The Addiction Blog
Current letters to the editor 4/17/11 -
Send me your comments. If they're helpful I will post them under the email.
some clues and mistakes about how we think about ourselves and others. time will tell what's right and what's wrong, but it clearly shows that making prognoses and their implied decisions about others lives based on "neuroscience" or even "diagnoses" is not appropriate yet. much better to use life history.
read the whole series of articles associated with this.
Re: Teens Who Drink, Smoke More Likely to Abuse Painkillers: Study, http://consumer.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=667730
This has been known for many years. It's not the "gateway effect," it's the underlying disease effect; the Hypoism effect. These people all have Hypoism, the disease that causes addictions - addictability. Hypoics usually get addicted to multiple addictors. That's the nature og\f the disease and its power. Others, without hypoism don't get addicted to anything. I discuss this in my book and on my web site. The implications of this are that instead of a drug war we need to change paradigms and actively seek out hypoics and get them into recovery before addictions even happen.
Re: Genes May Influence Reactions to Painkillers, http://consumer.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=665870
We've known this for some time already. "With 2 exceptions (cocaine abuse and stimulant dependence), twin resemblance for heavy use, abuse, and dependence resulted from only genetic factors, with heritability of liability usually ranging from 60% to 80%. No consistent evidence was found for violations of the equal environment assumption. CONCLUSIONS: In accord with prior results in studies of women, the family environment plays a role in twin resemblance for some forms of substance use in men. However, twin resemblance for heavy use, abuse, and dependence in men is largely caused by genetic factors, and heritability estimates are high." Reference: Illicit psychoactive substance use, heavy use, abuse, and dependence in a US population-based sample of male twins. 2000, Kendler, et al. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/recentgeneticstudiesonvariousaddictionsfromalargetwinregistr/
The article confirms the above finding.
This email is critical to understand, so read it carefully.
Saul: a simpler put theory? here goes. this is hypoism as simple as possible:
genetic low dopamine activity in the reward system causes the organism, animals (definitively proven - read the references in the hypoism hypothesis paper. that's the proof) and humans (weakly proven, but still proven - also read the references from the hypoism hypothesis paper), to seek out and use dopamine raising chemicals (drugs) and behaviors (instincts) and get addicted to them.
all the symptoms of hypoism are caused by this same fact, genetic low dopamine. things like stress come after this already exists. stress and other environmental issues are associated with addiction but not the cause. thats because having hypoism makes you succeptible to stress and other environmental issues. environmental issues are instead caused by the hypoism. the cause, however, is purely genetic dopamine deficiency. what the hypoic gets addicted to is both genetic and environmental in cause, a completely different issue. what they get addicted to relates to what raises dopamine activity for that individual person which is different for each hypoic and both genetic as well as environmental (whats accessible in the person's environment), in other words, "whatever turns you on the most at the time." the entire paradigm can be explained in accordance with that one issue, genetics. thus, addiction is not caused by character defects, just the opposite. character defects are caused by hypoism. changing character defects will not change anything. the hypoic will still get addicted. thus, addiction is not a moral issue and should not be dealt with that way. no punishment or ostracism. etc. as discussed in book and web site. all policies must be changed accordingly. thus, addiction is involuntary, unconscious, and not moral. this is the opposite of the current theories, and thus quite important.
the book just states the hypothesis and some proof. but the hypoism hypothesis paper gives you the proof. the definitive proof will only come after the following experiment which will take 40 years. 1) in a thousand people quantify brain defects genetically and biochemically and with scans. 2) follow the people for 40 years and see who gets addicted. 3) correlate the previous brain defects with future occurrence of addictions to see what defects are causal. my prediction is that it will be genetic dopamine deficiency in the reward system that is causal.
in the meantime you can either wait before using this theory for prevention, treatment, and policy changes or you can begin to use it now. that's your choice. there's enough proof to begin to use it now especially since it is clear that the current theories and their policies don't work, a definitive fact. that's your only choice. that's your only decision. one or the other. you're responsible and accountable for the outcome of that choice. that's what I write about on a daily basis. if you continue to use a known wrong and ineffective paradigm, the results of that are on your head and on the heads of everyone else who does such a stupid thing. that's what I write about on a daily basis.
Re: Doctors Seek New Approach for Jailed Addicts, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/us/citing-woes-of-michael-douglass-son-doctors-seek-new-approach-for-addicts.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper
This issue, how to deal with addicts who have broken some law, has been a disaster for many years because people like Dr. Sally Satel, Nora Volkow (chief of NIDA) and other addict haters with so-called medical degrees and power over addicts have lied about incarceration being the best way to deal with addicts. Their rationale for this is the belief that drug use by addicts and addiction are voluntary acts of willful misbehavior. That includes relapse as well. This belief of theirs is supported by the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH) theory of Alan Leshner invented when he was chief of NIDA. It was actually published, despite its being scientifically wrong, in the prestigious SCIENCE journal in 1997. The current regime at NIDA still pushes this theory of addiction causation despite it being proven wrong since the day it was first published. The proof of its incorrectness has been censored by the addiction establishment and NIDA and the media (which follows NIDA blindly without any critical thinking). I've been writing about the disproof of this theory since the day it was first published but my writings have been ignored and censored. The HBH says the first use of the addictive drug is voluntary, then the drug changes the brain into an addicted brain. Thus, addiction is seen as voluntary, a willful and immoral behavior, requiring punishment. This is NIDA's position right up until today. So, what reason does the judicial system have to see addiction any differently? They don't. That's why the judge did what he did. NIDA basically told him to by supporting the HBH, the volitional and therefore immoral paradigm. The peculiar thing is that all the people coming out against Cameron Douglas' sentencing also believe in the HBH. In fact, everyone except me believes in the HBH. Why? Because they haven't thought about it for a single second. I am the only addiction advocate writing that the HBH is scientifically wrong and I've been doing so for 20 years based on the actual science of addiction causation. My paper on this is on my web site and I refer to it practically daily but no one in the addiction establishment will read it despite it being the only paper stating the correct interpretation of the available science and its implications on public policy such as the drug war. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ The correct interpretation of the available science says that because of genetic low dopamine activity in only certain people the future addict uses and gets addicted to addictive drugs and behaviors involuntarily and unconsciously in order to raise their critically low dopamine activity which is what all addictors do. This occurs against their will because that's how the brain works even though it appears to be willful. Even the addict thinks his behavior is willful. That's how unconscious that part of the brain is. Thus science is needed to prove one more time that what looks to be one way is actually the opposite, just like the earth going around the sun rather than the age old belief that the sun obviously goes around the earth because it appears that way. Science had to change that paradigm just like it has changed the addiction paradigm unbeknownst to the addiction experts who haven't looked into this science because their minds have been closed due to their aged and biased beliefs. Thus, they say one thing and do the opposite. It makes no sense which is why the judge ignores them and continues to punish. This is also why the addiction epidemic is growing worse each day. The paradigm being used to try to fix it is scientifically wrong. Thus it can't possibly work.
