor even wrote an opening chapter to my book explaining this. Today I am an advocate for all addicts based on the Hypoism paradigm, the science-based theory of addiction causation, as opposed to the superstitious and moral based current programs running addictions and addiction policy across this country. Too bad I'm ignored and censored. If Kennedy, in fact, the entire Kennedy family, the prototypical hypoic family, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/13thekennedycurseorkennedyhypoism/ , used this paradigm they'd all be sober today and better (really valid) advocates for all addicts. 7/7/09 Re: Reasons Not to Panic Over a Painkiller, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/health/07well.html?_r=1&8dpc This article left out one large group of at risk people - drug addicts. Maybe these people don't count to the NY Times but they do to us, seeing that we are all drug addicts. It's well known that there are about 50 million people taking opiates for pain relief and that 5 million of these are addicted. All prescription oral opiates containing hydrocodone and oxycodone contain acetaminophen, frequently high amounts, 500 mgs. per pill. As you all are aware everyone experiences tolerance where they require increased doses of their opiate to get the same effect. And addicts in particular take more than is ordered because of their addiction disease as a separate cause from the pain alone. Thus, everyone on chronic treatment with these drugs can easily reach the 4 gram limit and especially addicts. Another peculiar thing is that addicts get refused liver transplants routinely just because they're addicts. Hmmm. On its face it looks like a good way to kill addicts who usually know nothing about the risks of this drug, and even if they do can't control the amounts they take due to the addiction. There's no good reason for adding acetaminophen to the opiates used for pain relief, acute or chronic. If there is, then they can be prescribed separately, assuring the patients don't reach the 4 gram limit. One definite thing that can be done is to remove acetaminophen from opiate pain pills and just manufacture hydrocodone and oxycodone alone. This will greatly reduce the numbers of inadvertent acetaminophen overdoses. Why this wasn't done long ago is a mystery. My guess is that it wasn't because it is used as a way to punish addicts for being addicts, a very sick idea. In fact, the whole addiction system is based on this premise to begin with. The whole system needs to be re-evaluated based on the real cause of addictions, the genetic disease of Hypoism where there is effective methods for addiction prevention, recovery, and public policies unavailable under the current wrong paradigm, the hijacked brain hypothesis, the theory that is killing a million addicts a year in many perverse ways including this one. 7/6/09 Re: Drug Policy - The Beckley Foundation I couldn't find Amanda Feilding's email address, so could you please forward this letter to her. I've been working and writing about addictive drugs and behaviors since 1990. One thing I realized right off the bat was that effective drug policy could only be derived from the correct theory of drug use and drug addiction. This principle highlights the failed approach we have lived under for the last 2000 years. In other words: incorrect theory - ineffective and harmful policy; correct theory - effective and helpful policy. This is because we have been using wrong theories of drug use and addictions all this time. Thus, my work since 1990 has been to discover from the valid addiction science the correct theory of drug use and addiction in order to derive effective and helpful policies. The result of this work is my book, Hypoic's Handbook - The Hypoism Paradigm of Addictions and the National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts, Inc., the administrative arm of the Hypoism theory. The Hypoism theory can be read from my web site in various papers. The two best ones are: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ and http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . The book, Hypoic's Handbook, discusses everything from theory to prevention and treatment and the derivation of public policy. A discussion of why theory is so important to all this is at: The Drug War War #4 - http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/articlesbyandforhypoicspage2/ If this theory issue is ignored we will continue to experience the mess in the field of addictions we are currently experiencing. Only by using the correct theory of addiction causation can we ever hope to get a handle on the addiction epidemic as well as helpful and effective addiction policy. My hope is that you will use this work to help you understand drug use and the need for policy changes as well as helping to establish the recovery methodology (the grass roots Hypoic's Not-Anonymous program that must be free of charge from detox to rehab and recovery as detailed in the book) that is used for addiction prevention, something that doesn't exist today, and improved recovery from addictions, something that is only about 5% effective today. 