|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
The Addiction Blog Current Letters to Editors 9/14/10 - 4/16/11 Send me your comments. If they're helpful I will post them under the emails.
4/16/11 Johns Hopkins neuroscientist David Linden explains the biology of pleasure, http://www.latimes.com/health/bal-defining-addiction-0414-story,0,3182795.story?logout=trueThis is the first good explanation of addiction, next to mine. However, even this one falls short in a very important way. It fails to recognize the massive amount of science that explains why some people get addicted (hypoics) and most people (non-hypoics) don't, using the same addictors (addictors cause addictions by raising dopamine activity in hypoics). The major problem with this theory's deficiency is that this information is crucial to the correct understanding of addictions and addicts and their prevention, treatment, public attitudes, and derived policies. One peculiar factor he seems to understand is that besides addictive drugs, instincts are also addictive. That fact is crucial because it is the instinct regulating apparatus of the brain is the part of the brain that is involved with addictability, and genetic dopamine activity deficiency there is what causes addictability. All the science of addictability shows conclusively that it is only people low in dopamine activity who are capable of being addicted. Low = Hypo. Thus, I call this disease Hypoism. Everything else said in the article about his theory is correct, but leaving out the hypoism part makes the whole endeavor vacuous. It makes no sense. I wrote my book on Hypoism in 1996. It's called Hypoic's Handbook and lists all the science backing up this theory up to that date. It's been ignored. Since then more confirming science has been done and this is discussed in my web paper: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ and in my addiction blog. The correct understanding of the cause of addictions is the only way we are going to get to the correct addiction prevention, treatment, and public policies. Hypoism does this. Hypoism is the theory that will end the addiction epidemic through the correct understanding and the correct practical methods. The details of Hypoism's neuroscience will be worked out over the future, but we must begin to use it now to stop the plague of current addictions. 4/9/11 The loaded ethics of DNA hacking, http://www.salon.com/news/science/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2011/04/09/biopunks_excerpt Here's an interesting quote: "and that leaving the task to governmental agencies and big pharmaceutical companies means the person with the brightest idea may never get a chance."4/5/11 Compulsive Eaters May Have 'Food Addiction,' Study Finds, http://consumer.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=651597 "People who are compulsive eaters [and other kinds of instinct addicts] show similar activity in the same brain regions as people who are addicted to drugs or alcohol, according to new research." I said that in so many words in 1992 in my first paper on addiction causation, "Hypoism - A Real Disease," hypothesized from already available data mostly from animal studies that the organisms that get addicted, whether to drugs or to (instinctive) behaviors, do so because they are born with deficient reward activity, not because of advertising. As today's study validates, those who are already addicted have low reward response to the particular addictor, in this case food. This is caused by down-regulation of the reward system in people who are addicted. (The more the addict uses the addictor, in this case food, the lower the reward activity gets. Thus, the more he needs to have the same effect as before.) However, what these researchers didn't do and what they need to do, something I've suggested for 20 years already, is to study people's reward activity before they ever use an addictor, before they're addicted. My hypothesis says that only the people found to have pre-existing low reward activity are the ones who are going to end up addicted to one addictor or another. I defined the word addictor - what people get addicted to. In other words, their disease is not the addiction (the addiction is but a symptom of the underlying disease) but the pre-existing reward deficiency (Hypoism) which causes them to get addicted and additionally end up with even lower reward activity. This is called tolerance. Tolerance causes craving, and all the other symptoms of addiction. Thus, the necessary study is to measure reward activity in kids and then follow them for 40-50 years and correlate the original reward activity with future occurrence of addiction. My hypothesis says that only the ones with in-born and genetically low reward activity will be the ones who get addicted. That's why I call the disease Hypoism - the disease of low (hypo) reward activity. The others will not get addicted whether they use addictors or not. This has all been born out. We already know this to be true but ignore it just to be able to continue believing the theory we want to believe rather than the correct one. The Hypoism hypothesis can be read about in my 1996 book, Hypoic's Handbook, and my major paper, the Hypoism Hypothesis at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ Of course we can begin using this theory for addiction prevention, treatment, and public policy determination right away, before the results of this study are in. That's what my book is all about and that's what it was written to do - delineation of the Hypoism theory using correct interpretation of the science that has already been done and then to use its implications on prevention, treatment, and public policy. Only this way can we get the truth to the public and begin using it to end the addiction epidemic. The problem today is that for some mysterious reason my book and papers aren't being read and not being used. The way we're doing it today is by using the wrong theory, the so-called hijacked brain hypothesis (the moral theory of addictions), which looks like Hypoism but, in fact, is diametrically opposite, and then using this wrong theory to devise wrong methods for prevention, treatment, and public policy (morally-based). This is why the addiction epidemic is getting worse rather than better - misinterpretation of studies like today's and using it to develop wrong and ineffective methods. I predicted this in 1992 and to date I've been proven correct, yet my work has continued to be ignored and censored by the addiction community and the media to the detriment of the public - the experts are not experts but instead are foxes guarding the chicken coop. The hypoics are getting eaten alive by the rest of us who are blindly following the so-called experts who have their own misguided agenda which has nothing to do with helping addicts but rather, helping themselves. The addiction epidemic should be long over with, but instead, because of the biases and conflicts of interest of these experts, has gotten worse and will continue to get worse if we continue to follow them. How bad does it have to get (losing your spouses and children instead of just your neighbor's) before we'll start looking for and using the correct addiction theory? 3/31/11
The Stigma of Being ‘Fat’, http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/the-stigma-of-being-fat/Since 1992 I've been researching the scientific literature and writing about its implications, Hypoism, the genetic disease that causes all addictions including food addiction and obesity. I've written many newspapers, media outlets, advocacy groups, scientists, organizations, associations, and individuals about Hypoism and how changing the paradigm from the current ones such as the hijacked brain hypothesis, the psychobabble, the individual responsibility, the selfishness, the laziness, etc. theories to the genetic one, Hypoism specifically, would not only end the addiction epidemic but stop the stigma of each addiction caused by these incorrect theories of their causation. One or two of these letters were ever answered. Groups that say they really want to end stigma against all kinds of addicts, such as NIDA, ASAM, and the recovery movement have not looked into the material and ideas presented to them by my letters. Over these 19 years Hypoism remains essentially an unknown entity, not being given the opportunity to improve the lives of hypoics (addicts and addicts-to-be) or their families, not even by the groups that say they advocate for the people belonging to these groups. I have started a 501 c 3 called The National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts (N4A). Read its brochure linked below. Instead of the millions of hypoics who should belong to this organization, an organization similar in its goals and activities to the NAACP, there are only a few members and these members only come from people who have read my book about this disease, Hypoic's Handbook. Very few people have read this book because they don't know it exists. I don't have the funds to advertise, therefore only people who randomly find the book on the web by chance have the opportunity to read it. Despite the theory proposed in the book having been proven correct, (http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ ) the addiction establishment ignores and censors my work, the reason few people have read the book. Why hypoics and their families don't read it or join the N4A mystifies me but its not because it has received bad reviews. The comments from readers have all been great. My last comment from an addict 8 years sober was, "Dear Dan, Wow!! What a Book. Thanks. It explains a lot. Will need at least one more reading." Comments from a few addiction experts are on my home page, including one world renowned food addiction expert: "
3/28/11 Philadelphia School Battles Students’ Bad Eating Habits, on Campus and Off, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/us/28food.html?hp"School Battles Students' Bad Eating Habits" Now, there's a group of words that make fast food joints rich and happy. Those eateries know that group of words and the thinking behind them make them rich! even if they kill a few (million) kids in the meantime.This article is an example of the kind of damaging ignorance perpetuated by the current and proven incorrect addiction paradigm. These kinds of addiction enhancers could have disappeared from the Times long ago had the Times printed even one of my letters to the editor about the physiology of Hypoism, the brain disease that causes ALL addictions, not just drug addictions, including obesity. It's funny, but one of my unpublished letters was specifically about food police. Hey, now we have food police and the townies believe this is going to fix the obesity epidemic just like it fixed the drug epidemic - I mean didn't fix the drug epidemic. See? We still haven't acknowledged that the drug war doesn't work. How is this possible? Of course it's possible because the addiction establishment (NIDA, ASAM, and the recovery movement) keeps saying the drug war works. Is that unbelievable or not? The average man on the street asked about the drug war would say it doesn't work, so why does the addiction establishment support the drug war? They lie about the drug war and the rest of the addiction perpetuating public policies and ineffective treatments because they're paid to. If they told the truth they'd all be out of a job. So, instead of telling the truth and going broke, they lie so they can keep their incomes.One of the scientists that studies the reward system's involvement with food intake, Eric Stice (google his name and read his papers), recently wrote me this short but precise email after I introduced him to my Hypoism hypothesis paper defining the correct theory of addiction causation via http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , From: Eric Stice , Senior Research Scientist, Oregon Research InstituteTo: dan umanoff"Subject: Re: Dopamine-related activity of food reward circuits in the brain and weight gain."Sounds like you figured this all out much earlier than the rest of us!"But because the Times doesn't even read my letters to the editors (they would have read this comment by Stice had they read them) no less print them, they have no idea what they're censoring from their readers by not publishing any of my letters to the editor. Stice treated me like a colleague instead of like a patient in a mental hospital as does the NY Times - he read my letter to him, clicked on the link, read my Hypoism Hypothesis paper, and had the courtesy to respond to it as you saw above. The Times never did any of those things including not reading my book sent to them for review. Thus, the Times doesn't know about Hypoism or that it is supported by real science, some of which is Stice's work, real scientists, and that because it is the correct theory of addiction causation it has the potential to cure the addiction epidemic part of which is the obesity epidemic. And that cure is not about police (the drug - included in that list of addictors is addictive foods - war). The cure of the addiction epidemic is delineated in my book, Hypoic's Handbook, and has nothing to do with ridding the world of addictors or incarcerating addicts, but the exact opposite, helping addicts recover from their disease, Hypoism, not their symptom, the addiction. In fact, the cure of the addiction epidemic begins before the hypoic ever uses his first addictor (not after he hits bottom and does so much damage as in today's recovery paradigm) in a very special and specific way, delineated in the book. The reason I don't just tell you about this special form of recovery is because in order for this recovery to make sense to the reader he/she must read the book from page one and learn everything in the correct order before getting to the methodology of the actual recovery which he is then capable of understanding. But one thing is clear and can be discussed - the end of the addiction epidemic has nothing whatsoever to do with ridding the world of addictors or forcibly keeping the addict-to-be away from addictors. That addiction is caused by the use of addictors is 100% wrong. Most people who use addictors be it addictive drugs, addictive foods, sex, gambling, or a hundred other addictive behaviors (which happen to be built-in instincts), never get addicted. So, how could it be that the addictor causes the addiction? Read NIDA's web site and see what it says. It's a lethal joke perpetrated on our fearful, gullible, and ignorant (how could they not be ignorant when the truth is censored from them) society. This theory is pathetically wrong and it's the basis for the drug war. The hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH), today's paradigm pushed by NIDA, ASAM, and the recovery movement, is wrong and has been proven wrong by science I go through in detail in my book and papers. That's the big lie and that's what perpetuates the addiction epidemic (wrong theory leads to ineffective policy). And that includes food addiction and its consequence, obesity. But the Times ignores and censors my letters and won't read or review my book that would cure the addiction epidemic but instead publishes stupid and damaging articles that support policies (just say no - prohibition) based on proven wrong theories - food police at the doors of corner food stores.3/18/11 ADHD's Upside: Greater Creativity?, http://consumer.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=650981 Here's another of the many predictions I made about Hypoism being validated. I've been writing that Hypoism is a two edged sword from the outset. By this I mean there's an upside as well as a downside to being hypoic. Of course, you all know by now that ADHD is a subset of hypoics, caused by low dopamine activity as shown by the work of Volkow and Wang. (see my blog 9/9/09-9/13/09) Today's study shows increased "creativity" and thinking outside the box also associated with being hypoic/ADHD. I've listed all the supercreative hypoics of all times in my book and discuss this issue in my papers and blog over and over. The reason for this increased creativity and thinking outside the box is caused by the low dopamine activity because these people are so needy, the hallmark of hypoism. They need to find the answer to whatever questions come to their minds about whatever their interested in. They get obsessed. For me it is medicine (I scored 99.5% [top 30 in the country] in the third part of the National Boards taken by all 6000 interns in the United States) and later the development of the Hypoism paradigm. In fact, if you look at my life, there are countless attributes existing there that boggle the minds of my detractors. How is it possible for Dan Umanoff, the addict and therefore the scumbag, to excel so much in high school, college, medical school, and post graduate studies? I excelled in pretty much everything I did. The facts prove it. How is it possible for this scumbag to have accomplished all this unless he was just lying about it all? My detractors thus ignored it all when it came time to judging me for my license restoration. They ignored all the recommendations from people who made those kinds of exemplary claims. Impossible. We can't have a scumbag like Umanoff practicing medicine with his bad attitude and arrogance. So they refused to restore my license. The Times ignored and censored me because of that. How could this scumbag come up with the actual cause of addictions when all these normal smart people haven't a clue about this complex subject? Well, here's why. People like Umanoff have a disease that makes them more creative and able to think outside the box way better than normal people. This is why hypoics need to keep their licenses despite their addictions - because they discover things that normal doctors don't as demonstrated in my life history, despite their prejudices against us. That's what I said at my hearings and they interpreted that as arrogance and delusional thinking. In their "opinion" Umanoff had to be a scumbag despite what the facts showed. And, of course, everyone else believed similarly because it just had to be the case. Addicts are just not exemplary people - period. The problem is that the data was right in front of their faces and they merely ignored it. They threw all those excellent recommendations in the trash. They ignored my accomplishments. They refused to read my book, like all people who hate addicts did as well. And when I sued New York State for doing this, the judge tossed my case in the trash too. The NYS judge? "No trial for Dan Umanoff." Judgment for NYS, period. Umanoff does not deserve a trial that could show the restoration panel process wrong, biased, and prejudiced. He found in favor of NYS without hearing my case which he too threw in the trash. So now we have a study that shows Dan Umanoff was not arrogant but right and his career was destroyed nevertheless. His "lack of remorse for things he didn't do but could have" was appropriate, not a defect. He never did those things and was never going to do those things, so why should he have remorse for them? Hypoism was a reality discovered by a hypoic with increased creativity compared to the normal addiction scientists who weren't capable of thinking outside the box. They're still not. Thus the addiction epidemic continues while we ignore the paradigm that could have solved this problem 20 years ago and saved millions of people and families but was ignored and censored because of the biased opinions of those normal people. Without even reading it no less! All of you reading this email know what I mean and knew this study would someday show what it finally showed. Here it is. Exactly what I predicted. 3/17/11 David Brooks’s Theory of Human Nature, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/books/review/book-review-the-social-animal-by-david-brooks.html?ref=books To reiterate (from my last blog), I take deep umbrage in the Time's pushing this book while simultaneously ignoring and censoring my book which is based on a similar theory. It is an obvious conflict of interest seeing that Brooks is on their staff and I am an unknown. Are they pushing this book because of that or because it has merit? My opinion is the former which is a sin for a newspaper. My book on addiction causation, Hypoic's Handbook, based on the same "unconscious" proposition, the unconscious nature of human nature and the role of unconscious instincts in behavioral determination, could have made an enormous positive impact on the field of addictions and could have saved millions of lives and improved the lives of twenty times that number by providing a science-based mechanism for addiction prevention and recovery diametrically opposite from today's addiction paradigm which has proven impotent against the addiction epidemic. However, my book was censored from the Time's readership because, according to the science editor David Corcoran, "The book is not for us." When I asked him what about it wasn't for you his reply was, "I don't have to answer that." Well, that was in 1998, 13 years ago. Now the times reviews Brooks' book which goes over similar neurological concepts (though nothing about addictions because Brooks doesn't know the implication of his own idea) I used but without the many important implications of this "theory." My book goes through many important implications of this theory of human nature besides delineating and providing a cure for the addiction epidemic on both a personal and societal level. My guess is that because Corcoran replied so quickly to my request for a book review he never read the book to begin with. Everyone who has read my book, including many world renowned addiction specialists, have found my book compelling and meritorious, needing to be read by anyone interested in any way with the issue of addictions. Why then would Corcoran find it, "Not for us," other than because of purely prejudicial and biased reasons, not on its merit, particularly its scientific merit. Ask Dr. Eliot Gardner of NIDA, the most prominent addiction science to write me that the book has merit. He wrote me:
"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." Ask Jack Wang, Nora Volkow's right hand man at Brookhaven Labs, why he asked me to lecture on Hypoism at the medical grand rounds there in 2000. Ask Eric Stice, senior research scientist at the Oregon Research Institute, why he wrote me, "Sounds like you figured this all out much earlier than the rest of us!" Ask Dr. Drew Pinsky why he wrote me,
Here's a note to me by a recovering addict 8 years clean and sober, in AA no less, after reading the book: "Wow!! What a Book. Thanks. It explains a lot. Will need at least one more reading." This is typical of the many laymen who have read the book. I have received not a single letter from anyone who has read the book having the opposite opinion of it. But too few people have read the book to make a difference in public attitude because no one knows it exists except by finding it in a random search of the net for addiction related issues. A NY Times Book review would change all that. These are addiction experts and interested laymen who 1) want to know about the real science behind addictions and its implications, and 2) know how important the correct theory is to the correction of today's addiction debacle which is not happening under today's scientifically proven wrong theory pushed by NIDA and ASAM. They had the courage to go against the powers that be to make such comments about Hypoism and Hypoic's Handbook. Why does Corcoran have the nerve, despite no training or expertise in addictions, to write me, "The book is not for us," when world class addictionologists say just the opposite? Corcoran never asked me a single question about anything in the book to help him understand it. Do you think he read it? Again, my guess is that he never read it because his response was after less than 2 weeks after getting the book, a book that takes at least a month to read. And the Times goes along with Corcoran as evidenced by the fact that they have never published a single one on my thousands of letters to the editor nor a book review on Hypoic's Handbook and its implications on ending the addiction epidemic. (See the numerous letters to the Times on my web site dating back to 1995.) But they will push Brooks' book based on a similar but less well developed concept that has no impact on anything. Compare the two books and it's objectively obvious that my book is worth a thousand times more to individuals and society than Brooks book, yet they push Brooks book and reject mine. This is a journalistic scandal! Nonetheless, they won't even read my letter so they don't have to acknowledge their biased damage to society, damage that has gone on since 1995! 3/11/11 Boy’s Tale of Heaven Is Publishing Phenomenon, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/books/heaven-is-for-real-is-publishing-phenomenon.html?_r=1&hp This is not just a publishing phenomenon.How does the average American think and believe? Well, this Times article gives us some evidence about this. I haven't read the book, and I won't, but it's obvious by its response that Americans are looking for books that support their beliefs rather than books that edify. Many scientific studies confirm this and is why new ideas have such a hard time getting off the ground. In this aspect I am a weirdo as I say in my essentially unread book - the reason I wrote my book was because it is the book I was looking for but couldn't find anywhere. So I had to write it. However, my book wasn't supportive of what I believed because I had no beliefs about addictions. When I started researching the book I was completely ignorant about addiction science and I had no intention of writing a book. All I wanted to do was to discover if there was any scientific basis for addiction causation because I was an addict and had no idea why. I thought that if I could discover this science it might help me stay clean and sober. This turned out to be true as you will see if you read my book. But that's not why I am writing this blog today. The reason for this blog is the question I've been asked so frequently: Why is my book selling so poorly, ignoring the fact that no one knows it exists and the disease it writes about is a completely new and unknown word ? Today's article answers that question. It is the rare person who has the motivation I had. Only the rare person is looking for my book. In fact, most people, even the people from the Times such as the science editor, Mr. Corcoran, aren't looking for my book and actually vehemently reject and ignore it when they hear about it, especially when they don't read it. Most people are looking for books that support their already existing beliefs and biases. They're not looking for the truth and especially the truth based on valid science (boring) which is what I write about - valid science validly interpreted. That's what I was looking for and that's what I used to write my book and papers.Assuming for a second there is a heaven, the odds that Jesus had blue eyes is essentially zero; the odds that a new arrival in heaven would immediately run into Jesus (his most favorite biblical person), his sister (of course he didn't know about the miscarriage) who was actually an embryo when she went to heaven but appeared as a grown person, other biblical favorites such as Samson, and his great-great grandfather, are exceedingly low seeing that there are so many people just hanging around up there. How did he manage to find these special people so fast? Thus, right off the bat it's clear that people reading this book are willing to believe anything that supports their prejudicial beliefs; what they want heaven to be. The truth supported by valid science, validly interpreted, is the last thing they want to read. For some reason this book is categorized as non-fiction. This says something about the Times' belief system too.And the conclusion of all this is, "People are getting blessed, and they're going to have healing from their hurts," according to book's author. If this is true then I think the FDA needs to be notified. The fact is that people are getting damaged by this kind of book, but it's a free country, right? We've just spent 10 years in the middle east and wasted trillions of dollars and many thousands of lives based on blessed beliefs similar to this. In just the last twenty years that my book has been ignored, the addiction epidemic, pushed not only by gurus and cults but by the leading addiction doctors, scientists and other "experts," and fueled by invalid science and beliefs that make people feel good, has wasted millions of lives, ruined millions of families, and burned many trillions of dollars in the addiction epidemic and drug war. [This doesn't matter because they're all in heaven.] That's the kind of action these healing beliefs cause and we're so happy about it because in heaven everything's just fine. No other field of medicine other than addictions is so warped by these kinds of beliefs. And we wonder why the addiction epidemic and drug war are getting worse each day. No, it's about the biased media, biased lying experts, and biased closed-minded and gullible public all who want to write, read about, believe in, and feel good about scientifically invalid and wrong ideas as the disaster grows, while lastly blaming this mess on the addicts no less. A publishing phenomenon? This is a human nature phenomenon of the worst kind. That's why it's so popular.3/5/11 Re: When Your Life Becomes a Verb, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/fashion/06NOTICED.html?_r=1 Everyone's life is a verb because if it weren't you'd be dead. The issue with Sheen is that his life is a noun - Hypoism, a word that isn't in the dictionary yet, but when it gets there it will have Sheen's picture there too. And John Daly's. And JFK's, and mine. Charlie's diagnosis is about dopamine activity deficiency. You don't know this, but all people land somewhere onto a bell-shaped curve of genetically determined dopamine activity. The level of dopamine activity dictates one's use of dopamine stimulators which turn out to be human instincts (behavioral addictions) and addictive drugs (drug addictions). The lower one's dopamine activity is the more one uses dopamine stimulators. They are the addictors. If one is below a certain level on the bell curve one gets addicted to one or more of these dopamine raisers, like it or not. That's the way evolution made our brains. Addiction is genetically determined this way. One's will is not the issue. Genetics is. My book, Hypoic's Handbook, discusses all this, but you can learn about Hypoism for free by reading these two papers on my web site: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ and http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/If you read these papers you will learn that the science is in. Addictions are genetically determined by one's dopamine activity. It's involuntary and unconscious, not that we can't prevent addictions, which we can. But if we want to prevent them we must first change addiction paradigms from the currently wrong one, the hijacked brain hypothesis, to the Hypoism paradigm. Until this is done we will have all the Charlie Sheens out there "Sheening." It's due to Hypoism, however, not just being a big jerk. And Charlie knows nothing about it. He just believes he's cool, as weird as that may seem. That's the way evolution made our brains up until today, so far - like it or not.2/25/11 Re: Drug addiction hijacks several areas of the brain, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/23/news/la-heb-addiction-20110223 I'm a medical doctor who has been involved in addiction theory since 1990. My web site tells the entire story of my involvement with addictions. My first paper written in 1992 was called "Hypoism - A Real Disease." The reason I invented a new name for this disease was that no one previously had identified the disease that caused all addictions (addictions are symptoms of the underlying disease called hypoism, not diseases) and it needed a name as well as a defining pathophysiology. Hypo means "low" and ism is the disease of low dopamine activity of the brain reward system. Simply it says that the science of addiction causation shows that only people (and animals) born with low dopamine activity, caused by low activity alleles of many different genes, not just a single gene, and not the environment, are capable of getting addicted involuntarily and they pretty well all do get addicted to one addictor or another or several. People with normal dopamine activity don't get addicted even if they use addictive drugs and behaviors. This is opposed to the hijacked brain hypothesis that states anyone can get addicted if they "voluntarily" use an addictive drug because the drug changes the brain into an addicted brain. The word "voluntary" makes addictions a moral issue and causes all the stigma addicts are subject to. It is well documented that this is not true. These two diametrically opposite theories have diametrically opposite implications on prevention, treatment, and public attitudes and policy. The Hypoism paper has evolved over the last 20 years into the web paper called, "The Hypoism Hypothesis," and it is available to be read at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . This paper scientifically debunks the hijacked brain hypothesis and provides the scientific argument for the Hypoism theory. It is fully referenced with peer reviewed papers, several by Volkow and her staff, and several other papers by me that explain important concepts. These last papers should be read by you also. Lastly is my book, Hypoism Handbook, finished in 1996 that goes through the entire science-based derivation of Hypoism and its prevention, treatment, and policy implications in detail as well as predictions of what future research will show. Most of these predictions have been verified as documented in the above paper and my blog, particularly the 9/9/09 blogs on Volkow and Wang's paper about ADHD and low dopamine activity. By the way, I gave a medical grand rounds lecture on Hypoism at Brookhaven Labs when Volkow was the chief there in 2000. Several leading addiction scientists have read my work and commented on it as shown by their emails to me placed on my home page of my web site, www.nvo.com/hypoism. The reason why the addiction epidemic continues unabated, and this is why I am writing to you, is because the so-called experts continue to push the diproven hijacked brain hypothesis on the public and state and federal legislatures as well as the President. This wrong theory has done what all wrong medical theories do, nothing good or effective. It has maintained the epidemic. The public knows nothing about this mess because my work has been censored and my hundreds of letters, like this one, ignored. Only when the public is allowed to be informed about my work will the changes necessary to end the epidemic be made in regards to the science and the people running the field. 2/16/11 Re: How Sane Parents Got Paranoid About Vaccines, http://www.slate.com/id/2285219/ This is the pot calling the kettle black. Seth Mnookin writes about the problem of inadequacies of science reporting in the vaccine/autism issue. I wonder what his credentials are for doing this job. What training does he have in science? How does he evaluate the literature? He justifiably berates in general the blind following, lack of scientifically valid critical analysis, by science reporters who report about peer-reviewed science publications, particularly in the vaccine/autism controversy. However, I wonder if he remembers my contacting him about this same problem in the reporting of addiction science. Why addiction science? Well, Mnookin is a self-divulged recovering addict who made his name in science reporting for Newsweek many years ago when he wrote articles about problems with the field of addictions. He used not science, because he has no scientific training, but his own personal experiences and lack of scientific objectivity, exactly the problem he's commenting about today. He thus helped ruin for his readers the science reporting on addictions way back then, a problem which continues today in this field. I contacted him back then hoping to find an investigative reporter open to the need for reporting on valid science in the field of addictions, exactly what I was writing about. I wanted to help him report validly on the science of addictions. However, instead of reading my work and writing about it he used his personal biases to ignore and censor it. He never took an objective look at what I was writing about thereby helping keep the field of addictions in the dark ages science-wise, exactly where it still is today. In fact, I have yet to find an investigative reporter to take an objective look at my writings about the fraud in addiction science and its dire implications, the reason the addiction epidemic and the drug war have steadfastly worsened over the last 20 years. Mnookin leads a long list of self-styled science reporters who have ignored and censored my rigorously scientific writings about addiction science and have helped destroy the lives of millions of addicts and their families in their biased take on addiction science, exactly what Mnookin critiques in his book. Nothing can change if nothing changes and my writings detail what needs to change and why, and the valid science behind it. Most importantly, it's not about personalities but about the science, exactly why the science and its correct interpretation needs to get to the public, what needs to happen in the vaccine issue as well as in the addiction issue. 2/14/11 Re: For Some Troops, Powerful Drug Cocktails Have Deadly Results, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/13drugs.html?adxnnl=1&hpw=&adxnnlx=1297688913-MWdv8pcapRCEJ/MVMRhuzg I don't know how long I've been attributing PTSD to Hypoism, but it's been at least ten years if not longer. That means that there's an entire paradigm available to those with PTSD. However, since Hypoism has been ignored and censored, those who need it have not been allowed to use it either to understand what's happening to them or to get the appropriate methods for prevention and treatment.Today's article is about the misdiagnosis and mistreatment of military hypoics, but it's the same problem that exists for non-military hypoics. The Hypoism paradigm has not been allowed to be used to help hypoics in any arena. One of the major problems hypoics run into is how to use addictive medications to treat common problems related to pain, anxiety, and sleep. Currently these patients, if absolutely necessary, get a month's supply of pills to dole out to themselves, as if they were normal people, which they're not. Hypoics, including PTSD patients, get addicted and can't handle addictive medications. Of course we know that these medications are lethal if overused, and even if not lethal can cause other lifestyle problems, particularly with relationships, driving, employment, and many others. So, if these medications are absolutely necessary, how can we give them safely to hypoics who we know are going to have problems with them? There is no method available today. No one has even thought about it, except me as part of the hypoism paradigm. There needs to be a system available for them to have their drugs given to them in a dose by dose method, or at least on a day by day method with monitoring of the dose being taken as well. This method needs to be free of charge. There are many ways to accomplish this so I won't go into these in detail. This method will assure the safe and proper use of these medications and without stockpiling. It needs to be available for all hypoics, military and non-military. But most importantly we need to make the Hypoism paradigm in its entirety to all hypoics because it's the right paradigm and will take care of all problems hypoics have, from birth. 