None of the people advocating for Cameron Douglas, and they have all been made aware of the scientific argument against the HBH, have re-evaluated their positions on the theory of addiction causation as I have. This is why their opinions against the way Douglas is being treated by the judge makes no sense to the judge or the ignorant public. I'm the only one with a scientific argument that makes any sense for handling Douglas any differently but I'm ignored and censored. The anti-drug war people have no rational argument against the drug war because their support of the HBH argues against them. I've done my best to get them to support Hypoism, the genetic model of addiction causation, the only model that makes addiction a symptom of a real biological brain disease and thus not a moral issue but a medical one and therefore only helped by specific recovery methodology designed around the Hypoism theory rather than punishment based on the HBH. Absent Hypoism, today's paradigm favors punishment over treatment. And no one's learning about and advocating for Hypoism because of their closed minded biases. Read my blog and you'll see how damaging their paradigm, based on the HBH, is in so many ways. The only way to stop the massive human destruction and get Douglas and millions of other hypoics what they need is to change to the scientifically correct theory of Hypoism. Only Hypoism can end the drug war and all its many damaging policies. I've been saying this for 20 years. How about doing it already?
Re: To Stop or Not to Stop? Nora D. Volkow, http://www.sciencemag.org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/content/335/6068/546.full
This paper, a comment on the brain scan paper in this month's Science, Abnormal Brain Structure Implicated in Stimulant Drug Addiction, states: "The balance between activating and inhibitory signals in the brain is so central to a successful life that the level of childhood self-control is predictive of a wide range of long-term outcomes, including physical and mental health, substance abuse, financial independence, criminal behavior (2), and even mortality. The ability to control this balance is strongly influenced by genetic background, environmental conditions, and their interactions. Therefore, uncovering individual differences in the function and organization of the brain circuits underlying the ability to exert self-control should help us better understand disorders characterized by gimpaired control,h not only substance use disorders (including addiction) but also conditions such as obesity, pathological gambling, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder."
Notice the presence of addictions caused by imbalance between activating and inhibitory signals in the above paragraph. She doesn't reference the low "level of childhood self-control" but the above predictions are seen in studies on kids as young as 3 years old. She also doesn't reference the "environmental conditions" statement. In fact, everyone says it (except me) but no one references the studies proving that statement. The fact that these outcomes can be predicted from 3 year old behavior (so-called undercontrolled behavior) means pretty conclusively that we're talking about genetic factors and not environmental ones in the same people when they turn 21 as adults who end up addicted. They already had evidence for the addiction-associated trait as toddlers and didn't get addicted until way later. That's genetic, not environmental, and we all know it. They know it too but they just won't say it. In fact, the original article that this article is a comment on has its first reference the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH) by Leshner. Despite all the science against the HBH they still use it. In fact, it was already known to be wrong the day in 1997 that Science published it. I discussed its disproof as early as my 1996 book. Here it is, 2012, and they're still using it. If that isn't proof of the addiction establishment having their heads up Volkow's ass (a conspiracy) I don't know what is. Don't they know they're killing people with that lie?
Notice the list of disorders at the end of the paragraph. They're all on my list of addictions from 1992 when I wrote the first edition of my Hypoism Hypothesis paper, the one rejected by the 12 addiction journals; rejected because these addictions and others were present on my list and the editors didn't think they belonged there. Wrong!! But here they are on Volkow's list in 2012 and my paper is still being rejected for the same reasons; what I call addictions aren't accepted even though Volkow includes them too. Behavioral addictions are real and are the same as drug addictions because they are dopamine raising drug addictions except the drug they get addicted to is endogenous (the natural neurotransmitters that raise dopamine via excessive instinctive behavior use). It's already in their bodies. I said that in 1992. No one else did. Now they're all saying it and I don't get any credit except from Eliot Gardner, M.D., PhD.and Eric Stice PhD. who acknowledged their agreement in their emails to me.
And then, at the end of the paper, Volkow states that it is the higher dopamine activity in the non-addicted brains that cause both different qualitative trait values as well as the absence of addictions. "In addicted subjects, reduced activity in the orbitofrontal cortex (as well as in anterior cingulate gyrus) has been shown to be associated with reduced amounts of dopamine D2 receptors in the striatum (6-8), which are linked to a greater risk for impulsivity and compulsive drug administration (9, 10). By contrast, subjects who had a high familial risk for alcoholism but were not alcoholics showed an increased number of dopamine D2 receptors in the striatum, which was associated with higher activity in the orbitofrontal cortex (and also in the anterior cingulate gyrus) (11). Increased activity in the orbitofrontal cortex (and also in the anterior cingulate gyrus) has been associated with higher scores in positive emotionality, a personality trait that is considered to protect against substance use disorders (12) both in individuals at high genetic risk for alcoholism (11) and in non-drug-abusing healthy volunteers (13)." So we see that this paper is all about the same thing, low dopamine activity in the addicted sibling causing the addiction and the personality traits (not that the personality traits caused the addiction) and the opposite in the non-addicted sibling with higher dopamine activity, except they didn't measure the dopamine activity in this study, making it useless.
What we take away from this study is that peer review doesn't work. Studies get done and published that are useless and misinforming and have to be reinterpreted by Volkow in an editorial so the readership can understand it was useless. Volkow had to site many of her own studies to do that. Why not just have Volkow write a review on addiction causation? She needs to reference all statements including what is the actual role of environment in addiction causation. We know it has none, so it would be interesting to see how she gets around that in order to say it does, and especially when she says it has 50% of the causative role.