7/6/09 Re: Prescription drug abuse, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31750357#31750357 "NBC news in depth." Seriously? You know I hate the term "drug abuse." It implies that the user is the perpetrator. But then the Judge says, "I see good kids from good families; doctors, lawyers, teachers." So, which is it? Then the mother says, "Something needs to be done. It's killing our kids everyday." As you all know, it's Hypoism that's the issue, not the drugs (hijacked brain hypothesis) or the kids (volitional drug use). The "authorities" and "officials," whoever they are, have been telling us all this stuff and working on fixing it for many years, but have had no success. Why do we continue to go back to them everytime we do a story on this? I've written NBC and MSNBC for years explaining why the experts are wrong and why their wrong theories and policies have contributed to the making and growth of the addiction epidemic. Yet, when a story is done by the media they go right back to these unsuccessful experts for advice. The media doesn't seem to get it and we need to keep telling them that its the experts who have gotten us into this mess with their wrong theories and policies. Continuing to use them to fix this mess doesn't make sense yet the media keeps doing this; as does the government and the public as if failure by them means they know what they're doing. What other area of medicine does failure mean expertise? The mothers are asking for something to be done even though it's too late for their kids. Maybe it won't be too late for their other kids or their grandkids. But what can be done? - a question the media doesn't ask in this video. Now I've told them many times what needs to be done - first to review the papers proving the current theories wrong. These are reviewed here: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ That's the first thing that needs to be done because if we continue to believe in the current theories invented by the current experts we will continue making the same mistakes based on these wrong theories. This is what has been going on for the last 50 years and we keep doing it - doing the same things over and over expecting different results. We all know what that is. So, first we need to read the scientific debunking of the current theories so we can dump them and the experts that are supporting them. Next, we need to find the correct theory of addiction causation so we can use the methods derived from that to find effective prevention and treatment methods based on the correct theory. This is done everyday in medicine. Why can't we do it in this area of medicine? This is what the mothers are asking for but the field and the media won't do it. Why? Because they're making money from the wrong and ineffective prevention and treatment methods. They have a conflict of interest. They are biased. That's why we need to dump the current experts and get new ones who don't have conflicts of interest. For example, I make no money from prevention and treatment methods. I have no conflicts of interest. My only interest is to help addicts and their families. Why not use me as an expert? That's the last thing the current experts want because they lose their strangle hold on the field of addictions that way. You see, they have no interest in helping addicts and their families. They merely want to remain in control; in control of addicts and in control of the money. That's why the addiction epidemic has grown - because that's what's best for the experts though not for the addicts. The N4A is the only organization doing what's best for the addicts. That's why the experts ignore and censor the N4A. The media and the public need to know this so they can take control of the field away from these megalomaniacs and begin to do what's scientifically and theoretically right for the addicts even if it's free of charge. My book and web papers explain the reasons for this and explain how to do it. It's time to get this power away from the experts and authorities and give it to the right people, the addicts via the N4A. This is what we can do. This is what has to be done for any progress to be made. Otherwise we're just going to have more and more dead kids. Let the parents know about this so they can help their kids. I've been writing about this since 1992. Isn't it time that the failed paradigm finally gets dumped? Hasn't it been given enough chances to prove itself? It's failed already. No more dead kids. Let the correct new paradigm have its chance! 7/5/09 Re: Is Mark Sanford Crazy in Love, or Just Crazy? We Call in Professional Help , http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/07/02/is-mark-sanford-crazy-in-love-or-just-crazy-we-call-in-professional-help.aspx I couldn't find much new to write about today so I'll go back to Governor Sanford and some shrink's point of view on his behavior. As you will see today's blog is about the shrink, not Sanford. I think if you read this interview you will agree that the shrink has no idea what she's talking about, as usual, except how to sell useless books. For instance, she wrote a book called "Why Good People Have Affairs," a catchy title no? It makes me feel better right away. You? Sort of a paradox though? Then she says later in the interview that , "I don’t judge people." "Most of these cheaters are good people who are in way over their head." Do you see the contradiction here? Of course. She judged the people about which she wrote the book (Good People). That's a judgment. Well, so she lied a little, right? She does judge people. Then she says, when asked what she'd do if Sanford walked into her office, "You really, really have to stop and think," and then, "you should decide who you want to be with and decide fast." To me these two bits of advice are contradictory. And she is giving this advice to a man she just said was insanely confused. "They flip-flop from moment to moment. It really is a kind of insanity." I wonder how real people respond to this nonsensical advice in her office in real life. Do they get more confused? Ha Ha.