2/13/11 Re: Kids With ADHD Much More Likely to Develop Substance Abuse Problems as They Age, Study Finds, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110211153931.htm I've been through this many times before today, but will go through it again because it's so important. In 1992 I wrote a paper called Hypoism - A Real Disease. The basic premise of this paper was that there's a group of people, maybe 10% of the population, with genetically caused low (hypo) dopamine activity in the instinct regulatory mechanism of the brain. These people, by definition, have the disease of Hypoism that causes three major symptoms, addictions (to drugs and instinctive behaviors), evaluation mistakes, and decision-making problems. This paper has evolved into the current continuously updated web paper, The Hypoism Hypothesis, at http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , which goes through all the ideas behind this paradigm as well as documenting the peer-reviewed literature supporting this hypothesis and its prevention, recovery, and public policy implications. ADHD is mentioned in this paper as one of the symptoms. My 1996 book, Hypoism Handbook, goes through the development of the complete paradigm of Hypoism in book form. In 2000 I gave a lecture on Hypoism at Brookhaven Labs medical conference (I have it on tape) when Dr. Volkow was the chief of these labs. In 2007 Volkow wrote a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry and in 2009 an article in JAMA showing that ADHD is associated with decreased dopamine activity implying that dopamine deficiency (by definition, Hypoism) causes ADHD and addictions. Today's paper shows that kids with ADHD are 3-4 times as likely as kids without ADHD to get addicted to a variety of drugs. We also know that the heritability of ADHD is about 78% (very high). Individual addictions also have high heritabilities. Addictions are thus genetic and unconscious in origin, thus are not a moral issue as today's hijacked brain hypothesis makes it out to be. All of this confirms the Hypoism hypothesis and its underlying pathophysiology. Despite this my papers since 1992 are unpublished, my letters to editors since 1995 are unpublished, and Volkow has yet to admit that I gave a lecture on Hypoism as the disease behind all addictions at Brookhaven in 2000 and predicted all this. The Hypoism hypothesis defines the genetic paradigm of addictions and answers the question as to the cause of addictions as well as how to end the addiction epidemic based on this science-based theory. My web page emails and blog document the censorship of these ideas that could have, long ago, ended the addiction epidemic and the drug war as well as improving prevention and treatment of all addictions, many of which were first called addictions by this theory and why they are addictions. It's way past time for the public to be allowed to know about Hypoism and what this paradigm can do to help all addicts and their families. 2/7/11 Re: Pharmacies Besieged by Addicted Thieves, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/us/07pharmacies.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1297083924-7sR7K/6xpKUqHdb5oxmTkA My guess is that every 5th grader would come up with the correct understanding and cure of today's article's issue while the Times is unable to. Why are drug stores getting robbed of their oxycontins and other addictive drugs? Because there are addicts out there who need them, can't get them elsewhere, and are willing to either pay a high price for them illegally or to rob pharmacies themselves - DEMAND. Demand is the same motivation behind the entire drug war. Our solution to this demand has always been the same: Because demand is believed to be due to the behavior of bad and immoral addicts who need to be made accountable, according to the current addiction causation theory, the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH), we are justified to handle these addicts through the criminal justice system - punishment, for the most part. Some people who see themselves as enlightened argue that treatment should take the place of punishment. However, under the HBH treatment is not much better than punishment in reducing demand. There's no prevention and little recovery in today's addiction causation paradigm run by NIDA, ASAM, and the recovery movement. Thus, the demand issue is not cured under the HBH and the addicts get blamed for that also "They're not cooperating with us." What do we do about this failure? Just as the article says. We don't look for a new addiction causation theory, the right solution, but instead continue to use the same wrong and ineffective theory and its derived (and ineffective) policies with more vigor such as increasing the penalties or longer amounts of ineffective coerced treatments. Like it or not, this hasn't worked because the theory it's based on is wrong. "Wrong theory - wrong policies." I've been writing about this problem for almost twenty years and have been ignored and censored by the same people and groups who say they want to find a solution. My 1996 book and major web paper, continuously updated since 1992, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , discuss the science behind these statements and the solution of this mess based on the science of addiction causation, not opinions or beliefs. I use the same science used by the addiction establishment but interpret it correctly. Only by reading it can you decide what the correct theory is. Only the correct theory can allow us to find the effective solution to addictions thereby reducing demand. In the meantime harm reduction policies will safely supply addicts with drugs and kill the drug cartels rather than the addicts - all by using the correct theory of addiction causation and its policy implications, policies that will never be used correctly until the theory is understood correctly by the public who will then demand the necessary changes in the theory, policies, and the people in charge. Currently all three of these are wrong. This is true enlightenment and only this can work. 2/3/11 Medical Detectives Find Their First New Disease, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/health/03disease.html?_r=1&hpw Dr. Gahl said, “We don’t know how to treat if we don’t have a diagnosis." In 1992 I wrote my first paper on a new disease that causes all addictions. I named it Hypoism, a new word, a new diagnosis. The paper, "Hypoism - A Real Disease." discussed the pathophysiology of this new disease and why it required a new name based on this pathophysiology. Addicts could now have a real diagnosis, Hypoism. This pathophysiology, genetic low (hypo) dopamine activity in the reward system, helped define the words addiction and addictor, another new word. An addictor is a drug or instinctive behavior that people with Hypoism get addicted to. The common denominator of an addictor is that it raises dopamine activity in that person so much that it becomes irresistible not to use it by the particular dopamine deficient hypoic. Only hypoics get addicted, not just anyone stupid or psychobabbly sick enough to get addicted. Hypoism and its pathophysiology explain why only certain people who use a particular addictor get addicted and they have this disease from birth, not just after getting addicted as the current wrong theory, the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH), says. This diagnosis and pathophysiology changes everything in the field of addictions and leads to real addiction prevention, effective treatment, and humane public policies, things I think we all want, NO? The original paper, rejected by 12 addiction journals for reasons unrelated to the science reported in the paper but because of bias against the theory, evolved into two papers and a book, Hypoic's Handbook. One paper, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ , was accepted for presentation at the yearly evolutionary psychology conference in 2000. The other paper, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , was rejected by many addiction journals, again because of non-science related reasons, administrative ones. None of these journals argued against the science I presented in the paper but came up with a variety of administrative complaints like, "It's too long." But when I agreed to shorten it they ignored my appeals, clearly indicating that there was a bias behind the rejections, not the lack of scientific validity of the paper. Anyone I sent the papers or the book to who actually read them agreed with the theory and its scientific basis, and the need of the public to know about it. This included the world renowned addictionologist Eliot Gardner, M.D., Ph.D. who worked at Einstein and then NIDA. He told me he keeps his copy of the book on his desk. Only those who didn't read them rejected them. Those who rejected them consistently refused to debate the science with me. In fact, they were outright hostile. One science journalist from Newsday threatened to report me to the NY medical society if I continued to bother her with my emails. Read my emails to Newsday on my web site and see if they are harmful to her in any way, especially compared to the misinforming and damaging articles she was writing about addictions. The NY Times merely censors me. When I asked them why they said they didn't have to provide a reason. Read my letters to the editor of the Times on my web site and see for yourself if the public needs to read them or not. I think they do. All this occurred in the face of the addiction epidemic growing in its size, scope, and human and financial expense, and the experts continued failure to positively affect the epidemic. Over the years the Hypoism paradigm was validated scientifically issue by issue, as documented by the emails and blog on my web site and by updates in my Hypoism Hypothesis web paper. These updates were added as footnoted references from peer reviewed journals. Despite these additions to the paper, adding to the scientific validity of the paper by these predictions being validated by new science, exactly how new theories are normally confirmed, people and journals continued to ignore and censor my work. Year after year millions of addicts of all kinds (all one hundred varieties, many of which are not yet seen as addictions) have been forced to suffer and die because this new theory, potentially curing the addiction epidemic, has been ignored and actively censored, all because of prejudice against the idea or me personally; never because of the actual science. All those people and groups who claim to be interested in curing the addiction epidemic became the ones who censored this new disease from the public, exactly the opposite of what the Times did today with this new disease occurring in 5 people. Yes, it's difficult to find a new disease but when it's found the public deserves to know about it, especially when it affects 10% of the population and causes the largest public health and social and discriminatory disaster known to mankind. 1/31/11 Removing the Roadblocks to Rehabilitation, http://community.nytimes.com/comments/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/removing-the-roadblocks-to-rehabilitation/?sort=oldest&offset=1 It's nice to see that the author is demanding evidence-based rehab programs rather than bias-based. I knew that in 1992 when I wrote my first paper about addiction. Using a medical rather than a psychobabble-based paradigm I defined the pathophysiological (biological) cause (brain mechanism) of all addictions, to drugs and behaviors, and made the case that any policies (prevention, treatment, and public policies) to deal with addictions must be based on the correct cause, exactly as in all other medical diseases. Inventing policies out of thin air and then not studying them for efficacy as has been done for a hundred years in addictions will continue to get us nowhere. My 1996 book, Hypoism Handbook, and updated web paper, Hypoism Hypothesis, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , continued to make this argument based on medical principles and valid science. What I discovered was that despite calling for evidence-based arguments to deal with the addiction epidemic the vast majority of people interested in fixing the addiction mess refused to read or debate my material but instead continued to make arguments based on personal bias and anecdotes, as in today's article and comments. This included addiction experts at the highest level such as NIDA, NIAAA, and ASAM, as well as the recovery movement. I called this the PIMMPAL complex: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/pimmpalcomplex/ , a more inclusive group than the Prison - Industrial complex. Because of these biases and conflicts of interest nothing has improved in the field of addictions. We continue to see 0% addiction prevention and 5% long-term recovery, and essentially nothing about evidence-based or (valid) science-based efficacy. Thus, the field of addictions has continued to be run by the same ineffective people, ineffective groups, and harmful policies all claiming to work absent any evidence for the claim. This is unacceptable and unconscionable. Despite this, the vast majority of the public blindly believe the "experts" and go along with their harmful nonsense. Today's article questions this behavior - a good thing - but needs to become aware of the theory issue before it can be an effective article. So, we need two things to improve our situation, not just evidence-based policy efficacy. We additionally need the correct theory of addiction causation on which to base all policies as well as proven efficacy of these derived policies. As long as we base policies on proven wrong theory, as is the case today under the hijacked brain hypothesis, we will always have ineffective and harmful policies. That's what today's article is missing because the author is unaware of the theory issue and also blindly believes the experts in regards to theory. She's not alone in that deficiency as my addiction blog shows. 1/28/11 Re: Altering a Mouse Gene Turns Up Aggression, Study Says, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/01obgene.html?hpw Why did the Times publish this article? Well, it didn't really say. But I suspect it was because of the Time's well established environmental bias about the cause of human behavior - human nature. Their old time religion is that human nature is "environmental." In other words, nurture. But here we have solid evidence that nature rather than nurture is largely responsible for some behavior. This must have been shocking to the Times' editors so they published this article to see how it felt to go against their previously established beliefs with real scientific evidence. I applaud them for this though the article certainly could have discussed the implications of this evidence more thoroughly. They didn't, so I will. Genetic imprinting, what today's article is about, is a form of the larger and relatively new genetic entity known as epigenetics, the non-sequence alteration of genome function. Though environment does have some influence on how this mechanism impacts the function of the genome, it still works as a genetic mechanism and is classified as a genetic mechanism. Wikipedia has a good overview of both of these mechanisms. Thus, these mechanisms carry the same genetic implications as the older classical genetic mechanisms do. One of these implications is the radical change in our thinking about identical twins having identical sequences and thus identical function, and that if the function is different then it must be the environment that is causing this difference. Epigenetics changes all this because now we have identical sequences but not identical function due to epigenetic differences between the pairs which genetically alter the function without changing the genome sequence. This mechanism has a major impact on the concept of "heritability," a concept that used to be a simple way to differentiate genetic effects from environmental effects on a particular trait by the behavioral comparison between identical pairs and fraternal or other non-identical relatives including adoptees. These differences used to be attributed to "environmental" effects. Now we know that many of these differences are attributable to epigenetic effects which are still genetic in origin. This throws the entire field of heritability on its head and means all heritability studies need to be re-done with epigenetics taken into account. In my field, addictions, the old heritability studies showed various single addictions to be 50-80 percent heritable. These numbers, though high, still left quite a lot of room for the environmental bias to remain in effect. Now, taking epigenetics into account means that these numbers when re-done will be even higher, closer to the 100% level required for the acceptance that addictions are genetic in causation rather than environmental, the old psychobabble bias held by people who want to keep believing that addictions are the addict's fault, willful and immoral, thus criminal or at least willful and volitional antisocial misbehavior - demonisable and stigmatisable. Though the field of epigenetics and all its implications on heritability has been around for about ten years you will not find these implications in the addiction literature except by me. Read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ This is one more proof of the environmental (psychobabble/moral) bias of the addiction establishment because there's no other reason for the absence of epigenetics in the addiction causation debate except for the environmental bias. 1/26/11 Re: A Pound of Prevention Is Worth a Closer Look, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/health/views/25zuger.html?hpw There are three articles worth commenting on today: 1) A Pound of Prevention Is Worth a Closer Look, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/health/views/25zuger.html?hpw, There's no mention of addictions in this article. The reason for this is that there is no prevention allowed in today's addiction paradigm, the hijacked brain hypothesis while there is in the Hypoism paradigm which is unknown to the author because it's been censored. In today's paradigm an addict must "hit bottom" before he can get any treatment, so prevention is absolutely ruled out. Whereas in Hypoism prevention is the mainstay policy. The same policy that is used in treatment but before any addictions have occurred. Why doesn't anyone care about this most important issue just for the sake of maintaining a belief - The author states: "Medicine is a religion." Yes, but it needn't be and shouldn't be, and isn't when it comes to Hypoism if you'd only read my book and web site as the three guys below have. 2) Nabokov Butterfly Theory Is Vindicated, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/01butterfly.html A "non-expert" hits the nail on the head, theory-wise; just like me. But for some peculiar reason his writings are read while mine are ignored and censored. Well, not completely ignored. Three fairly well known experts have read my writings and have agreed with me, a) Eliot Gardner, M.D. at NIDA: "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." b) Eric Stice, Ph. D. "Sounds like you figured this all out much earlier than the rest of us!" c) Drew Pinsky, M.D. - "Well done. Caught your comments at the NY Times. Everything you have on your website is clear and accurate. I endorse nearly all of your conclusions." Despite all this I am still ignored and censored by the addiction establishment and the media who refuse to read and debate my work. This is not only biased but quite damaging to addicts, their families, and the world at large because my theory not only prevents addictions but also allows effective treatment, neither of which exist today. 