Here's a comment from a reader:
"Go, Dr. Umanoff, I agree, and all will eventually come to light, I believe. Thanks for hanging in there. Maybe if you didn't sound quite so outspoken, you would get a little better hearing, but of course, your message is potential disaster to at least two major industries. Thanks for writing. Linda"
Re: Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay eCuref, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hpw
What exactly is a psychiatry giant? This is a designation given to an idiot by a reporter who knows nothing about psychiatry or medicine in general. If this guy is a psychiatrist then he's a psychiatry idiot now and forever. You can't be a genius one minute and completely wrong about a massive theoretical issue the next. A psychiatry giant would have said, about homosexuality, "I don't know," rather than, "I do know," and it's such and such. A giant admits when he or she doesn't know. A reporter should know this. This reporter is an idiot also. Moreover the newspaper editor and the newspaper, NY Times, are idiots as well. Well, we know this from the history of how Hypoism has been dealt with by the NY Times. I have written letters to the NY Times about the science pf Hypoism since 1995 and it has ignored and censored me and Hypoism consistently. Despite the important implications of Hypoism, assuming I'm right about it, the Times has not even given me a call to explain the paradigm and its science. It just has ignored Hypoism as if it were a product of a nut job. Well, everything I've said about Hypoism has been proven right since 1995. Hypoism predicted many things and these predictions have been proven with real science to be true. That makes Hypoism true. That's how a theory is proven true. It makes predictions and those predictions are proven true with scientifically valid experiments. That's what has happen with Hypoism but not with homosexuality. Anyone can have an opinion, but when the predictions are proven true, that ends opinions. Dr. Spitzer had an opinion and the lay public decided that since he was a psychiatry giant then his opinions were valid and strong. That's human nature but it's not valid. Just because someone, or even everyone, in a particular field is "a giant" doesn't mean their opinions are any more true than the opinions of the stupidest person on the planet. And that's just what the Times is doing with Hypoism. Without reading anything about Hypoism they just say "Umanoff is stupid and crazy so we can just ignore and censor him." "How can Umanoff be right and every expert in the addiction field be wrong?" How do you decide a thing like that? You read the theory and see if it's been proven or not with real and valid science, not whether Umanoff is crazy or not. A theory is a theory and it stands on its own merits, not on the mental health of the theorist. Well, Eliot Gardner, M.D., PhD., a world class addictionologist, read my stuff and wrote me, "It has merit." Other addiction scientists have said similar things. This means Hypoism has merit and should be evaluated by the field and by newspapers which write about addictions. The fact that the field and the newspapers have ignored Hypoism in this case means that they are biased and wrong and should likewise to today's article make an apology and then do what's right - learn about it and write about it. They have yet to do this despite all the science showing Hypoism to be right and the hijacked brain hypothesis being wrong. They, not me, are helping kill a million addicts a year. And all the people who get my emails are still doing nothing. They're all sitting out there silent when they know what's right. The situation is a million times worse in addictions than it is in homosexuality but people just let addicts get killed and don't say a word about the current theory and its policies being wrong and proven wrong.
Listen to this link
Mitch - In 1996 I wrote the book, Hypoic's Handbook, about the reward system and its role (through genetic dopamine deficiency) in addictions in only those people with genetically determined low dopamine activity (Hypoism). My web site for the entire paradigm is www.nvo.com/hypoism By the way, Mitch, Dr. Linden lied to you about the role of genetics (That's the bias of the current paradigm which doesn't want addictions to be genetic). He said "about 40% is heritable." The correct number is near 100%. He misrepresented the studies to you as well as misrepresented the validity of those studies which were methodologically invalid and wrong. They only studied individual addictors like alcohol or heroin etc. and got 60-80% heritability (not 40) Read this page: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/recentgeneticstudiesonvariousaddictionsfromalargetwinregistr/
The individual addictors are not the thing that is being inherited. That's why they didn't get 100%. They should have studied the trait of addictability for its heritability (something they have never done because of their bias against getting 100%) and they would have gotten 100%. This means that addictability is totally genetic and therefore involuntary and unconscious. This ends the moral aspects of any and all addictions and make them purely biological in causation ending the stigmatization and demonization.
Only about 10-20% of the population have this low dopamine activity and therefore only these people are capable of getting addicted. The rest of the population is incapable of getting addicted, not because they are "good" people.
My book and web site go through this whole paradigm.
Re: A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/science/a-mathematical-challenge-to-obesity.html?_r=1&hpw
This article is unbelievable. The guy said he read everything on obesity science. He obviously didn't. He clearly didn't read Eric Stice's work on low dopamine in female obese people. Dopamine-related activity of food reward circuits in the brain and weight gain: A Prospective fMRI study, http://www.ssib.org/web/index.php?page=press&release=2009-4
This study shows clearly that it is only the women with low dopamine activity to begin with who get obese. This is Hypoism by definition. Low dopamine activity causes these women to overeat in order to raise their previously low dopamine activity. I wrote him about Hypoism and wrote me, "Sounds like you figured this all out much earlier than the rest of us!" He had no problem acknowledging the Hypoism model, unlike the rest of the addiction field. So, what does Hypoism say? It's only the people with already present low dopamine activity from birth, in other words, genetic, who, in the face of excess food calories, eat more (to raise their dopamine) and gain weight. And they do so unconsciously and against their will. That's the eating instinct. It doesn't help to tell them to eat less. It doesn't get to the unconscious part of the brain where the eating orders are given. They have to be told they have Hypoism and to surrender to this fact before they can or will follow the eating advice of their sponsors.
All instincts when used by the human brain will then raise dopamine activity in the reward system and have to be dealt with the same way. Read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ and http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/
This holds for all the addictive drugs which work by raising the genetically low dopamine activity in the reward system and other instincts which do the same thing leading to behavioral addictions like sex, gambling (risk taking), other risk taking and exploration activities, superstition and religious fanaticism, self-punishment, anorexia, money addiction (resource accumulation), etc. And it doesn't help to focus on the food industry which is producing the addicting foods (the drug war model). This does nothing for the food addicts just like it does nothing for ending drug addiction. Addictability is in the hypoic brain, not in the drug (availability) as the (wrong) hijacked brain hypothesis (the current paradigm) says. Hypoics will always find a way to get addicted to something. The focus must be on the individual hypoic and getting him/her into recovery at the earliest possible time, even before they get addicted, true prevention.
What does this mean clinically? We need to dump Michelle Obama's and Nancy Reagan's "just say no" stupidity and focus on the hypoics (the people Stice found and the same people getting addicted to all the other addictors) and their Hypoism recovery detailed in my book on Hypoism. We can't just tell everyone to eat less and exercise more, "just say no," to all the other addicts. We need to focus on the people who are getting addicted, the hypoics - people born with low dopamine activity - who will get addicted due their having genetically low dopamine activity in their reward systems, hypoics. We need to learn how to identify hypoics as children and help them get into hypoism recovery before they even get addicted - true prevention. Then we won't have to put all the energy and money into addiction recovery. Prevention prevents addictions. Prevention can only happen in the Hypoism paradigm, not in today's after the fact paradigm where addicts need to hit bottom before they can do anything with their addictions. Way too late.
All addictions work exactly the same way and all addictions are handled with the Hypoism paradigm but in an organized, understandable and surrenderable form, a preventable form. Only this way can we end the obesity epidemic and the addiction epidemic as a whole. I've been saying this for twenty years. Let's admit it and do it already.