Then she says, "I don’t know enough about him to really say, " and then she says 1) he's a narcissist and, 2) "He doesn’t know what he’s doing and why," and then, 3) "I would guess Sanford is someone who did not get as much affection and love in his marriage as he wanted and he was very, very hungry for it." How is it possible for her to say these things about him when she just admitted she doesn't know much about him? Is she a mind reader? Is she psychic or just psychotic herself? Then she said he broke three rules which basically had to do with bad public lying technique. I guess the book instructs these good cheaters how to lie better in private. Good advice from a shrink, right? Why would this shrink write a book saying, "Cheaters are bad people who are insane, don't know what they're doing, and need to learn how to lie better if they want to save their marriages?" That book wouldn't sell too well. So, instead of telling it like it is, like she really thinks it is, she wrote a book saying just the opposite just to sell more books. This is the kind of book that sells well and gets you an interview with Newsweek. But does it help anyone? I guess that's not the point. Lastly, I think a word needs to be said about this man as Governor. She has diagnosed him as insanely confused and not knowing what he is doing but there's not a word about keeping him in office and his making life and death decisions about other people. Governors propose and sign laws, some of which put people in jail for many years or even kill them. Many of these laws have to do with judging and sentencing addicts. I'd say, and I think many people would agree with me, that Sanford's behavior is no different from an addict's behavior, maybe even identical. He's clearly addicted to this Argentinean woman. And he's a lot more confused and discombobulated than most addicts ever are. Nevertheless, he's putting them in jail while he's asking for forgiveness and paying back misappropriated state funds used on his trips to Argentina for his fornication and fun. How many felons get the chance to avoid being felonized and getting jail time by voluntary restitution after they were caught red handed? The same holds for Eliot Spitzer and an untold numbers of politicians. The jails are full of men who, according to the shrink, just got in over their heads, "Most of these cheaters are good people who are in way over their head." I agree with this, especially for non-violent addicts. But addicts get put away for long times and this Governor believes he deserves the opposite treatment, forgiveness and back to normal, all things made right by a few tears and the payment of his restitution to the state.