3) Support not punishment is the key to tackling substance abuse and addiction among nurses, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-01/w-snp012611.phpYes. I've been saying this since 1992 and for a science-based reason - Hypoism. Moreover, I've defined the disease and it's not the hijacked brain hypothesis, the current theory of addiction causation that defines addiction as a moral issue and supports punishment rather than support and acceptance. My career was destroyed because the panels that removed my medical license saw addiction as a moral failing and required punishment rather than support (and I had the nerve to disagree with them with real and valid science) despite no damage to any patients or anything other than obtaining opiates illegally when I was addicted, though not practicing at the time. Only the Hypoism paradigm does what these authors suggest, not the hijacked brain hypothesis, the theory NIDA and ASAM use against all valid science. Things will remain the same as long as the hijacked brain hypothesis remains "the believed theory." In fact, nothing will change for the better under this wrong and damaging paradigm. I predicted that in 1992 and things have just gotten worse. should this be looked at? No kidding. 1/25/11 Re: Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong, http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/23/why-almost-everything-you-hear-about-medicine-is-wrong.html Begley never answers the question, why? She merely makes the argument that most medical studies are wrong. She never explains why. I'll answer it. It's because of conflict of interests such as money, various biases such as religious or moral biases, and other personal belief biases. If one's job is on the line and your boss believes something about the thing you're studying there's a great pressure to prove your boss's beliefs right. Otherwise you lose your job or your grant if the bias is about grant money for research. NIDA research which is most addiction research has been warped by these biases for as long as it has existed. Even when they prove themselves wrong they deliberately misinterpret it to maintain their biases. (see my blog 9/9/09 through 9/13/09) All these biases affect addiction research. I've written about this for over 15 years with the actual science to back it up. However, I'm ignored and censored by the addiction field and the media because I'm the only one making these claims. Well, I'm not the only one as you will see if you read my book and web site. But you won't read my book or web site articles which prove all this despite the proof being scientific and strong. The liars on the other hand get all the press without providing any proof, just by saying what they say is true. No proof required because they're the boss and they're automatically right. Read NIDA's web site. The theory they say causes addiction, the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH), the theory everything else in addictions is based on such as prevention, treatment and governmental policies that put 500,000 addicts in jail, rules their web site. The HBH has been proven wrong many times and in many ways by many different scientists as shown in my web paper, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . Nonetheless it continues to be used and believed by the addiction establishment and the common man to the detriment of addicts and their families as well as the financial detriment of the country. Despite all these detrimental consequences no one will read my disproof of the HBH, especially the addiction establishment or the addicts and their families. Why? Because of conflicts of interest - they want the HBH to be right even if its killing them and their kids, so they say it's right. And the addiction epidemic with all its consequences continues and grows. The addiction establishment and the media allows this to happen. 1/21/11 Why Parents Fear the Needle, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/opinion/21willrich.html "DESPITE overwhelming evidence to the contrary, roughly one in five Americans believes that vaccines cause autism — a disturbing fact that will probably hold true even after the publication this month, in a British medical journal, of a report thoroughly debunking the 1998 paper that began the vaccine-autism scare." I have written countless letters to the editor to the Times replacing the words "vaccines" with "hijacked brain hypothesis" and "autism" with "addictions," and using different medical journal papers as references. You can read these letters in my blog and elsewhere on my web site. But it's not 1 out of 5 but more like 999 out of 1000. Moreover, the Times has censored all my letters to the editor about this incredibly important issue, an issue that currently is killing a million people a year as a result of the wrong theory of addictions believed by the public, congress, and the addiction world. It is the addiction establishment that has the conflicts of interest, not me, and it is the addiction establishment that is committing the fraud, not me. Nevertheless, the public knows nothing about this fraud because I'm the only one making this argument and I have been censored. My arguments have all been based on the same science used by the addiction establishment but based on opposite interpretations of this science. The public needs to actually read this science and interpret it themselves but they don't know about the existence of this argument nor the science it's based on. They refuse to read my writings as well as the science I make available to them in my writings. They want to believe in the hijacked brain hypothesis rather than my genetic theory so they willfully ignore and censor my work even though the addiction epidemic worsens each day because of the hijacked brain hypothesis. The wrong theory will always worsen any medical disease based on that theory. This is true for the vaccine issue as it is for the addiction issue. That's how you know the theory is wrong. All the necessary evidence is available in this paper: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ The argument is also made in my book, Hypoic's Handbook. Both of these are mandatory reading for anyone interested in addictions, their prevention, treatment, and policies. Using the hijacked brain hypothesis, as has been done for the last 50 years, has only worsened the addiction mess. Is there a better reason for reading this material? So, what's your reason? 1/19/11 Re: Friends with (Genetic) Benefits?, http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/17/friends-with-genetic-benefits/ Again, this is not new information. I discussed this in my book on addiction causation, Hypoic's Handbook, where I discuss Judith Rich Harris's book, The Nurture Assumption, and her revelations about peer groups and how they form, through genetics, not environment. That was 15 years ago. It's the explanation for what we've been ignorantly calling "peer pressure." It's not the environmental peer pressure that leads to addiction but the actual genetics that leads to both how future addicts chose their peer groups and how they get addicted, through dopamine deficiency which is what we find in mutations of the D2 receptor genes such as the one talked about in this article. I wrote Maia Szalavitz about Hypoic's Handbook, but she refused to read it, believing she already knew everything about addictions. So, you won't hear about Hypoism from her. She's still misinterpreting the cause of addictions by blindly using the hijacked brain hypothesis and other faulty beliefs pushed on our society by Nora Volkow, chief of NIDA and the governmental perpetuator of the addiction epidemic. Time magazine chose Volkow as one of its 100 most influential people a few years ago despite my proving her theory, the HBH, wrong and her causing the maintenance and growth of the addiction epidemic. I guess that would make her quite influential, but not in a very positive way, the way Time Magazine made her out to be. But Time won't read my book or papers either even though I sent them a free copy to review. So they have no way to learn about this terrible mistake that is helping kill a million addicts a year. 1/17/11 Re: Inadequate Fight Against Drugs Hampers Krugman wrote an article for today's Times called "War On Logic." Read it. Then there's this article which is an example of illogic by the Times. Why is it that the Times comes down on both sides of the logic issue, calling for use of valid logic in one article and using severe illogic in another article? For the same reason Krugman's article discusses - people use logic when it suits them and they use illogic when it suits them. It's not about valuing logic but about winning an argument in any way possible. The drug war article displays massive ignorance about drug use and addictions, the same ignorance NIDA, our government's drug addiction agency, displays. This article and all of NIDA's articles use the current theory of addiction causation known as the Hijacked Brain Hypothesis (HBH). This theory is used by AA and ASAM, the private sector's group of addiction "experts." If you read my article on the theory of addiction causation (which you won't) you will find the logic behind my contention that the HBH is scientifically proven wrong. In fact, it's been proven wrong long ago, in many ways, and by many brilliant addiction scientists, not just by me. I merely reference their work and writings, and use their logic to make this argument. I didn't invent it. I just named it. Read my Hypoism Hypothesis article - http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ - which details the logic behind the contention that the HBH is scientifically wrong and the implications of this contention as well as the science behind the correct theory of addiction causation and its implications. One of the major implications is the development of programs that prevent addictions from even starting (something that doesn't exist today under the HBH), development of harm reduction programs for addicts, meaning programs that stop AIDS infections, crime, and all the other consequences of addiction which don't exist under the HBH. In fact, the users of the HBH insist on not using harm reduction methods because, they wrongly state, "they're immoral." It's immoral to prevent AIDS and stop crime and overdoses by giving pure drugs to addicts in clean clinics; by giving clean syringes and narcan to street addicts and their friends and families. That's immoral, but allowing AIDS to spread and all the other consequences of addictions to spread is moral? Where's the logic there? I'll tell you. The implications of the HBH are that addicts cause their own addiction, and because addiction is caused by the drugs themselves (with the willful cooperation of the addict) then giving drugs and syringes and Narcan to addicts, and other harm reduction methods, are bad and immoral and "sends the wrong message." That disgusting and stupid (HBH derived) argument has been around forever and helps kill a million addicts a year and incarcerates half a million, destroys families, and keeps addicts addicted, exactly the opposite of what we want. So, all this, as described in the article, continues to happen and grow I might add, due to the fraudulent existence of the HBH and its promotion by AA, NIDA, and ASAM, the exactly opposite of what needs to exist and happen. Read NIDA's web site. It's all about the HBH and there's nothing about or how to use the correct theory of addiction causation, the genetic theory, the one I have been writing about since 1992 and the one the Times has been ignoring and censoring since 1995 when I wrote my first letter to the editor about this issue. It's on my web site along with thousands of other letters and articles making the same logical and science based arguments disproving the HBH and showing how the HBH is ruining America for one reason - the addiction community has been lying about the cause of addictions for as long as it has existed because it hates addicts. The addiction establishment and all its supporters hate addicts and do everything possible to keep them sick or dead by using the wrong and deadly HBH. I've written about this and proved it using peer reviewed studies countless times but have nonetheless been ignored and censoring by these same groups and their leaders who have done everything imaginable to keep the HBH in effect and the correct theory unknown to the public. All the consequences of addictions are caused by this willful misrepresentation of addiction science, detailed in my book and web site. All you have to do to see this is read my book and web site. Moreover, the answers to all the problems of the addiction epidemic are there too. Continue to ignore and censor this information and it's your fault for the mess that continues. 1/13/11 Re: First Comes Fear, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/before-hatred-comes-fear/?src=me&ref=homepage I don't want to come off as a conspiracy monger, but there is a real issue certain people need to fear. That is being sent to prison for being a drug addict. Currently there are hundreds of thousands of drug addicts in prison across the USA for doing nothing but being addicted to drugs. Many more are being discriminated against in many areas of their lives for this issue as well. Well, they're not really in prison for being addicted, but for possession of illegal drugs. It's hard to be an addict and not possess drugs at one time or another, so I think it's rational to say drug addicts are being sent to prison by the hundreds of thousands for an questionable cause that truly makes them fearful of authorities who make the laws that send them to prison and allow them to be discriminated against in many areas. My guess is that drug addicts across the country are full of fear about being arrested and sent to prison for long periods of time for their addiction to illegal drugs. The question is whether our society's decision to send addicts to jail is a rational one or not, and whether our allowance of discrimination against them is also rational and fair. It's been going on for a long time and because of this there is a lot of momentum behind these laws and discriminatory practices. I think Loughner was confronted at one time about this problem and had contact with the police about it as well as told to get help for it or else, something he never did. It probably would have been a good thing for him to have done, but he didn't and I think his going for help about his drug use would have been another factor that could have prevented the shooting spree. Thus, another issue about this case is why didn't Loughner actually go for help with his drug use problem? How many addicts are there out their fearful on a daily basis concerning these issues? Millions. Why is this happening and what can we do about it, and would changes in our approach to drug users and addicts change the fearful environment these people face daily. I've been through this mess myself, so I do have some personal as well as academic experience with this issue. I've discussed it with Mr. Wright as well. Why he didn't mention anything about the addiction mess as an issue in his article is beyond me, because it is a major motivator among people using and addicted to drugs. Their fear is very rational and not at all paranoid or crazy. Why does our society treat drug users and addicts this way? I've been writing about this issue for many years and think I have some important insight about it. Drug use and addiction have been seen by the HBH as willful, immoral, dangerous, and antisocial behavior for hundreds of years. This attitude is caused by the underlying beliefs about drug users based on the prevailing theories of the cause of drug use and addiction. The cause has been consistently seen as due to willful and conscious misbehavior. The current theory of drug use and addiction, the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH), definitively states this to be the case. My contention is that it is this theory, the policies, public attitudes, and paradigm derived from it that cause the negative consequences of drug use more so than the drug use itself. Moreover, it is the paradigm established by this theory that perpetuates the addiction epidemic rather than the irresponsible decisions of the addicts. Why is this? Because the HBH is scientifically wrong, and wrong theory leads to wrong and ineffective policies and attitudes. If you go to NIDA's web site and read what they say is the cause of drug use and addiction, it is the HBH that is the stated cause. The HBH says that a willful and conscious decision is made to first use an addictive drug then the drug hijacks the reward system, causing addiction. This theory makes it a moral issue to be an addict. One of the major consequences of the moral basis of drug use and addiction is the illegality of drug use. This is the rationalization for the incarceration of drug users and addicts. This theory is responsible for all the addicts in jail as well as their demonization. "They did it to themselves." Thus they deserve whatever happens to them, which means jail and discrimination. These addicts self-discriminate and self-stigmatize as well, making them hate themselves and even more paranoid. The problem is that the HBH is scientifically wrong. My book, Hypoic's Handbook, and web site go through the disproof of the HBH and the proof of the genetic cause of addictions called Hypoism. The web paper, Hypoism Hypothesis, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , goes through these proofs in detail using peer reviewed science. NIDA says the HBH is true but never proves it. In fact, volkow proves Hypoism in her recent JAMA paper, Evaluating Dopamine Reward Pathway in ADHD, by Volkow and Wang, et al., JAMA. 2009;302(10):1084-1091. Under the Hypoism paradigm the disease is the genetic alteration of the brain by a variety of genetic alleles which lower the dopamine activity of the reward system, causing drug use and addiction via this mechanism (because these drugs raise dopamine activity). There's no morality involved because the decision to use drugs and get addicted is caused by unconscious brain mechanisms only hypoics have. The genetic alteration of the brain is not a willful choice, but not knowing about it due to the censorship of the Hypoism theory, allows this brain alteration to wreak havoc with the hypoic's brain and behaviors. Thus, it is the promotion of the HBH and the censorship of the Hypoism theory that perpetuates the addiction epidemic by using the wrong theory and censoring the correct one. My proposition is that under the Hypoism paradigm which accepts the hypoic as a good person rather than an immoral maniac makes it a lot easier for the hypoic to enter recovery at an earlier age and get the help he/she needs because the paradigm is one of love rather than punishment. It is the HBH that let Loughner slip through the cracks and stay away from help because he perceived the people wanting to help him as dangerous to him and he wouldn't go to them, keeping him sick, angry, and paranoid. If Hypoism were in effect I believe he would have gotten the help he needed and this disaster would never have happened. Read my book and web articles, and think about it. Hypoism will end the addiction epidemic and ensure help for the isolated and fearful hypoics out there who need help rather than punishment. 