Re: The Amygdala Made Me Do It, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/the-amygdala-made-me-do-it.html?_r=1&hp
What this article discusses is exactly my position in my ignored and censored 1966 book, Hypoic's Handbook, and addiction paradigm known as Hypoism. This disease is a genetic alteration in low dopamine activity of the decision-making apparatus also known as the Instinct Regulating Apparatus. I clearly state it's in an unconscious part of the brain and that because of the unconscious nature of this altered brain mechanism hypoics make decisions against their will in a way that is against their best interests. This is why the prevention and recovery methods are directed by another recovering person and that surrender to the sponsor and acceptance of his decisions are the third and fourth steps of the 4 step methodology. There are no suggestions, only orders. The process is all about changing behavior, not learning how to think, or changing how we think, the hardest and most dangerous things a hypoic can be asked to do, exactly what the current recovery methods are about. This is why they have failed so miserably over the past 75 years and need to be replaced with the Hypoism methodology. The complete and specific methodology is presented in the book. The entire book is otherwise a neurophysiological explanation as of 1996 of why this method is mandatory, the same kinds of issues this article tries to explain. The changes in prevention and recovery methodology bring down the current massive treatment and recovery programs based on the prevalent and wrong views of how the brain works in causing and maintaining addiction(the reason I have been ignored and censored by the addiction establishment) that have been so ineffective in altering in any way the addiction epidemic. This new way of viewing the limbic system and the Instinct Regulatory Apparatus located in the limbic system is mandatory to the future prevention of addictions in hypoic children, recovery of active addicts, and the determination of humane and effective public policies based on how the brain actually works rather than how we want it to work or believe (against all evidence) it works. My description of this recovery method during my license restoration hearings was the reason for my being refused restoration in 1998 after being clean and sober for 8 years. The panels thought I was arrogant and dangerous to believe Hypoism was the way the brain worked especially in my recovery. They predicted that my methods based on how I believed the brain worked would lead to my relapsing, something that didn't happen in the next eleven years. Thus they refused to restore my medical license, a decision based on bias and ignorance, typical of discriminatory decision-making. Be that as it may, we still have time to replace the outdated willful and consciousness-based paradigm today known as the hijacked brain hypothesis with the Hypoism paradigm based on the more realistic and objective view of how the brain works backed by valid science as presented in my book and discussed in today's article. The more we wait the more addicts are discriminated against and die as well as their family's and children's futures being ruined.
Re: Adolescent impulsivity phenotypes characterized by distinct brain networks, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/244766.php
There are two issues here. One is: what is the brain doing in those active fMRI areas? We have no idea. Two: Are these active areas merely responses to what is going on in the limbic system and reward centers, and the real issue is what's wrong in those areas? We pretty well know the answer to number two. It's low dopamine activity. This has been found to be the case in lab animals as well as in ADHD patients, a large group of high risk for addiction patients. To test this we need to do the following experiment. In youngsters (6-9 years old with no history of any drug use) we measure the dopamine receptor activity using PET scans and any other tests such as fMRI's and psychological testing that might correlate with later addictions. Then we follow these kids for 40 years and correlate previous testing results with occurrence of later addictions of all 100 varieties. This is the only way to answer the above questions and give us a cause and effect relationship that we can then use for the development of a definitive theory of addiction causation as well as methods for addiction prevention, treatment, and humane rather than draconian public policies. My literature research has led me to the Hypoism hypothesis and the complete Hypoism paradigm which can be read about on my web site. This paradigm is fully developed to deal with all addictions and all their consequences. These are fully detailed in my book, Hypoic's Handbook.
Re: Adolescent impulsivity phenotypes characterized by distinct brain networks, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/244766.php
For some unknown reason you and the rest of the addiction field equate (conflate) drug use with drug addiction. We know for certain that many kids and adults can use addictive drugs but only a small percentage of them get addicted. Drug use is not a problem and is meaningless. Drug addiction is a problem and should be the study's endpoint. So, you should have looked at addiction rather than use in your study. This same mistake is made yearly in the survey of drug use across the country. Moreover just because you didn't find any commonality between drug use and ADHD in your scan protocol, there still could be commonality at some other level such as reward deficiency and low dopamine activity at the biochemical level. You clearly need to explore their brains with more vigor as opposed to just the brain scans.
I have developed a complete paradigm based on dopamine activity deficiency called Hypoism. Please read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ The implications of this paradigm are 1) prevention - we start kids as young as 7 y.o. on hypoism recovery to prevent them from ever getting addicted. 2) treatment/recovery -we use the same recovery methodology for active addicts. The treatment protocol is derived from the actual pathophysiological deficit working in a specific and incredibly important brain organ system, the instinct regulating apparatus, not from a vacuum of combined brain dead ignorance and superstition. Hypoic's Handbook details the methods used for this intensive and specific recovery process which has yet to be done by the public because of Hypoism's censorship.
As usual, Dr. Volkow has misled the CBS interviewer and the American public. She states that addiction occurs when any person voluntarily uses an addictive drug because the drug changes the brain into an addicted brain. The more dopamine released, the more addicted the person is. This is called the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH). The HBH has been disproven many years ago and Volkow knows this. The true facts based on real and valid science are 1) Only a very small percentage of people who use addictive drugs actually get addicted. 2) The people who do get addicted have a strong family history of addictions. 3) Heritability studies have long shown that all addictions studied in identical twins and adoptees have high heritabilities, over 60% (not 50% as Volkow always says). If these heritability studies were done correctly (which is not the case up until today) they would show even higher heritabilities approaching 100%. 4) All animal models of addiction have shown that addictions only occur in animals with genetically low dopamine activity in the reward system. Several comparable studies done in humans show that susceptible individuals (high risk for addiction due to family history and other behavioral traits) who are not addicts also have low baseline dopamine activity measured in the PET scan. 5) Hypoism (addictability), the actual disease and what is the genetic trait, not the individual addictions which are known to be influenced by the environment, has never been studied for heritability. Remember, addictions are symptoms of the disease, not diseases. My paper on addiction causation explains and documents all this: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/
Thus, the theory of addiction causation Volkow gave Mr. Safer is absolutely wrong. In order to fix the addiction epidemic, something I imagine CBS wants, we must first acknowledge the correct addiction causation theory, the genetic theory, because only the correct theory (in anything) can possibly lead to correct prevention (which today is 0%) and treatment methods (which today are equal to no treatment). Volkow has been in charge of addictions since younger Bush entered the presidential office. She didn't earn the position but was appointed instead; by Bush no less. Nothing has changed in all this time and because of this she needs to go and fast. In fact addictions have gotten worse under her leadership. The reason for this is that she is pushing the HBH even though it has failed miserably to end the addiction epidemic or even do anything good. By the way, she knows this and is lying to 60 minutes and the rest of the world about it. I wrote my book on addictions (Hypoic's Handbook) in 1996 and she knows all about it being the right paradigm (I presented the Hypoism paradigm to a medical conference at her old job, Brookhaven Labs in 2000. She refused to attend even though she was in the building. I have it on tape. All the most recent science has confirmed my book's hypothesis, even Volkow's work. That science is 180 degrees opposite to the HBH. It's all referenced in the paper whose link is above. Nonetheless Volkow continues to use the disproven theory for conflict of interest motives (to maintain the drug war) and is deeply hurting the whole country. You need to interview me to find out how she and her cohorts have consistently lied to the public and congress. This is the biggest medical scandal of all time and your show has conspired to help this fraud be maintained. Please call me and set up an interview.