This is infuriating to me. I think Sanford either should go to jail with the rest of the cheaters (cheating with drugs or women are the neurobiologically equivalent though adultery is morally much worse) or all the druggies should be released from jail and their lives restored by the state in as many ways as possible - addiction treatment, financial restitution, jobs, housing, education, health care, etc., all this for their families which were similarly ruined. And shrinks like this one should be disbarred. That would be all of them. They're dangerous and damaging because they help governors like this and their legislatures put away GOOD addicts by the hundreds of thousands. Except they call them BAD addicts. 7/4/09 Re: 14 Addiction Triggers: Why, When and How it Starts Part 2, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carole-bennett/14-addiction-triggers-why_b_225464.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carole-bennett/the-road-to-addiction-14_b_221160.html People like Carole Bennett have been around for a hundred years spreading wrong information about addictions for bizarre personal motives. They have some strong personal reason for getting involved in addictions to begin with, like someone in their family or a close friend is an addict of some sort, and to supposedly "help them" and others they take a course to become a "certified addiction counselor." In reality their motive is that they are usually people addicts but don't know or admit that and never have undertaken recovery from their own people addiction. This is a very dangerous situation for their clients, their actual drugs. My book discusses this "treatment" issue in depth. Despite that these courses are consistently incorrect in content and science, they exist across the country and somehow provide credentials for these people to become "certified" therapists and even to open addiction rehabs and "clinics." Few of them actually go out on a limb and publish their theories of addiction causation. Usually they just say they're experts and claim to have an excellent track record of getting addicts clean and sober. Of course, they never publish their actual results in any valid scientific way such as in a peer reviewed journal open to scientific criticism. But Carole did publish her theory, so it is open to scientific critique - 14 triggers that might lead an individual toward an "addictive lifestyle." This is a theory and it's her theory. To make a long critique short I can say categorically that every one of these 14 "triggers" is not a proven cause of addiction, not even the "addiction gene" which doesn't exist - there are probably hundreds of genetic alleles that are capable of causing the disease that causes addictions, Hypoism, in various combinations, not any one of them individually, however. And they don't cause addictions in a vacuum, but by altering the physiology of a particular brain mechanism, the instinct regulating apparatus, something Carole knows nothing about. 1. The family itself is involved in drugs or alcohol
2. The neighborhood is drug-infested
3. The "addiction gene" is passed on
4. The desire to belong, to be accepted, and to be popular
5. Feeling lonely or depressed; anything to take away the pain
6. Experimentation that turns into addiction
7. Trauma
8. Boredom
9. Low self-esteem
10. Glamorized -- the cool, hip thing to do
11. The only way to "party"; fame and/or fortune will give immunity from addiction
12. Weight reducer or energizer to keep up with challenges
13. Prescription medication turns into dependency
14. Expectations and/or pressure from family to adhere to social status/performance. None of these "environmental" causes of addiction has ever been proven as a cause of addictions even if many of them are associated with addictions. Association is not causation, as everyone should know by now. Most of them have been actually disproven as causative. Moreover, what exactly is an "addictive lifestyle?" If you live a certain way in a certain kind of environment you are likely to become an addict? This theory has been definitely disproven many different ways with twins together and separated at birth and adoption studies. There is no addictive lifestyle. There is a genetic disease that causes addictions, however, and this disease also leads to lifestyle preferences, but it's not the lifestyle that causes anything. It's the disease Hypoism that causes both the addictions and the lifestyle. Chew on that one Carole. That's the reality. The only theory of addiction causation that reconciles all the causation data is the genetic theory, the polygenetic theory. My genetic theory is called Hypoism and the science supporting it is at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , a paper Carole has never read. Otherwise she's be embarrassed to write such an article. Her theory is wrong and her treatment methods based on this theory are also wrong as they must be. Wrong theory - wrong treatment. That's a medical fact. They're the same old nonsense that has ruined the lives of addicts over the last hundred years. [0% prevention and 5% recovery; the same as addicts on their own.] That the Huffington Post would publish such a misinforming paper and advertise her treatment business is journalistically irresponsible because of all the damage it has done and will do to people utilizing this theory and approach to addictions. Ask the Kennedy family about these 14 "triggers" and how they caused all their varied addictions and other peculiar behaviors? I don't think they'd agree to them. Read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/13thekennedycurseorkennedyhypoism/ It's time smart people like Arianna Huffington to actually read the science of addiction causation, which exists, before they publish nonsense like this over the real disease that causes addictions, Hypoism. The implications of these two paradigms are diametrically opposite, hers coming from the morally warped, murderous, and disastrous past while mine is the future, both for prevention and recovery as well as providing for healthy and effective public policies like ending the drug war, a war initiated and maintained on the same grounds as her theory. Huffington doesn't know this?
7/3/09 Re: Michael Jackson's Alleged Addictions: Experts Weigh In, http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1615245/20090702/jackson_michael.jhtml |