1/12/11 Re: Slipping the 'Cognitive Straitjacket' of Psychiatric Diagnosis, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dsm-psychiatric-genetics#add-comment Modern medicine defines diseases according to pathophysiology, a word I didn't see in Hyman's article. If we continue to use instead symtomatology to define disease we will continue to end up with useless and damaging DSM editions. My take on the pathophysiological basis of disease is presented here: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/diseaseconcept1aperspective/ 1/11/11 Re: Depth of the Kindness Hormone Appears to Know Some Bounds, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11hormone.html?hpw Here's another example of an important evolutionary psychological concept discussed in my book about addiction causation, Hypoic's Handbook. Averbeck's surprised how important a little neurotransmitter molecule can be? 1/9/11 Fraud Study Linked Autism to Vaccine, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2040975,00.html For many years I've been writing about the medical principle that the wrong theory leads to wrong policies. These policies concern treatment and prevention of the particular medical entity. In today's case it's about the cause of Autism paradigm where a fraudulent study about vaccines causing Autism has led to increased incidence of measles and other infections related to the under use of the vaccines. This is predicted by the mentioned medical principle. Similarly for addictions where the promotion of the wrong paradigm of addiction causation leads to increased drug use (documented), absence of addiction prevention (documented), increased incidence of all addictions (drug and behavioral), increased incidence of the consequences of addictions (documented), and lack of addiction treatment success (or no improvement in treatment success) as compared to the past (documented). We even have one well documented occurrence of fraud in a well known addiction treatment study (http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/theaddictiontreatmentfraudfinallyexposed/). Unlike today's fraud study this fraudulent study got no press and was never retracted despite its disastrous results for addicts in and out of treatment. The entire argument detailing the deliberate misinterpretation of study results to push the wrong paradigm of addiction causation, the hijacked brain hypothesis, is available at http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ as well as the proof of the correct paradigm, the Hypoism paradigm of addiction causation. Funny thing is that Hypoism has been censored by the addiction field and the media to the detriment of all addicts and their families exactly like today's autism fraud does. I've written this email countless times in the past 15 years yet it's still ignored and censored. 1/6/11 Re: Can You Be Addicted to Foods?, http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/can-you-be-addicted-to-foods/?hp The letter I sent you all yesterday was a comment I wrote about the stated New York Times article. It was censored from the comment page of this article and doesn't appear among the comments on this proven wrong article. Kessler's book and articles on food addiction are all scientifically wrong, something I've written about in the past, yet the Times censors my critique of it and doesn't allow the public, as usual for the Times, to know about the disproof, a disproof that has been validated many times by many scientists, not just me. This unconscionable behavior by the Times over the last 15 years has allowed the wrong theory of addiction causation, the hijacked brain hypothesis, to remain in effect, effectively killing millions of hypoics and ruining their families, over this time period. The strange thing about this behavior is that the times also publishes articles about the consequences of this wrong theory such as the one in today's Times on the web, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/health/06drugs.html?hpw , about prescription drugs sending more people to the hospital and fatal overdoses. Yes, increased side effects of prescription drugs is due to the wrong addiction causation paradigm being in effect - due to the experts lying about the science of addiction causation, the hijacked brain hypothesis specifically, something I've been writing about since 1992. This revelation has not been allowed to get to the public because of this sinister censorship by the Times and the field of addiction in general. Today's censorship of my comment, yesterday's blog, is helping the wrong paradigm stay in effect, causing the increased consequences of this wrong paradigm. The Times has been told about this hundreds of times but still continues to ignore my scientific arguments that could cure the addiction epidemic. If you read the other comments on this article you can see the scientific ignorance of the public standing out like a sore thumb. How about you all write letters to the Times and comments on this article so the truth can get to the public. They're not going to censor all of you. 1/5/11 Re: Can You Be Addicted to Foods?, http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/can-you-be-addicted-to-foods/?hp The reason this issue is so misunderstood and confusing to the public is that the experts like Kessler also misunderstand addictions in general and behavioral addictions such as food addiction specifically. The paradigm these experts use is called the Hijacked Brain Hypothesis which says the addictor, such as food or drugs, is to blame for causing the addiction by hijacking the reward system of the brain. This paradigm has been disproven years ago. Its not the addictor that hijacks the reward system but actually the dopamine deficient reward system in only certain people hijacks the addictors, just the opposite of the hijacked brain hypothesis. If you have the paradigm wrong then everything else is understood wrongly as well as in this case. The correct paradigm is the dopamine deficiency paradigm called Hypoism, hypo for low; genetic low dopamine activity in only certain people. and it's this Hypoism that causes the addiction, not the addictor. We know that if a hundred people use the addictor, food in this case or alcohol, only a certain low percentage actually get addicted; 3% for food and 8% or so for alcohol. These "susceptible" people are Hypoics, born with genetic low dopamine activity in the reward system. It's only these Hypoics who get addicted whether to alcohol, food, drugs, sex, gambling, etc. Thus, we're looking at the wrong issue here. Instead of blaming the addictor, even though the addictor is necessary for the addiction to occur, we need to understand that it's the low activity genetics of the reward system that causes the addictions. This has been shown especially well in Volkow's studies of ADHD patients (who have a very high percentage of addictions) who are the ones who get addicted and also have been shown to have low dopamine activity, genetically. I discuss all this in detail in my web paper: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ and in my 1996 book, Hypoic's Handbook. This science has been known for a long time already but not used. For a scientifically correct understanding of this paradigm and how it can be used for addiction prevention and treatment (recovery) read that paper and book and the rest of my web site, www.nvo.com/hypoism. Until we acknowledge the correct paradigm and use it we will continue to fail to adequately deal with addictions, as is currently the case. 12/31/10 Re: Risk for alcoholism linked to risk for obesity, http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/21680.aspx The conclusions of this study were predicted by my first Hypoism paper in 1992, a paper that was rejected by 12 addiction journals. That 1992 paper has evolved into the current Hypoism Hypothesis paper: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ The "alcoholism" is the sign of the genetic Hypoism in these people. One comment on the "environmental" issue: Yes, we are seeing increased obesity due to the changed "palatable" food environment, but only in those who are susceptible to addiction. Of course these susceptible people are those with genetic Hypoism to begin with. Thus, the obesity is caused by the Hypoism, not by the changed environment. To say the opposite, that the environment is causing the obesity is a mistake. It is necessary, but not sufficient. The genetics, the Hypoism, is the cause. Until we begin to see it this way we will not have the correct paradigm available to change this mess. 10/29/10 Landon Hall: I want to help you understand the important issues in the addiction causation debate and where they originate so you can understand why prop. 19 is important, what it means for addicts and society, and why its resolution is critical to understanding the issues involved in the addiction causation debate and its politics. There's been a major battle between two prevailing theories in addition causation and its resolution is key to solving the addiction epidemic (science) and the drug war (politics). In 1990 I began reading the science behind addiction causation because of my own personal reasons to figure out the actual cause of addictions. Read Chapter 1. of my book, Hypoic's Handbook: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/chapter1/ By 1992 I had discovered the scientific basis of the paradigm which I called Hypoism, hypo for low, low dopamine activity of the reward system which is at the basis of the brain's instinct regulatory mechanism. Read the paper that describes this mechanism and the evolutionary basis of this mechanism: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ You can see the position this mechanism takes in this brain mechanism. All addictions, to drugs and to instinctive behaviors, originate from this brain mechanism and are caused by low dopamine activity there. Since then many studies have validated this paradigm, especially the most recent paper by Nora Volkow, chief of NIDA, in 2009 - read my 9/9/09 blog about that study on my blog page - http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/currentletterstoeditors72309/ . ADHD is actually Hypoism (by definition), and proves my thesis. In other words, the hijacked brain hypothesis, Volkow's old addiction theory, the hijacked brain hypothesis, is proven wrong by this study while Hypoism is proven correct. This proof is VERY important. Now comes along this prop. 19. (politics) which is actually a debate or political war between the two major theories of addiction causation. 1) addiction is caused by the drug or behavior hijacking the brain's reward system, (the hijacked brain hypothesis) or 2) the brain's low dopamine activity reward system hijacks the drug or brain behavior (hypoism). The problem with prop. 19 is a battle between which of these two scientific theories is correct. Re: Doctors warn of Prop. 19's 'collateral damage,' http://www.ocregister.com/articles/marijuana-273150-prop-brain.html The main problem with this article is that neither you nor the researcher you refer to know the neurobiology of addiction causation. "Availability" has been disproven as the cause of addiction, the so-called hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH), many years ago. Read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/139socalledavailabilitydebunkedascontributorofaddictions/ Similarly, the "gateway theory" has been disproven by the same scientist - Kendler, using similar scientific methodology - http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/gatewaytheoryfinallydisproven/ Both of these disproofs are critical to differentiating the HBH from the hypoism theories and their proofs. In fact, addiction causation is the exact opposite of the HBH. The genetically altered brain "hijacks" the addictors, not the other way around. I delineate the proof of this concept in this paper: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . This last paper is the key to understanding the correct science that decides the addiction causation issue and why the proof is so important. The reason it's so important is because the recovery (or treatment) methodology behind addictions is dependent on which theory is correct. I explain all this in both the hypoism hypothesis paper (re: addiction prevention) and in my book, Hypoic's Handbook, also in regards to prevention and treatment. The reason prevention and treatment are essentially nil today is because we are using the HBH, a wrong theory, instead of Hypoism, the correct theory. Thus Hypoism (180 degrees opposite from the HBH) needs to replace the HBH theory scientifically and politically for us to make any improvement in prevention and treatment of addictions and drug use, and to make any progress in the addiction epidemic. The problem is that the politics behind the HBH is so strong (that addiction is a moral/religious issue rather than a medical issue) that the science is massively biased to maintain addiction as a badness and Volkow was appointed by Bush because of her bias in that direction. Appointing Volkow as chief of NIDA was the biggest mistake Bush made to keep addiction in the moral arena. Prop.19 is just a smoke screen to keep things this way. Since when does science get voted on? Since when is science decided by majority rule? Science is based on scientific principle and scientific method, not political agendas (except during the inquisition, get it?) Whatever happens to the prop.19 vote its results will be a scam and a mistake and will continue to damage people. What needs to happen is for the real scientific basis of addictions to be written up by someone like you, someone interested in the science of addictions and someone willing to be honest about it. We need an article by an investigative reporter detailing the science of addiction causation to inform the public about the actual science so they can be informed before making any kind of political decision about drugs and instinctive behaviors like gambling, sex (prostitution), zenophobia (racism), etc. Understanding the science (psychology)behind drugs and instincts is what we need today, not votes on agendas. Psychology does not know enough about how the brain deals with drugs and instincts to inform the public well enough to make these kinds of decisions. We need an article to spell this out and clarify it specifically. Science is not done by consensus but by science. 10/25/10 Re: Just Say Yes? Teens Not Always Honest About Drug Use, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/teens-truthful-drug-study/story?id=11947228 For umpteen years we've been reading reports from various drug use quantization groups on how much drugs kids are reporting they use. This data has been then used to grade our methods for reducing drug use; the utility of the drug war. Finally these groups have begun to do forensic testing to validate this self-reporting. Voila. The kids are lying. They're doing more drugs than they're actually reporting. THEY'RE LYING. Now, I've been saying for all these years that these data are lies and that the conclusions about the drug use reduction methods are bogus. My complaint was always that 1) they're not doing forensic testing (self-reporting is invalid), and 2) they're picking biased groups to test. 3) other things. I've been consistently been ignored and censored. It turns out I've been right - again. Whatever the reason, the media has not been critical of this data and believes whatever the reporting groups say - kiss their asses. Thus, we've been getting wrong information about drug use and the effectiveness of the methodology for lowering drug use leading to wrong conclusions about their effectiveness and whether or not we should continue using them. Well, here, again, I've been proven right. Forensic testing must be part of any evaluation method used for testing drug use. This error has wasted another 20 years and shows again that we've been purposely lied to by the governmental agencies responsible for giving us this information. Again it proves that we must get rid of all the top administrators running these programs. The fact is that these programs don't work and no amount of lying is going to make them work. They don't work because they're based on the wrong theory of drug use and addiction, exactly what I've been saying for 20 years. And, for use to make any progress in the addiction field we need honest people with integrity running these programs. SAME OLD SAME OLD. This lying is not just propaganda, making the government look good - it kills people. 10/22/10 Re: Ask an Expert About Gambling Addiction, http://consults.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/ask-an-expert-about-gambling-addiction/?hpw#preview The NY Times has been misrepresenting addictions of all kinds and their cause for a very long time. This article is a good example. I've written at least a thousand letters to them alone about this since 1995. Many of them are on my Hypoism web site. Hypoism is the underlying genetic low dopamine activity disease of the brain’s instinct regulating apparatus that causes all addictions both to drugs and behaviors, gambling and sex included. My first paper combining drug and behavioral addictions with this brain mechanism, Hypoism - A Real Disease, was written in 1992, long before anyone else. This paper has evolved into the continuously updated paper - http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ Addictions are some of the symptoms of this disease, not diseases themselves. ADHD is another symptom of Hypoism, not a disease itself. Hypoism works in a very particular biological way that the current wrong addiction paradigm doesn't understand or use. The emphasis must be on this underlying disease, Hypoism, not on the specific addictions. This is one reason why we have made no progress in prevention or recovery. We’re using the wrong theory. All this is explained in my book, Hypoic's Handbook, and on my web site - www.nvo.com/hypoism. Both the media and the addiction establishment have been ignored and censored this paradigm for 18 years - the other reason why we have made no progress. So, to understand both the cause and the prevention and recovery methods of all addictions, individually and as a group, one must read and use (test) the material derived from the Hypoism paradigm and the science backing up these writings. I have delineated all this in great detail. The web site has essentially all of it for free. The book presents it all in a lot more detail and in one coherent and logical format. The web site also has a blog that critiques current mistaken writings and beliefs on all these addiction issues. Your choice is whether you continue to uncritically use the current wrong pseudoscientific theories and their proven wrong and ineffective methods pushed by the addiction establishment or switch to the proven correct scientific theory and its yet to be tested methods. Yes, there’s still more research that needs to be done; the research that needs to correct all the bad science from the past. Reading this material is a good first step to making this choice. I’m quite happy to debate the science with anyone willing to read the material which, except for my future speculations and predictions of course, is all peer reviewed and referenced in the above linked paper and book. It's about science, not opinion. This material is also the basis for the 501c3 foundation The National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts, Inc. (N4A) established to advocate for valid addiction science and treatment, and against addict discrimination. 10/22/10 Re: Dopamine Model Could Play Role in Treating Schizophrenia and Drug Addiction, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101020171609.htm "Different branches of natural science have surprisingly different ways of thinking," Dreyer says. "Our work -- and our model -- is only possible because even though I am a physicist, I have been able to conduct research at the Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology at the University of Copenhagen. As soon as we are certain that the model is correct, we can begin applying it to dopamine-related illnesses such as drug addiction and schizophrenia." I said the same thing about why I was able to come up with Hypoism (genetic low dopamine activity) as the cause of all addictions in 1992, 18 years ago (lack of bias within a particular paradigm). This hypothesis was put forth in my first rejected paper, Hypoism - A Real Disease, which evolved into , The Hypoism Hypothesis, and the 1996 book, Hypoic's Handbook. Too bad my work wasn't read and evaluated by addiction and neuroscience journals besides other science media. We would have been much farther along in understanding, preventing, and curing addictions. 