Re: Can Addictive Behaviors Be Predicted in Preschool? http://healthland.time.com/2012/04/26/how-preschool-behavior-can-predict-addiction-and-problem-gambling-in-adulthood/
You have to read this article.
I called Maia many years ago about Hypoism, the genetic underpinning of addiction, due to genetically low dopamine activity. She blew me off. Now she's writing an article about the same stuff in 3 year olds with "Hypoism." [My words not hers.] She calls them "undercontrolled" and asks why. Well, it's because of low dopamine. The kids are raising their dopamine with their behavior. Call it ADHD, Hypoism, or undercontrolled temperament (temperament is genetic) But that's what they are.
It's, again, more prospective information on the genetic underlying disease model of addiction causation.
Hypoism in a more sophisticated form. OOPS!!!!
Re: Abnormal Brain Structure Implicated in Stimulant Drug Addiction, Science 3 February 2012:
Vol. 335 no. 6068 pp. 601-604
Below are some quotes from the article so you can read and think about their actual words. My comments come after the quotes below.
"Drug dependence is increasingly recognized as a "relapsing brain disorder" (1) and, in support of this view, marked structural changes in striatal and prefrontal brain regions have been reported in people dependent on stimulant drugs (2). These reports, however, raise the question of whether these brain abnormalities may have predated drug-taking, rendering individuals vulnerable for the development of dependence."
"Individuals at risk for drug dependence typically have deficits in self-control (3, 4), which may reflect a diminished ability to recruit prefrontal networks for regulating behavior (5). Stimulant drugs are highly reinforcing, because they directly affect brain systems implicated in motivated behavior, such as the basal ganglia and the limbic system (6), and they modulate control systems in the prefrontal cortex (7). Malfunction of these circuitries may increase the susceptibility for stimulant-induced neuroadaptive changes and facilitate the development of drug dependence."
"As brain structure is, to a large extent, inherited (8) and drug dependence runs in families (9), a genetic or epigenetic influence on addictive behaviors seems plausible. Yet, we know very little about the mechanisms through which risks for drug dependence might be inherited. Endophenotypes are quantitative traits, mediating between the predisposing genes (genotypes) and the clinical symptoms (phenotypes) in complex disorders (10). As heritable traits, endophenotypes can be measured objectively in both patients and their unaffected first-degree relatives. We compared brain structure and the ability to regulate behavior in 50 biological sibling pairs; within each pair, one sibling satisfied the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) criteria for dependence on stimulant drugs and the other had no history of chronic drug or alcohol abuse (11). The sib-pairs were also compared with 50 unrelated healthy volunteers matched for age and intelligence quotient (table S1). Tobacco was smoked by members of all groups, but smoking rates were significantly higher in the sib-pairs than in the unrelated volunteers (table S1), which is not surprising for individuals with a greater-than-normal genetic risk of drug dependence."
"We used the stop-signal task (12), one of the most widely used measures of inhibitory control, which requires individuals to rapidly suppress an ongoing, well-established response whenever an auditory signal is suddenly presented. The stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) estimates the time that an individual needs to withhold an ongoing response and can predict the onset of substance abuse in vulnerable individuals (4). The neural circuitry underlying stop-signal task performance has been well-characterized and there is ample evidence for the association of SSRT with both the functional and structural integrity of brain systems known to be compromised in stimulant drug dependence (13, 14). We observed marked impairments in the regulation of behavior in both drug-dependent individuals and their biological siblings who have no history of chronic drug abuse (Fig. 1A). Indeed, the deficits in SSRT were as pronounced in the nondependent siblings as in the stimulant-dependent patients. Moreover, the variance in SSRT within sib-pairs was significantly smaller than in unrelated sib-pairs (permutation test, P = 0.033), which suggests that poor inhibitory control is a familial trait in vulnerable individuals and not a result of long-term drug abuse."
The involvement of the putamen is consistent with its implication in fronto-striatal circuits for stop-signal performance and proposed antecedent problems in response control (23). However, the additional regions identified as showing changes in the sib-pairs may be related to other psychological processes underlying addiction. Thus, brain abnormalities observed in the sib-pairs in neural systems underlying learning and memory [such as the medial temporal lobe (24)], and habit formation [such as the putamen (25)] are intriguing, given that some forms of drug addiction are thought to develop through maladaptive acquisition and control of habits (26). Enlargement of limbic and striatal structures has been reported previously in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) (27), and like addiction, OCD is characterized by dysfunctional habits and "out-of-control" behavior. Our findings may indicate markers of neural vulnerability for pathological habit formation, which could further facilitate the effects of drugs of abuse by interfering with limbic-striatal functions. Pathological habits in drug addiction typically result in compulsive drug-taking behaviors when prefrontal control fails to regulate behavior (26). Our data are also in keeping with preclinical research indicating that impairments in response control are predictive of cocaine reinforcement and dopamine receptor dysfunction in the striatum (28). Deficits in inhibitory prefrontal control were evident in both drug-dependent individuals and their siblings who do not abuse drugs, which may reflect an increased risk for out-of-control drug-seeking or drug-taking behaviors, which could pave the way for the development of drug dependence."
"The identified profile of familial abnormalities remarkably resembles the developmental changes of brain structure during adolescence, i.e., limbic-striatal structures mature before prefrontal brain systems. This developmental asynchrony has been suggested to create an imbalance between mesolimbic reward and prefrontal control systems, which predisposes adolescents to sensation-seeking and impulsive behavior, rendering them potentially vulnerable to drug-taking (29). Our previous data on biological siblings of stimulant-dependent individuals indicated a propensity for increased impulsivity, as measured on the Barratt Impulsivity Scale, contrasting with normal scores on measures of sensation-seeking traits (30). The present findings show that even stronger effects in the sib-pairs are observed with an objective measure of impulse control, the SSRT. These findings are also related to changes in brain structure, including the inferior frontal cortex and putamen, which are key nodes in a neural network that mediates response regulation."
"Our findings thus indicate that gray matter changes in the dorsal striatum, together with abnormal inferior prefrontal cortical connectivity, underlie an increased risk for developing stimulant drug dependence. However, the almost equivalent impairments in SSRT in both the stimulant-dependent individuals and their unaffected siblings need careful interpretation, as they do not reflect the classic pattern for endophenotypes, i.e., that the first-degree relatives have trait values intermediate between the patients and the unrelated healthy volunteers (10). Presumably, the siblings must have some other resilience factors that counteract the familial vulnerability to drug dependence. The identification of these brain and behavioral biomarkers for familial risk of drug dependence demonstrates that an individual's predisposition to become addicted to stimulant drugs may be mediated by brain abnormalities linked to impaired self-control."
I hope you all thought about how this study was done. If you read the study's methodology you see a big mistake. It studied brains from drug addicted kids. It never should have been funded to begin with no less published. Studying drug addicted brains always poses the problem of what abnormalities came first (egg) and what physical changes occurred later because of the drug use and addiction (chicken). That's been the difficulty from the beginning of the addictionology of causation and hasn't been solved by anyone except me, and that is only theoretical. I have asked the researchers to study the brains of kids with no history of addictor use. All relevant studies (various scans, genetics, psychological testing, detailed family history, behavioral diagnosis, etc.) should be done at the outset, absent any addictor use or addiction and then the subjects are followed for 40 years for the development of future addictions, any of the hundred or so addictions. Correlations should then be done between initial findings and later addictions, any and all addictions; drugs and behavioral addictions, for any causation traits. I suggested this study in 1992 when we were already aware that studying drug users and addicts brought in the chicken/egg issue. If the study had been started then we'd be half way through it by now and would probably already have some important causation correlations. But instead we're getting erroneous reports of the study of drug addicted people. This a total waste of time and money as well as misinformation generated by the reports actually being published and read by people who are unaware of the chicken/egg issue.
Re: Most Teens Have Experimented With Drugs Or Alcohol, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/243713.php
Dr. Swendsen: I read your news release at Medical News Today where they quote you about your paper on kids using drugs and alcohol. You say, "The researchers highlight that patterns of alcohol and drug use during adolescence are increasingly seen as indicators of subsequent substance abuse." I disagree. We very well know that the numbers of eventual addicts is constant while the total use of substances varies. In other words while many can use drugs and alcohol only a small percentage get addicted. This is true for all addictive drugs and addictive behaviors. The reason for this is that only those who have the right genetics, what I call the disease of Hypoism, are capable of getting addicted while those who lack the right genetics can't get addicted despite using addictive substances. The idea that anyone can get addicted if they use addictive drugs is absolutely wrong. The numbers clarify this. Therefore your statement is wrong. Only hypoics get addicted if they use addictive drugs. Even you say that 78% use alcohol but only 15% met criteria for lifetime abuse. That 15% have Hypoism while the rest don't and it doesn't matter how many or few non-hypoics use (a variable number), only the hypoics will get addicted, a stable number. There's a reason for this.
My paper Hypoism is: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/
You then say, "many youths may 'grow out of' using harmful substances as they turn into adults." It's not that they grow out of their drug use but that they didn't have the required genetics to be able to get addicted. Only hypoics are capable (have the requisite pathophysiology) of getting addicted. This is a critical issue and is only explained by the Hypoism paradigm.
Lastly you say, "The prevention of both alcohol and illicit drug abuse requires strategies that target early adolescence and take into account the highly differential influence that population-based factors may exert by stage of substance use." I agree with the first part of this statement. Yes, we have to target youngsters at risk, otherwise known as hypoics, before they have even tried using any addictor. I have found that prevention can only work when the methodology is derived from the correct addiction paradigm. Under the Hypoism paradigm we envision making the diagnosis of Hypoism in kids as young as seven and then starting them on Hypoism recovery methodology, before they get addicted. This way they never have to get addicted. This is real prevention and the method is based on the actual addiction pathophysiology and how it works to produce addicts. This method is described in detail in my book, Hypoic's Handbook, available on my web site.
Until we dump the current paradigm and replace it with the Hypoism paradigm we will continue to maintain the addiction epidemic. Because Hypoism is the cause of all addictions only the Hypoism recovery method will do what we need to be done.
Re: Substance Abusers, Even Recovering Ones, May Face Stigma, http://consumer.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=663659
I've been writing about what this article talks about for twenty years. Where does stigma and discrimination come from? The hate for addicts. And this comes from the wrong paradigm. From time immemorial addicts have been disdained because it looks like they are doing everything willfully. Guess what? They're not. It only looks that way just like it looks like the earth is flat or the sun goes around the earth. That why we invented science - to clarify what seems to be right from what is really right. Stigma and discrimination will continue until the paradigm is changed.
A letter from an appreciative person.
Thankyou - at last
You have provided me with what feels like an oasis in a desert of denial, financial greed, professional closed ranks elitism and deeply hypocritical, highly unethical political expediency. I will be acknowledging and quoting from your work in a presentation workshop I'm co-hosting in June this year. Just bought your book and can't wait to read all of it. It's the only explanation that makes any sense to me after years of study - I'm a psychologist/psychotherapist counsellor [not a know it all expert, just someone who respects, values and learns from her clients] and I'm a long term recovering hypoic [alcoholic]. You're right, AA is the only barely effective approach to abstinence [and you're right, even AA's track record is lamentable] and yes they do hint that active addiction isn't a matter of choice/intellect/will-power or any of the other fatuous explanations. Unfortunately the moralistic and religious overtones and archaic 1930's slang both repel and fail to engage many recovering newcomers. I do charity voluntary work counselling at a homeless center apart from my private practice counselling, and have a discussion group for 'alcoholics' which obviously includes me. I told them AA helped me 7 years ago when nothing else worked, and one man has come with me and stayed sober for the last few months [his idea] but as you say, it's not for everyone and it has its faults.
Therefore I am fascinated to know what N4A suggests as a more effective alternative to AA, because what interests me is not Being Right, but learning from people like you and finding effective ways to de-mystify and de-stigmatize addiction and above all, help people to live and recover. Like you I am sickened by the number of government funded "helping agencies" who get paid for misunderstanding addicts, giving them useless advice and sending them away to die. They have ticked all the boxes but they have no long term recovery statistics to illustrate their 0% success rate. It makes me very angry, especially when those defending it have no experience of addiction and no relevant knowledge about anything else.
I started on this trail in 2010 when I created a specialist presentation about 'alcoholism', collating research and trying to explode social and medical myths around it and to show people insight into an addict's experience. I put a questionnaire to 100 random people [the general public] and was not surprised by the ignorance, superstition and moral judgement that emerged - what stunned me was the contradictions inherent in their answers - none of their beliefs made rational sense when put together.
Worryingly, most of the scientific research I just waded through didn't either. There were dreary acres of depressingly detailed material about rats, opioids and pleasure centers, reward pathways etc; pretty old hat and little evolved since BF Skinner because it gave you no insight into; or explanation of; the phenomenon of addiction and dependency and made zero suggestions that might help anybody. So why do it?? Is it me, or what?? I kept tapping in stuff about the reptilian brain and finally came up with your stunning theory.
I've tried to tell the truth many times, and people in positions of social status and power never seem to like it, so I'm not surprised at the resistance you have encountered. The less they like it, the more truthful it's likely to be [a serious threat to their comfort zone]. I like what you're doing - power to you. Thanks,
Yes, the biological and unconscious paradigm (hypoism) does help end the moral war (stigma) against drugs and addicts.