10/20/10 Re: First Direct Evidence That Response to Alcohol Depends on Genes: Dopamine Receptor Deficiency Leads to Significant Brain Changes in Response to Drinking, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101019162155.htm They call "chronic alcohol drinking" the environment. Are they serious? What happens? The alcohol jumps down their throats? Sounds like Hypoism, no? They know what Hypoism is. I gave a lecture at Brookhaven in 2000. Now they're confirming my work but not admitting it. Again. I've written Science Daily hundreds of letters over the last 10 years about Hypoism but they just censor them. 10/18/10 Ed Schultz: I am very optimistic now that we have the Ed Show. I believe you're for the truth and are willing to fight for it, something I’ve been attempting for 20 years. I’ve been working on informing the public about the lies promulgated by the addiction establishment which includes, NIDA, ASAM, the addiction treatment industry, and the bosses of the recovery movement and the scientific truth that needs to replace it. These lies are about the theory of addiction causation, treatment methods and effectiveness, and the demonization and discrimination of addicts. This theory is called the hijacked brain hypothesis, a theory I’m sure you have seen discussed in the media by the addiction establishment, e.g. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/28alettertobillmoyersclosetohomeandpbs/ . This theory moralizes addictions, demonizes addicts, and perpetuates the addiction epidemic rather than ending it. Moyer’s series on addiction was one big advertisement for the treatment industry while helping to perpetuate the epidemic. The correct theory of addiction causation, the genetic model (read http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ ), not only allows for addiction prevention but will, when used, allow for massive recovery rather than the failed recovery we have today (which they also lie about). My 1996 ignored and censored book, Hypoic’s Handbook, named after my biologically-based name for the disease, Hypoism, that causes all addictions, drugs and behaviors, discusses all this in great detail. I gave a lecture on this disease to Volkow’s group at Brookhaven labs in 2000. Eliot Gardner, a world class addiction researcher, agrees that this theory has great merit and needs to get to the public. See his email to me on my home page and the other supportive emails there too. However, the addiction establishment has ignored and censored Hypoism for 20 years thus helping to maintain the addiction epidemic, something it says it wants to end, another lie. They’ve done everything possible to maintain it for a variety of conflicted reasons. I would be happy to go through all this with one of your investigative reporters so we can publicize this fraud and finally put an end to it so we can actually end the addiction epidemic, something that should have happened 20 years ago when the science was available. The public has been lied to for too too long. Read my blog at “Addiction Blog.” from its beginning on my web site. Also read my letters to the editors at the NY Times just to see my persistent attempts to correct the current reported mistakes about addictions. Absent these corrections we will continue to see the addiction epidemic grow as it has been recently shown (up 9% in recent study). I hope you work with me on this important issue. It's a Pulitzer prize as well as a way to save a million addicts a year. Thanks, Dan Umanoff, M.D. 941-926-5209 dan.umanoff.md@gmail.com 10/17/10 Re: Hitler Exhibit Explores a Wider Circle of Guilt, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/world/europe/16hitler.html?_r=1&hp "I KNOW NOTHING! I SEE NOTHING! I HEAR NOTHING!" Of course, when it's not happening to you. [This letter is the explanation of what's going on today with and against addicts]: Read the book The Authoritarian at: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf [This letter is not political, it's medical, and about how an Authoritarian physician-scientist can become a presidentially appointed authoritarian policy maker if the people let her which is what has happened because one person, the chief of NIDA, has been given the power of essentially all the grant money (who does research and on what, and who doesn't) and much of the hiring and firing power in the field of addictions.] When the full weight of this power gets applied to you what do you do or say then? By then, however, it's too late. You're dead. And it's not so much about a person like Hitler, there are many of his kind around, although he's a good example, but about the beliefs and feelings people like him stimulate in a certain large group of humans who have been called THE AUTHORITARIANS by psychologist Bob Altemeyer at Manitoba University. Altemeyer says, "Authoritarianism is something authoritarian followers (the people) and authoritarian leaders (the guru, the dictator) cook up between themselves. It happens when the followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want--which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical and brutal." Of course, there's always a good reason for it to happen - FEAR. Fear is always behind authoritarianism policy. In this case it's the fear of addiction, fear of addicts, and fear of addicts getting loose and hurting other people. Authoritarianism seems like a good alternative to that, right? What do you think? I don't and here's why. Without knowing about his book The Authoritarians I wrote a similar paper on my web site as it relates to genocide, addiction, and addicts: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/entitledtoyouropinionnotanymore/ about the current hypoic genocide, called The Drug War, and how it came to be, a true genocide led by an Authoritarian leader and done by Authoritarian followers against addicts and acquiesced to by "ordinary people." I've been writing about this for many years but haven't been listened to yet. If you read the book The Authoritarian first you might be able to comprehend my paper better. So, read the book. It's free and it's on the web. Then read my paper. The fact is, and it's the problem here today too, is that the fear of addicts is purposely exaggerated. Some addicts are dangerous but most aren't. Got the numbers? Or do you just want to ignore them so you can keep beating up on the addicts? Some addicts are dangerous and some aren't just as some non-addicts are dangerous and some aren't. But here's the error. With data on physicians, the percent dangerous is equal between the two groups yet they are held to different standards where addicts are assumed to be all dangerous absent any offences and non-addicts are assumed not dangerous until they commit many offences, with the emphasis on many. I document this differential handling in my book's appendix with data from the NYS Health Department. So it's easy to see why "ordinary people" fear addicts and believe it's OK to discriminate against them while not calling it discrimination - what I call "legal" discrimination. Legal discrimination is the psychological basis for genocide. All you need to do is find an authoritarian leader who believes in legal discrimination to produce a full scaled addict genocide. This is what President Bush did when he appointed Nora Volkow chief of NIDA. The result is an unending drug war unopposed by the addiction establishment which she heads. (You don't see the addiction establishment coming out against the drug war do you? Of course not. she was put in there to make sure the drug war didn't end and she's done a good job at that.) And they back it with bogus science (the wrong theory of addiction causation, the hijacked brain hypothesis). Thus, if dissenting science (Hypoism) can be censored the genocide has no opposition and it is thus maintained and approved by the legal system, politicians, media, and ordinary people, the only groups available to oppose the genocide. But to oppose it they have to know about it, which they don't. This is not happening because of the Hypoism censorship. This censorship must end, otherwise, someday we will be building museums to addict victims of this genocide. 10/17/10 Re: In Mexico, Scenes From Life in a Drug War, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/opinion/17mexico-intro.html?_r=1 Today the drug war bullshit is on the op-ed pages. This series of four articles by novelists on the various effects of the drug war on Mexico is the Times' latest attempt to cure the mess caused by the drug war. These articles aren't by addictionologists, scientists, psychologists or other types of people who think they know about addictions, and therefore should know how to cure them, the types of people who used to write these articles but because they failed to make a dent the Times has switched to novelists to do the same thing. Here's my slogan, "Anything but Hypoism." Another slogan: "All things considered except Hypoism." I have plenty of slogans for why this country won't use Hypoism, the correct theory of addiction causation and thus the theory that has the potential to end the drug war from the demand side, the only side that will work. Hypoism could have cured the addiction epidemic by its prevention methods in 1992 when I wrote my first ignored paper about it. But the addiction community censored it. In 1995 I began writing the Times about it. See my letters to the editor on my web site. Censored. In 1996 I wrote my book about it and sent a copy to the Times science department (David Corcoran) - ignored and censored. I sent the same book to Eliot Gardner, an addiction scientist at Einstein medical school who said it had merit and should get to the public but didn't do anything about it because he was afraid to get punished (loss of grant money) by the chief of NIDA, Alan Leshner. Today Gardner works for NIDA and still does nothing because he's afraid to get fired by the chief of NIDA, Volkow, an addiction maven who wouldn't listen to my lecture on Hypoism in 2000 at Brookhaven Labs, her job prior to moving to NIDA. Another addiction scientist, Eric Stice, recently read my work and wrote me, "Sounds like you figured this all out much earlier than the rest of us!" Even Drew Pinsky saw a comment of mine in a NY Times article and emailed me, "Caught your comments at the NY Times. Everything you have on your website is clear and accurate. I endorse nearly all of your conclusions." Yet the Times continues to ignore and censor my Hypoism theory from the public. Now, why is Hypoism so important? In medicine there's a principle; science in general. Wrong theory - wrong results. Right theory - right results. Hypoism is the right theory. All of today's other theories are wrong including the one NIDA uses to run our country's drug and addiction policies. Despite this the Times only writes about NIDA's theory; the rest of the media too. THUS, the addiction epidemic continues and THE DRUG WAR CONTINUES! GET IT? By ignoring and censoring the right theory of addiction causation the Times helps maintain the addiction epidemic and the drug war, both the result of the wrong addiction theory. Why is Hypoism so important? Because it is the only way to end the addiction epidemic and the drug war and, as a side effect, save Mexico. You have to read the book to see how all this happens. Just disagreeing with me without reading and thinking about what I've written is not enough. You need to read the whole logical progression of the whole idea and its consequences. Anything less is too little. Then, we as a country must act. What needs to be step one? Get rid of Nora Volkow at NIDA, a presidential appointment that never should have been made 10 years ago. She's the one person mostly responsible for maintaining the wrong theory of addiction causation. Replace her with someone willing to allow the right theory to be known and used by the public as well as studied by the addiction field. That will be enough of a start to get things moving in the right direction. Absent this bold move we will remain stuck in the current mess no matter what other policies happen. And Mexico will remain there with us. 10/11/10 Re: Lawyers React With Shock and Disbelief to Federal Judge's Drug Arrest, http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202473157922 This case raises several misconceptions about addicts and addictions raised by the discussants who are supposed to be smart people. The major misconception is that all addicts are impaired. Another misconception is that it is easy to pick an addict out of a group because they act weirdly. Addicts are also seen as dangerous, irresponsible, and a whole range of other negative adjectives. Long ago I wrote a list of misconceptions about addictions and addicts. It is here: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/htmlpage/ People don't like to hear about it, but I was discriminated against and my career ruined according to these misconceptions when I was a recovering physician seeking license restoration, having lost my license for being an oral opiate addict following oral surgery. Because I disagreed about these misconceptions with the NYS Health Department panel that was judging whether I deserved license restoration following 8 years of documented recovery I was denied license restoration and my excellent career was ruined. The fact was that except for my addiction and the illegal activities I did to get the drugs, writing prescriptions for myself following voluntarily turning in my license, no one knew I was addicted because my behavior was essentially normal as well as up to the usual high standards of medical practice and with absolutely no patient damage or medical malpractice, ever. The panel ignored all this and still proclaimed me as being dangerous despite my being 8 years documented clean and sober, having the full advocacy of the NYS CPH and four board certified addiction psychiatrists, as well as the full recommendation of many colleagues and medical mentors such as the chief of nephrology of the Nassau county medical center where I attended nephrology grand rounds every thursday for 8 years. [I was a board certified nephrologist] Another accomplishment during these eight years was the writing of a book documenting and defining the actual genetic disease that causes all addictions as well as the recovery and prevention methods derived from this theory called Hypoism. My book was called Hypoic's Handbook. They ignored this as well. The fact is that addicts are not automatically impaired or dangerous by their addiction and should be judged according to their behavior rather than by misconceptions. My book contains much evidence for this stance as well as much wisdom from forensic psychiatrists agreeing with me. I'd be happy to discuss all this with you one on one as well as what the future should be for all addicts determined by the Hypoism theory as opposed to the current moral theory of addictions currently running the world of addictions. My phone number is at the end of this comment. 10/10/10 Re: Where Free Speech Is Less an Idea Than a Lifestyle, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/us/10kansas.html?scp=2&sq=free%20speech&st=cse Bias, hate, and resultant discrimination are prevalent in today's world even by people and organizations who say they are against censorship. It's seen in racism, religiophobia, gender, sexual orientation, obesity, poverty, age, addictophobia, and many others. It's instinctive and unconscious. No where is it worse and more damaging than in addictophobia, something you know nothing about and unwittingly practice. You don't see too many articles about addictophobia because it's essentially completely accepted even by addicts themselves despite the ADA (the Americans with Disabilities Act). Of the two million people in jail today in the United States 25% are incarcerated merely because they are addicts. A large percentage of the rest are also addicted but are not there primarily because of addiction. Providing these people with the correct theory and recovery method of addiction would go a long way toward emptying the jails and preventing crime. None of the other vilified groups are incarcerated; a good thing. But addicts of all kinds, not just drug addicts, are incarcerated, hated, and discriminated against so readily that addicts themselves don't even object to this kind of mistreatment. In fact, when given the opportunity to do something about it, like joining and participating in the 10 year old National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts, Inc., (The N4A), an organization similar to the NAACP, an organization that has done massive amounts of very important work, and the only activist organization of addicts and for addicts, they completely ignore it. Unbelievably AA tells its members not to get involved in addiction politics or theory even though its book is full of addiction causation theory--from the 30's no less and for the most part misleading and wrong. Does AA actually believe the addictionology establishment is going to take care of them? All the objective evidence is against that. Obviously AA has not read my work. Why? Every other major disease has an organization of and for its victims similar to the N4A except addictions. Why is that? There is no other activist organization of addicts for addicts. It's the only organization designed specifically to deal with addict discrimination and addiction theory lies and ignorance. Nevertheless, the N4A is ignored by the recovery movement without even reading my work. Why do addicts give up their power to people who have conflicts of interest and are not primarily and specifically for protecting addicts as is the N4A in all the ways they need and deserve? Today's article is about a fringe group way out there in the middle of nowhere, literally and figuratively. It's so out to lunch and so hurtful, even to most homophobics, it deserves an article. But like all biased and discriminatory groups this group has a theory its policies are based on. Their theory is that God hates homosexuals, for, they believe, a good reason, that homosexuality is a sin. Like all religiously self-righteous groups it is their job to help God, someone who apparently is too weak or too lazy to take care of these sinners on his own. How many times have we heard about that kind of God and those people who need to help him out? What is the usual outcome? Genocide. God needs humans to defend his philosophy? The religious basis of bias, hatred, and discrimination is the commonest reason of all - how do you defend against such an idea? Similarly for the rest of the sins listed above, particularly addiction which is likewise viewed as a sin. But unlike homosexuality which has been taken off the psychiatric list of mental illness, addiction remains on the psychiatric, religious, and cultural list of sins, and because of this addicts are stigmatized and demonized as well as injured. In other words, science has removed homosexuality from the list of volitional and willful mental illnesses and behaviors, but not so for addictions where Psychiatry, NIDA, ASAM, and even the addiction recovery movement still see addiction as a sin requiring God's forgiveness and help removing it from the addict's behavioral repertoire. What addicts need is the right theory and its resultant right policies. Today's scientific paradigm of addiction causation continues to blame the addict for his/her addiction. This theory is called the Hijacked Brain Hypothesis (HBH) where the addict consciously and willfully takes the addictive drug after which the drug hijacks their brain and turns them into an addict. Thus, the addict and the drug are both responsible (and made accountable) for the addiction and all its consequences. This accounts for the drug war and the war against addicts. This theory has been disproven in many different ways as shown in my book and web papers, yet the addictionologists continue to push this theory on the ignorant and gullible public making them fearful, discriminatory, and hateful of addicts. This theory is the basis for addictophobia even while the addictionologists claim they want to rid the world of addict bias and stigma. This is a lie as is the theory. But to know this you must read the scientific argument against it. A million addicts of all kinds die each year from their addiction because of the HBH theory, the current believed but wrong theory of addiction causation. Many more are injured in countless different ways. My book, Hypoic's Handbook, and web paper, Hypoism Hypothesis, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/, delineate all this as well as debunk it. Of course, all addictophobes have refused to read my work so they can continue to rationalize their addictophobic beliefs and policies. Not only has the HBH been scientifically disproven but the addiction scientists, not all, but for the most part, lie about it to the world as being correct so they can maintain their bias against addicts and the damaging governmental policies supposedly in place to end addictions - another lie, but in actuality to injure addicts. Theory of some kind is always the basis for discrimination and the HBH is today's current theoretical basis of addict discrimination. Read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/entitledtoyouropinionnotanymore/ By ignoring and censoring my work addictophobes of all stripes can continue to injure and kill addicts and maintain their biased beliefs, beliefs and policies they actually feel good about. No one who has read my work objectively has disagreed with it. Thus, it needs to be publicly debated. The funny thing is that the NY Times sees me and my writings as being the weird fringe of addictionology as opposed to the actual liars, for one reason only: they won't read, publish or debate my writings themselves - blatant censorship. Only in this way can the Times maintain their bias against addicts and allow addicts to be discriminated against. I understand that the liars are the vast majority and are in the positions of scientific authority, but in science it is the right theory that is supposed to rule, not the majority, and in science it is quite common for the majority to be wrong. This is the reason things are going so badly in addictionology; even getting worse. They are using a wrong theory to run addiction policies, and wrong theory can never cure anything. Wrong theory always makes things worse as is currently the case with addictions. Not only does wrong theory keep us from solving the addiction epidemic but it also makes things worse, exactly what has been happening over the last 70 years, and especially the last 15 since I've been writing about it. All my scientific predictions have been validated while simultaneously I've been ignored and censored, just the opposite of what should be happening. It's not me that's the psycho fringe. It's the addiction establishment that is lying to the public and maintaining the wrong theory by its lies. Until this fact is allowed to be known and critically evaluated by the public we will continue to see addicts discriminated against and the addiction epidemic worsen. The problem isn't too little information getting to the public but the right information. And it is about free speech. Only free speech, the opposite of what the Times is doing in addiction science, can allow the solution to the addiction epidemic. The Times has censored my letters to them since 1995. Not a single one of them has ever been published. And that includes the public editor who is supposed to be the ombudsman for the public - what a lethal joke that is. See my web site where many of these letters are listed and my blog where the most recent letters to all media outlets and other scientists are presented. Yes, we need free speech to be a lifestyle and not just an idea. 10/9/10 Re: Mickey Mantle: From golden god to alcoholic wreck, http://www.salon.com/books/our_picks/index.html?story=/books/review/2010/10/08/mickey_mantle_biography The review states, "But he drove his wife, Merlyn, his childhood sweetheart back in Oklahoma, to drink and despair with his constant womanizing and allowed his four sons to sink into alcoholism with him." My ignored and censored book explains this sentence like no other theory can. "Hypoic's marry hypoic's and have hypoic kids." Just as Mickey's alcohol addiction wasn't his fault nor were his wife's and kid's addictions. But we still insist on the psychobabble and Hijacked Brain Hypothesis explanations of drug use and addiction, both decisively disproved, so why not blame Mickey? One reason is that if we continue to inappropriately use these bogus theories of addiction we will only perpetuate the addiction epidemic, and demonizing millions of innocent and hapless people, exactly what we're doing. 10/8/10 Re: Medical Student Distress and the Risk of Doctor Suicide, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/health/views/07chen.html?hpw The article states, "Surveying more than 2,500 medical students across the country, the researchers found that students who suffered from professional distress, more commonly referred to as burnout, a constellation of emotional exhaustion, detachment and a low sense of accomplishment, were more likely to admit to cheating on tests, lying about the status of a patient’s laboratory tests or physical exam and espousing less altruistic views regarding their role as physicians. Conversely, students who suffered from personal distress, defined as poor mental or physical quality of life or depression, were not more susceptible to these unprofessional behaviors and self-centered beliefs." These findings are very interesting and informing. Most people, and especially physicians who tend to be biased against other doctors with mental illness, addiction being one of these, believe that doctors with "personal distress" such as addiction are not only more susceptible to unprofessional behaviors and self-centered beliefs but assume these doctors are all unprofessional and self-centered. I was judged according to these biases at a time when I was 8 years documented clean and sober and when there was documented no unprofessional behaviors, self-centered beliefs nor patient injury while I was in practice. If you read the license restoration hearing report about me, following my loss of license for being an addict, you will see this strongly documented. There was absolutely no objective evidence against my license restoration in terms of unprofessional behavior, in fact my practice of medicine while addicted was just as excellent as it was before I was addicted. I am perfectly willing to review with anyone my practice of medicine before and during my active addiction. Nonetheless, despite 100% advocacy from the CPH and four certified addiction psychiatrists, and no evidence of medical dangerousness, all of which were ignored by the hearing panels, I was refused license restoration because I was willy-nilly assumed to be dangerous even though I was 8 years clean and sober, had everyone's advocacy, never inflicted any patient harm (stipulated by the NYS Health Department on day one of my license surrender), and the knowledge, stated in the addiction textbook "Substance Abuse - A Comprehensive Textbook" that no patient harm due to addiction had ever occurred from doctors in recovery while being monitored which I was going to be. This bias and prejudice was committed by 2 doctors, two lawyers, and three laypeople on two separate hearing panels. This is why troubled doctors don't go for help. They know they're going to be discriminated against even by their peers, other doctors (though not necessarily recovering doctors which should be the case but isn't because the panels are hand picked by the prosecuting attorneys - there is no voir dire or any other defendant rights in these "administrative" hearings). To repeat, I was judged dangerous even though I had never been dangerous and was clean and sober and was going to be willingly monitored for the rest of my career. Now it's shown that this assumption of dangerousness by them is scientifically proven wrong. Of course, we knew it was wrong when it happened but I was denied a jury trial by a NYS judge to whom we appealed NYS's ruling despite making this exact argument to him. My career and my family's financial well being was destroyed by NYS Health department and Education Department, upheld by the NYS court, by bias and discrimination yet I have never heard back from them apologizing for this or making financial restitution. Elliot Spitzer was the NYS DA representing the state against me. I wrote about all this in my book, Hypoic's Handbook, under "impaired physicians," and other places, a book that was completed and available for the hearing panels to read but they refused to read based on the general unconscionable principle of biased people, "Don't confuse me with the facts. I've already made up my mind." Also in my book is a suggested program to end this bias and discrimination, a program I mentioned during my hearing but was laughed at by the second panel. Their attitude about this program showed clearly they were not interested in ending their cruelty and damage to recovering physicians. And we wonder why we have so many doctors, especially psychiatrists for that matter, the same ones judging their colleagues so harshly, committing suicide? 10/7/10 Re: The Spoils of Happiness, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/the-spoils-of-happiness/?hp It's interesting that you pick a drug addict to compare "real" happiness to. A drug addict doesn't have real happiness because, according to you, he is only happy because the drug makes him so. Whereas "real" happiness only comes from doing something good and have that goodness cause the correct feeling of happiness. I wonder if you know how addictive drugs work in the brain to cause their resultant feelings? In actuality, they work in the same place, the reward system, where your "real" happiness works. Read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ How does a person become a drug addict? Read the above as well as: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ This Hypoism theory is exactly opposite, 180 degrees opposite, from the current believed theory of addiction causation, the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH), one of those beliefs that are merely believed rather than actual knowledge, something I call superstition. See: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/10thesuperstitioninstinct3100/ Hypoism is knowledge and based on knowledge while the HBH is a belief and is based on nonsense. Moreover, it's a belief that ruins the lives of all addicts because it is wrong and still believed leading to wrong beliefs about addicts and the pain these beliefs cause addicts; way more pain than that caused by the addictions themselves. What if a drug addict actually accomplished something terrific. Is he allowed to be happy then? Or, does his addiction automatically negate any kind of real happiness? Success? Accomplishment? I've been a drug addict since 1968 when I was addicted to methamphetamine in my first year of medical school. In 1978 I got clean and sober. In 1986 I had a 3.5 year relapse. In 1990 I got clean and sober again which I remained until 2 years ago when I had 5 back operations. Between 1986 and 1990 I practiced medicine without a hitch; I saved many peoples' lives and didn't kill or injure a single patient; no mistakes or patient harm. During that time I ran a 21 station dialysis unit and a nephrology practice in 7 hospitals as well as completing an arduous application for a new dialysis unit in the Catskills which now takes care of dozens of dialysis patients who used to travel hours to get dialysis three times a week. During that time I had an excellent reputation and was loved and respected by my patients, partners, staff, and colleagues as well as the people in the Catskills who had asked me to build their dialysis unit. You have my permission to check on these issues. Was I happy during those three years? Was I allowed to be happy then? What does philosophy say about my state of happiness during those years? In 1989 I surrendered my license to the NYS Health Department because of my addiction and stopped practicing medicine and had all my medical activities and assets removed, and despite trying as hard as I could to get clean and sober I continued to relapse for the next several months. Everytime I relapsed I wrote prescriptions for myself despite having no license until I realized it was illegal to do so and had to switch to heroin because there was no way to get opiates any other way that I knew anyway. Eventually I got arrested for the prescription writing and became a felon. Was I happy then? I was allowed to go to rehab after spending 5 days in the Metropolitan Correction Center in withdrawal. This time I did get clean and sober. Everything of personal value to me was taken away because of my addiction except for my self esteem which I kept. During the next 8 years I had one hell of a fight for my life, my license, my money, my marriage, and a lot of other things. Read my story at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thedoctordrugwarwrongandwastefulp1/ Was I happy? One exceptional thing I did during those 8 years in addition to my recovery was to review the scientific literature of addiction causation. By year 2 I had discovered Hypoism, the genetic theory of addiction causation, and wrote my first paper about the actual science of addiction causation. It was called, "Hypoism - A Real Disease." It was the precursor to my current paper called, "The Hypoism Hypothesis." http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ It was also the precursor to my 1996 book, Hypoic's Handbook, The Hypoism Paradigm of Addictions. My papers, web site, and book were ignored and censored by the media and the addiction establishment, except Eliot Gardner, M.D., Ph.D., a world renowned addiction scientist who found my work meritorious and needing to be known by the public, even though they documented all the science behind addiction causation and developed one coherent and meritorious theory behind all addictions, drugs and behaviors, as well as defining the scientific, as opposed to the superstitious, basis of addiction prevention and recovery, a method I was using for my personal recovery. See my letters to various media outlets on my web site, particularly the NY Times letters. In fact, read the whole web site. Was I happy then? I was being persecuted in many areas of my life. Was I allowed to be happy then? It's all documented in "My Story." I started the National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts, the first and only organization of addicts and for addicts fighting discrimination against addicts and for the correct theory of addiction causation. In 2000 I gave a videotaped lecture on Hypoism to the medical grand rounds at Brookhaven Labs, Volkow's home ground, invited by Dr. Wang, the current chief after Volkow left to be chief of NIDA, the governmental agency that maintains the HBH despite its being proven wrong by Volkow herself. See my blog on 9/9/09. I never did get my license back because of discrimination and bias against my ideas and discoveries about addictions, not for a single objective reason. Read the transcripts of my hearings, the supposed basis for my rejection. I don't think you will find a single objective reason in them for my rejection, yet I was rejected nonetheless and despite having discovered the actual scientific basis of addiction causation, prevention, and recovery, a theory that is still being ignored and censored by the addiction establishment despite being agree upon by several highly respected addictionologists. By the way, four board certified addictionology psychiatrists recommended my reinstatement while none recommended my rejection. Was I happy or not? Today my Addiction Blog on my web site continues to document the addiction theory war, Hypoism vs. HBH, and the worsening of the addiction epidemic. Despite this worsening Hypoism remains ignored and censored even though it has been proven correct over the last 18 years since my first discovering it. I'm still alive and happy despite many millions of addict deaths over these 18 years caused by the HBH remaining in charge of the addiction paradigm. If anyone is happy about the state addictions are in today they should be indicted and incarcerated. The funny thing is it's only the addicts that are being incarcerated; the addicts who are being lied to by the ones who really should be in jail for lying about the HBH theory, the theory that is responsible for maintaining the addiction epidemic and killing a million addicts a year. Addicts happy? I don't think so. You got something gravely wrong in your article today. Ignorance is not bliss. In the world of addictions it's death. 9/30/10 Re: Gene Disorder Linked to ADHD. Finding bolsters idea that condition has biological basis, http://consumer.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=643724 I've been writing about this for 15 years. ADHD is actually Hypoism and ADHD is caused by dopamine activity deficiency, the definition of Hypoism. Volkow and Wang, et al., JAMA. 2009;302(10):1084-1091. Read my blog 9/9/09 http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/currentletterstoeditors72309/ The entire Hypoism paradigm is defined and discussed in my web paper: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ 9/30/10 Re: Four Suicides in a Week Take a Toll on Fort Hood, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/us/30hood.html?_r=1&hpw In my book, Hypoic's Handbook, I discuss Hypoism, the disease that causes all addictions, as a major cause of suicide. This is a manifestation of the self-stigmatization seen in all addictions caused by the current wrong theory of addiction causation, the moral paradigm of addiction causation, that the addict causes his addiction through conscious and willful decisions. This proven wrong theory is endorsed by NIDA, ASAM, and the 12 step movement, all of whom know about Hypoism but ignore and censor it nonetheless. Besides articles like this one, I heard an interview this morning on a national news program with an army spokesperson who validated the statistics showing suicides are way up in the army, that their prevention programs are not working, and that there are NO NEW IDEAS THAT COULD REDUCE THIS INCREASE. Well, I disagree with that statement. There is one new idea that could have prevented this increase had it been acknowledged and used. That new idea is the Hypoism paradigm and the Hypoism recovery program that if used will prevent addictions as well as all other symptoms, including suicide. The peculiar thing is that Hypoism has been ignored and censored since it was discovered in 1992, the year I wrote my first paper on Hypoism called, Hypoism - A Real Disease. This 1992 paper, rejected by 12 addiction journals, has evolved into "The Hypoism Hypothesis" paper on my web site - http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . I have written the editors of numerous newspapers, especially the NY Times, and addiction journals about this paper and have been ignored and censored as this letter will be ignored. The army will never get to know about this new idea and will continue to wrongly say there are no new ideas that could reduce these suicides. As I discuss in my book, Hypoism recovery can, if used, prevent hypoic suicides and all other symptoms of Hypoism, particularly addictions of all kinds. Wouldn't it be nice if the NY Times published this letter so the army could find out about this? 9/29/10 Re: After Recalls of Drugs, a Congressional Spotlight on J.& J.’s Chief, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/business/29tylenol.html?_r=1&hpw Making money is one thing. Integrity is another. Integrity can't be bought. It is demonstrated by actions. J&J has invested its past consumer product integrity into the field of addictions, spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year on programs designed to help end the addiction epidemic. Theoretically that's a good thing except for one thing, one principle: If they use the wrong addiction paradigm in its attempts to help addicts its programs not only can't work but will actually make things worse. Funny thing---things have gotten worse in the field of addictions. I first contacted J&J in 1998 when I became concerned that it was supporting many addiction programs meant to prevent addictions that were based on wrong theory. I sent them a pre-publication copy of my book, Hypoic's Handbook, that defined the neurobiological and genetic paradigm of addictions called Hypoism which has since been proven scientifically correct. Many felt it was correct at the time I sent it, as I did. As I said, it is critical to use the correct theory of addiction causation when trying to design programs to prevent and treat any medical issue. It is the same for addictions. I contacted them so they could be aware of the correct theory and that I would help them use it to design helpful programs. The Hypoism paradigm does this but lacks the funding to get its policies into the public arena. They refused to even evaluate or debate it. Here's a web page on my web site discussing this issue with the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/31addictionpreventionrevisited/ It speaks for itself. Without reading it, they rejected it and continued to use the wrong theory right up to today. Of course, the NY Times given the same information has done the same things. I have hundreds of letters to the Times on my web site which they ignored and censored, helping things remain the same, ineffective and damaging. 