Yes, the Hypoism paradigm does end the drug war.
But the most grave change, something I have talked about but not emphasized enough, is that Hypoism is a preventive paradigm as opposed to the current treatment paradigm. Hypoics never have to get addicted. This is a massive benefit. I don't talk enough about this because I'm spending so much time arguing the scientific disproof of the HBH and the proof of Hypoism. Now that these two issues are so well proved and understood it's really time to emphasize the wonderful outcome result of Hypoism. When the Hypoism paradigm gets going and we get kids diagnosed early, like 7 or 8 years old, they will be getting Hypoism recovery without ever having to get addicted. Prevention and recovery are really the same thing completely unlike the current paradigm which has essentially no prevention and lousy recovery. This, of course, is because the theory of causation was never important to the current paradigm. Without a theory of causation there can be no prevention. From the very beginning the current paradigm has been one of treatment. There was alcoholism then there was AA. No importance was placed on theory of causation, thus a massive vacuum. Hypoism goes for 100% prevention, reducing the need for massive treatment industry as well as the obvious, much less addiction and consequences of addiction, exactly what we all want. Please emphasize this reality to people you introduce to Hypoism. It is the most appealing aspect of this paradigm and should get people interested in Hypoism more than just the scientific theory.
Re: Mother Speaks Out After Losing Daughter To Bulimia, http://www.npr.org/2012/04/02/149846861/mother-speaks-out-after-losing-daughter-to-bulimia#commentBlock
The real shame about bulimia, other "eating disorders," and all other addictions is that the experts in the field don't understand them but claim that they do as well as, and most importantly, is that lay parents start foundations and do documentaries about these issues that maintain the wrong understanding. This has led to the perpetuation of the addiction epidemic rather than its solution. These are not therapeutic or even helpful. What's needed is that the addiction field needs to dump the current paradigm, acknowledging that it's completely wrong, and seek out the correct paradigm. I show this to be true in my paper called Hypoism Hypothesis on my web site. That's step one. Step two is to read and study already existing new paradigms that make sense scientifically. Only by finding the new correct paradigm can we expect to discover effective prevention and treatment based on the new causation theory. That is what I did in 1990. The addiction field has not done this. By 1992 I had written my first paper called Hypoism - A Real Disease. This theory was based on the scientifically valid data that all addicts, human and animal, have one thing in common. They have genetically low dopamine activity in the brain mechanism I called "the instinct regulating mechanism," the area in the brain that regulates all instinctive behavior in the limbic system. The rest of the paradigm was completed by 1996 with my book, HypoicĄŻs Handbook. I continue to update it in my blog, also on my web site. ItĄŻs not intuitive and requires specific methods that are not being used anywhere today except here in Sarasota. They need to be used under the auspices of the complete paradigm, not in the current vacuum. Thus the need for a complete paradigm change.
This theory is delineated under the Hypoism paradigm of all addictions, bulimia being one of them. There are two major implications of this complete paradigm, a prevention and treatment methodology that can be begun in children as well as in established addicts. Today we have nothing like that and therefore all 30 million Americans having the hypoic genetics will be affected and hurt by the disease, something we see every day. I suggest you learn about it and begin using it. This is the only way we're going to save people like Melissa. We use it here in Sarasota and itĄŻs free.
Re: Methamphetamine Usage During Pregnancy May Cause Childhood Behavioral Problems, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/243086.php
This article's conclusions are wrong. The study shows association. Association does not equal causation. To prove causation they would need to give MA to a group of pregnant women and placebo to an equal group of women and then follow their kids for whatever symptoms the study decides. Only then can they say the kid's symptoms were caused by the MA.
What this study does show is that kids of MA addicts are genetically susceptible to the symptoms they demonstrated. In fact, we already know this. This genetic disease is called Hypoism. The prevention methodology is discussed in my book Hypoic's Handbook.
Re: Book Review: 'The Power of Habit,' by Charles Duhigg, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-15/book-review-the-power-of-habit-by-charles-duhigg#p2
First of all a habit is not equivalent to an addiction. They are completely different. A habit is a choice one makes over and over again for a reason. An addiction happens to you against your will even though it may appear to be volitional. The neurobiology behind them are completely different. Duhigg has no idea what he's talking about. Secondly, there's no evidence that AA works no less that any of its particular methods work better than others. Repeatedly it's been shown that AA works no better than no treatment whatsoever. It's only the advertising repeated over and over that works to convince the ignorant public that it works. The current addiction paradigm is a lie from theory to treatment, and is maintained for two reasons, to maintain the moral paradigm of addictions and to maintain the income of all those who make a living off of addicts. The only study to show that AA worked, the MATCH study, was found to be fraudulent in its statistics as well as in its interpretation. You can read about this at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/theaddictiontreatmentfraudfinallyexposed/
Duhigg is just another person trying to make a living off of the public's ignorance of addiction science, something the public needs to acknowledge and do something about. My web site, Hypoism, and book, Hypoic's Handbook, in existence since the early 1990s, explains the science of addiction causation and the rationale for prevention, treatment and public policy methods. Most of my predictions about all aspects of addictions made in the early 1990s have been scientifically validated in studies done since the publication of my book. Habits have nothing to do with any of this.
Re: Learning From the Spurned and Tipsy Fruit Fly, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/health/male-fruit-flies-spurned-by-females-turn-to-alcohol.html?_r=1&hpw#comments
First of all this fruit fly study says nothing about addiction just about how much alcohol a particular fruit fly drinks. Drinking doesn't equal addiction. Most people who drink, even those who drink a lot, aren't addicted. Only about 10%. Thus there is something different about those 10%. All research has shown, in animals and humans, that addiction in those 10% is associated with genetically low dopamine activity in those who get addicted. Yes, it is the same reward system but only in people who are born with genetically low dopamine activity. Low neurotransmitter Y may well be a part of this. I'm not sure about the existence of definitive causation research on neurotransmitter Y in humans though. If it existed I think we would already know about it. So, that research still needs to be done. I have developed a complete paradigm surrounding genetically low dopamine activity as a causative model of all addictions and other symptoms as well. It is called Hypoism. Google Hypoism and learn about it. This paradigm has a preventative method which is described in my book, Hypoic's Handbook. It is the only prevention paradigm yet developed by mankind and is available to be used for all addictions by starting young hypoics in this program before they get addicted. If used it will end the addiction epidemic and drug war. Try it. You might like it.
Does AA Really Work? A Round-up of Recent Studies
Re: The Physiology of Addiction
At this link Dr. Christensen discusses the underlying dopamine activity deficiency as the cause of all addictions, just as I have done since 1992. But I have developed an entire paradigm about this deficiency, which I call Hypoism. My web site is http://www.nvo.com/hypoism. The major papers are:
The book discusses every aspect of Hypoism, including the recovery method which is not on the web site and why it's the recovery method. The book must be read to understand and use the paradigm. We have a weekly meeting utilizing this recovery method which will soon be online. I too have several videos online in YouTube under "hypoism."