9/29/10 Re: Shankar Vedantam: The Hidden Brain, http://thedianerehmshow.org/audio-player?nid=265 New book? I don't think so. I discussed all the issues in the Hidden Brain in my book Hypoic's Handbook 14 years earlier however. Listen to this interview. I sent Diane Rehm my new book, Hypoic's Handbook (1996), many years ago because I thought she was interested in these kinds of neurobiological issues. Apparently she is, but not from me. I never heard from her. Bias? Had she read my book and interviewed me about it we would be much farther along in fixing the addiction epidemic and many other issues than we currently are. As you all well know, at least those of you who read my book, I discussed in the book the unconscious brain as it relates to addiction causation as well as bias and discrimination, particularly addiction bias and discrimination. I discussed it in many ways, but particularly under "cortico-limbic dissociation," and "societal denial." Look it up and compare it to what this interviewee says in regards to his and others research. It's exactly what I said in my book and the brain mechanism helps explain all addictions, to drugs and instincts at an unconscious level. It confirms once again my paradigm and how it works to cause addictions and various unconscious biases, particularly the biases that caused the licensing panels to reject my relicensure without a single objective reason to do so. It was just as Vedantam said, completely rationalized absent any objective evidence to support their decision. In fact, it is exactly opposite to what today's addiction paradigm (the hijacked brain hypothesis) says, the volitional, conscious, etiology of addictions. Today's (Jan. 26, 2010) interview confirms exactly what I said throughout my book as well as in my web papers, the "hypoism hypothesis" and the "hypoism addiction hypothesis." http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ Once these ideas and their implications get to the public, stopped being ignored and censored, we will finally be able to correct the addiction epidemic, something that continues only because of unconscious biases and beliefs, what I call superstition. By the way, I do have a solution to this unconscious problem. It is discussed in this web paper: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/10thesuperstitioninstinct3100/ 9/25/10 Re: Lindsay Lohan freed on $300,000 bail, http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39341401/ns/today-entertainment/ This story is on the entertainment section of the news web site. I hope it's entertaining a lot of people. I don't understand how, however, watching someone die from a serious and very lethal disease is so entertaining. That's how sick our culture is. I guess most people think addiction is entertaining. I know doctors do. Addiction consequences are seen daily on TV as portrayed by doctors in a variety of shows, none of which are educational because they all portray addictions through the prism of the wrong theoretical paradigm, the hijacked brain hypothesis, where drugs are said to be to blame by hijacking peoples' brains. This has been proven not to be the case but no one seems to care about that. Within and because of this scientifically wrong paradigm we have frequent relapses and other deadly consequences caused by this wrong theory. The correct theory, the genetic cause of addictions, the theory I call Hypoism, would have ended this epidemic long ago had it been acknowledged and used. However, it has not yet even been read by the field or the media but nonetheless has been rejected out of hand despite being the only thing capable of ending the addiction epidemic and giving more than a mere 5% of addicts a chance at recovery. Lindsey Lohan is a symptom of this behavior by the addiction field and the media. She has no idea what's happening to her though because the truth about addiction science has been kept from her and the rest of the country by the people who are benefiting from it, the addictionologists. The correct science of addiction causation as presented in my book and on my web site, particularly in the paper called Hypoism Hypothesis, The Theory, needs to be communicated to the public so they can have the chance to use and benefit from it. Instead of making fun of relapsing addicts and watching them be killed by ignorance about their disease we need to give them the correct science and the policies that could save them, Hypoism. Let them know about it. The wrong theory never saved anyone except by chance in low numbers, something I've been saying for 20 years, no matter how strongly you believe the opposite and how many times you say the opposite. It's been proven wrong and ineffective many times already. Haven't we had long enough to see that what we're doing is not working (recent report that drug use is increasing) and that blaming and punishing the hapless addicts is just stupid and cruel? Also, why don't addicts start using the correct theory to help themselves? Because they don't know about it and those who do know about it are brainwashed by their leaders who are totally closed-minded and biased against the correct science. I know this because I talk to these people daily and they just don't care to know the truth--their religion prevents them. So, if we really like to watch these celebrities be hurt and die from Hypoism and the ensuing addictions then we just continue doing what we've been doing - the same old same old and keep lying about it working. 9/24/10 Re: A Wave of Addiction and Crime, with the Medicine Cabinet to Blame, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/us/24drugs.html?_r=1&hpw The addiction epidemic has been around for over 50 years. We have dealt with it in the same ways this whole time to no avail, yet here we have another neophyte entering the "fix the addiction epidemic" arena. I wonder what the Times thinks this lady is going to come up with; an answer? She knows nothing about addictions yet thinks nonetheless she will come up with the right answer. How is this going to happen when the experts who also know nothing about addictions can't solve this epidemic? Yes, I'll say it again and for the thousandth time - THE EXPERTS KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ADDICTIONS, SO WHY DOES THIS LADY THINK SHE'S GOING TO FIX IT WITH HER IGNORANCE ON THE SUBJECT? I wrote many papers and a book about the biological cause of addictions; all addictions, not just to drugs. See my web site, hypoism. Read the papers called The Hypoism Hypothesis and The Hypoism Addiction Hypothesis, and read the book. Then read the paper called The Drug War War. This paper explains why we will never get to the right policies until we switch to and use the correct addiction causation theory. This principle is true in all other areas of medicine and will be proven right again in the field of addictions. Today we continue to use the wrong theory of addiction causation whether it's the Hijacked Brain Hypothesis, the one used in today's article, or AA's theory, or any other wrong theory of which there are dozens. I review and critique them in my book and show why they are wrong and why they can't yield policies and treatments that will end the addiction epidemic. My work has been validated over and over again as documented in the Hypoism Hypothesis paper yet it is ignored and censored by the addiction field and the media, particularly the NY Times that instead of reviewing my work publishes wrong, useless, and invalid addiction articles on a regular basis - like today's. For a review of the current addiction writing and thinking and my response to it read my blog - The Addiction Blog on my web site - all 7 pages, and go and read all the letters to the ny times going back to 1995. It's quite repetitive but it does make a good point: We are never going to solve the addiction epidemic until we switch to the Hypoism paradigm of addiction causation, the proven cause of all addictions, and use it. It's not about me but about the right theory. Changing policies without changing to the correct theory will do no good whatsoever. In fact, as it has done in the past, it will just make things worse - also a proven fact. 9/23/10Re: Study reveals stress hormone impacts on alcohol recovery, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-09/uol-srs092310.php In my 1998 hearings for my license restoration, at a time when I had never injured a patient, was 8 years documented clean and sober as well as having complied 100% with what was asked of me by the CPH and had received their 100% advocacy, I was refused license restoration for many irrational and unsupported reasons (39 to be exact) despite my having had a stellar reputation in the practice of medicine and no patient injuries whatsoever; never. One of these reasons was that my answer to their question, "Why did you relapse so many times in the beginning of your recovery?" My answer was, "high levels of stress at that time." As you can see from today's article this answer should have been sufficient, but instead they asked me to delineate this stress then they twisted it to suit their biased and discriminatory purposes. I listed loss of job, loss of business, loss of income, loss of home, and loss of marriage as a few of these stresses. All these have been documented as causes in humans and other animals of high amounts of stress. However, instead of accepting this answer as a good answer, thanking me, and moving on, on their letter to the licensing official they used this answer as "evidence of denial of my addiction," because, they said, I was "blaming my partners and wife for my addiction," by submitting that answer to their question. Of course I was doing no such thing, but they were allowed by the prosecutor and later a judge in our appeal of this evaluation to be upheld and use it as a reason for turning my license down. Now, if you read the entire letter by this panel and the transcript of the hearing you can see for yourself that they made similar kinds of unsubstantiated evaluations (39 times) of my answers throughout the hearing and were allowed by the prosecutor and judge to get away with this nefarious behavior all in the name of "public safety," because I was dangerous in their opinions merely because I had been an addict 8 years previously though I had never, admitted by the NYS Health Dept., committed any patient injury while addicted or while not addicted, unlike many other doctors, addicted and not addicted who have never lost their licenses. Despite my answer being scientifically correct and validated back then and still today by this and other studies of addiction relapse caused by stress, their evaluation of my license restoration was not over-ruled by anyone we appealed to including a judge to whom we asked and were refused a jury trial so that we could cross examine the hearing members who wrote their lying letters to the licensing official. This, of course, is not about my denial of my being an addict, something I never did in the past 16 years or in the next 10 years but their denial to use science and the truth as the basis of their evaluation of me for license restoration. We all know this kind of hearing as fascist and unconstitutional, but against addicts they can do what they want despite ruining my and my family's life. I would have had to appeal this ruling to the US Supreme court which would have cost me millions of dollars which I didn't have, seeing that I didn't have a job. This happens to many recovering addicts in similar kinds of discriminatory hearings about jobs, licenses, and other positions because, unlike other American citizens, an addict has to prove himself innocent rather than being proved guilty, and you can make any lies you want about an addict and they are believed merely because of being an addict. This "administrative" hearing still goes on in the field of medical licensure. It's touted as being acceptable because I am supposed to have the right to appeal and get a jury trial in order to defend myself from its damage, except when I am denied that jury trial by the judge - ha ha. 9/22/10 Re: Biology: Your Brain In Love, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993160-1,00.html Just to keep you honest I need to inform you that I wrote about sex, falling in love, and attachment being three unique human instincts (exactly what Helen Fisher is saying) in my 1996 book on addictions, Hypoic's Handbook. I also wrote about the brain mechanism involved (the instinct regulating apparatus and the reward system), but not just for these three instincts , all instincts, hundreds of them. I also discussed their role in addictions (the role of dopamine activity deficiency), all addictions, from drugs to behaviors (instinct derived). Too bad my book was ignored and censored by Time Magazine and other media outlets. We could have ended the addiction epidemic by now had this not occurred. But instead the addiction epidemic has worsened and still no one knows about Hypoism and the brain mechanisms involved. 9/21/10 Re: Anatomy of a Misdiagnosis, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/opinion/21tuerkheimer.html?_r=1 Suddenly, the Times is interested in misdiagnosis. I've been writing the Times about the malignant misdiagnosis of addiction causation since 1995 (see letters to the editor to the ny times) with no interest by them from letter one. I've sent them my book, Hypoic's Handbook, as well which was dealt with similarly even though several experts in the field of addictions have not only shown interest but have invited me to speak to their staffs about the newly named diagnosis of Hypoism (Dr. Wang at the Brookhaven labs on Long Island.) In fact, after I spoke at Brookhaven Dr. Wang et al then did the crucial experiment proving Hypoism (ADHD is a subset of Hypoism (genetic low dopamine activity as the cause of addictions))- Evaluating Dopamine Reward Pathway in ADHD, by Volkow and Wang, et al., JAMA. 2009;302(10):1084-1091 Yes, misdiagnosis kills patients as well as ruining trusted guardians' lives. Addiction has been misrepresented and misdiagnosed since it was first called alcoholism thousands of years ago, blaming the patients instead of the genetic alterations of the addicts' brains as the primary cause. This misdiagnosis is what causes 99% of the problems caused by addictions including its discrimination, not the other way around. It also stifles prevention and recovery. Despite my having written thousands of letters explaining the misdiagnosis, the correct diagnosis, and how to use the correct diagnosis to end the addiction epidemic, I've been censored by the Times and the biased addiction establishment while, I have to emphasize, the addiction epidemic continues to worsen - http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/currentletterstoeditors91410/ (9/16/10 letter). Their excuse that I'm not a recognized addictionologist is bogus. It's not me but my ideas and writings that are self explanatory. Refusing to read my writings based on some biased characteristic about me personally is absolutely irresponsible and nonsense. When people like Eliot Gardner, M.D. (at NIDA) and Eric Stice (see their emails to me on the Hypoism home page) are unequivocally supportive of my hypothesis and its supporting writings there is no excuse for their not reading my works and writing about them for the single purpose of saving lives and families of addicts as well as trillions of dollars. Because of this irresponsible and biased behavior, the Times is more responsible for perpetuating the addiction epidemic than any other single entity except for AA which has acted similarly. 9/16/10 Re: Illegal drug use is higher than in nearly a decade, report finds, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39200536/ns/health-addictions/ What this report and its response by the government shows is that the government is lying about the drug war and its evidential basis. Moreover, the media just reports the nonsense rather than holding their feet to the fire. The media should be demanding the government find a different and more effective theory of drug use than the one they have been using to support the drug war or it should call a spade a spade and let the public know they are lying about the cause of drug use - the current Hijacked Brain Hypothesis theory of drug use and drug addiction. My web site has many articles and emails about this issue - that we are using the wrong theory of drug use to run all our policies on drugs and addictions. One in particular is: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/32drugwarevaluationbythenationalacademyofscience/ I've been writing about this for 20 years and have been ignored and censored while the drug war perpetuates the drug and addiction mess. But it's not just the drug addictions, but all addictions, behavioral addictions too, that are worse because of this wrong theory. They have no theory for behavioral addictions and all these people are suffering because of the drug war - wrong addiction theory leads to wrong theory for behavioral addictions as well as to drug addictions. This too is 20 years old. Hypoism is not only the correct theory but it also has the right policies for prevention and treatment for all addictions as well as how to end the cartels without a single shot fired. Why is this theory (proven correct by the NIDA chief, Volkow, herself - "Evaluating Dopamine Reward Pathway in ADHD." by Volkow and Wang, et al., JAMA. 2009;302(10):1084-1091) and its policies ignored and censored? [ADHD is a subset of Hypoism] My blog (http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/currentletterstoeditors72309/) discusses all this in depth. Read the whole blog in the section called "addiction blog." 9/15/10 Re: Evidence Review: Anti-Drinking Drug Shows Modest Success, The Cochrane Collaboration paper is invalid because it refers to and uses as a valid reference the Project Match study which was a fraudulent study. Read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/theaddiction 9/14/10 Re: 'Important Step Forward In Research On ADHD And Substance Abuse', http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/200840.php You read this article and you don't see anywhere that what they're talking about but not mentioning is that ADHD and substance abuse are both part of the underlying disease of Hypoism defined as genetic low reward activity causing addictions and other symptoms, such as ADHD. Read my 1996 book, Hypoic's Handbook, defining Hypoism as such and the major paper defining Hypoism on my web site: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ Volkow and Wang in their recent paper connecting these things, Evaluating Dopamine Reward Pathway in ADHD, by Volkow and Wang, et al., JAMA. 2009;302(10):1084-1091, directly prove Hypoism though they don't mention it by name due to their bias against it and me, even though I gave a lecture on Hypoism, on videotape, at their labs in March of 2000. Ask Wang if this is not true. Read my blog on 9/9/09 and earlier at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/currentletterstoeditors72309/ |
|
||||||
You can take the addiction out of the hypoic, but you can't take the Hypoism out of the addict.