Re: Whitney HoustonĄŻs Death: Hallmarks of a Battle Against Addiction and Overdose
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/13/whitney-houstons-death-hallmarks-of-a-battle-against-addiction-and-overdose/#ixzz1nVlqaDDf
Today's blog is a review of a Time magazine article by Maia Szalavitz, a self-proclaimed addiction specialist. In other words she's a journalist who was an addict. These are the only credentials she has for being an addiction expert. This is also why most of what she writes misses the point and thus misinforms the editors of Time mag. as well as the public, as in today's article.
Today's article is supposed to explain the cause of Whitney Houston's death. It explains that it was an accidental death in a known addict (many years of addictions and screwed up life) who showed signs of drug misuse and who had been to multiple rehabs and failed to get clean and sober. Multiple prescription drugs and alcohol were present at the scene.
In fact, there's no explanation. What would make any person, no less a successful superstar, behave like this over so many years? The article states she was an addict for many years. What does this mean? It says she went to three rehabs. What are rehabs and what are they supposed to do and what's the proof for this? None of this is explained or documented as if everyone already knows about this. What do people know about these issues? Maia doesn't say. So, there's really no explanation for any aspect of this death. But you can read other articles in Time by Maia and see what she says about these issues. If you do you will find she writes pretty much the party line meaning whatever Nora Volkow says or NIDA in general. Volkow's paradigm of addiction, even though her own life experience and research proves the opposite, is what's known as the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH). The HBH says that people voluntarily take the first drug dose followed by the drug turning the brain into an addicted brain, and it is this addicted brain that now has a disease that leads to addictive behavior. What's the proof for this theory? There is only disproof, no proof. Yet it remains the established paradigm which blames the addict and the drug. What about treatment, rehab? The HBH paradigm also says treatment works whether it's 12-step or psychotherapy or rehab or certain medications. Thus, when an addict gets any of these treatments and fails it's the addict's fault and they deserve whatever happens to them or whatever punishment the receive. Addicts with or without treatment are at fault and deserve whatever happens to them according to the HBH paradigm because they caused their own addiction to begin with by taking the drug the first time. Now, where's the proof, the documentation for any of these statements made by the HBH? Ask Maia. I wrote Maia many years ago to tell her about the disproof of the HBH and the proof of the genetic model of addiction causation where only certain people born with the right genetic mutations (alleles) get addicted unconsciously against their will, the complete opposite to the HBH. She blew me off (ignored and censored) without looking at any of the science I used to come to this conclusion. Maia can't provide any proof of her explanations of addictions or addict's behavior yet she remains Time Magazine's addiction expert based on her being an ex-addict and believing everything Nora Volkow tells her without checking the scientific literature as I have.
As you all know the genetic paradigm is called Hypoism due to genetically derived low activity of dopamine activity in the brain and there's tons of proof for this and its paradigm being the explanation of addictions and addict's behavior as well as its recovery and prevention program. Thanks to Maia and the rest of the media no one knows about Hypoism and it recovery and prevention program. So, Whitney Houston didn't have this paradigm at her disposal and was killed by the HBH paradigm as are a million other addicts a year - which seems to be OK because no one is looking for its replacement because, according to Nora Volkow and NIDA, NIAAA, ASAM, AA, etc., it already works! Massive bullshit and a big lie. This is not what the public is being told though is it?
The disproof of the HBH and the proof of Hypoism are on my web site and in my book for all to read and to evaluate and debate. Rather, it's being ignored and censored. So, don't wonder why addicts die. They are being killed by the current HBH paradigm and the addiction experts who preach it. No more articles about dead addicts! They're killed by the current experts and programs and that's it. Period.
I can't fight this alone. I need your help. I need you to write letters to editors about this stuff, not just me. Please help me fight this scourge.
Re: 15% of U.S. Surgeons Report Drinking Problems in Survey, http://consumer.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=661963
First is the statement, "But it should be said that a number of studies have shown that direct patient harm associated with impairment due to chemical dependency is very, very rare," said survey lead author Dr. Michael Oreskovich. "The chance of a patient being injured by an impaired surgeon is really very uncommon. Something like one in 10,000. So it just doesn't happen very much," he noted. I just remind you that in my license restoration hearing (1998) I said the same thing when the panel asked me to say that addicted physicians were automatically "dangerous." My unwillingness to say addicted physicians were automatically dangerous was used against me. I was perfectly aware of the studies but was nonetheless ridiculed and criticized for my statements. They said it showed I was in denial and arrogant despite being over 8 years documented clean and sober, and never committing any patient harm. This meant to them, and they said so in their report against my license restoration, that I was therefore dangerous despite being clean and sober. Now if that's not discriminatory and prejudicial I don't know what would be.
Secondly, "Surgeons who said they had made a major medical mistake over the previous three months were more likely to be struggling with alcohol abuse or dependence, as were those who were either depressed, emotionally exhausted, suicidal, "distressed" or "burned out."" So, surgeons who did do patient harm were frequently addicted, but not the other way around, that addicted physicians were automatically dangerous. The Health Department stated in their complaint against me in 1989 that I had committed no patient harm. That was ignored by my hearing panel even though it was proof that I was not dangerous. Yet the New York court which ruled against my appeal let them get away with that as well as 38 other wrongheaded reasons, which I documented in my appeal, they used to say I was too dangerous to practice.
Next, and most importantly, is the issue of stigmatization. They state, "But actually publishing this survey, and showing the high percentage of those who have a problem, we think is actually destigmatizing by its very nature. It kind of sets a precedent that it's OK to be ill," Oreskovich said. "And, hopefully, next time we do a poll more surgeons will come forward." I think just the opposite. This survey says a high number of surgeons are addicted. In the face of the current paradigm, the Hijacked Brain Hypothesis which is a moral paradigm and thus stigmatizing on its own, this survey increases the stigmatization of all surgeons. It is the paradigm that causes the stigmatization, not anything else. Under this paradigm the honest admission about increased addiction in surgeons doesn't reduce stigma but instead increases it. Because we are living (suffering) under the wrong paradigm. Only the correct, genetic/biological, paradigm known as Hypoism can destigmatize addictions.
Lastly, I agree with the criticism about the 29% response rate being too low to give valid numbers. It's probably higher in the 71% that didn't respond. This makes sense because surgeons are inherently risk takers, a trait associated with higher than usual occurrence of addictions.
The important thing to follow up from this study would be to do a larger prospective study dealing with the actual physician addictions and patient harm. This issue can no longer remain in the realm of bias and prejudice but needs to be strictly documented in reality. Most forensic psychiatrists have been asking for this for far too long without it being delineated. That would go a long way to destigmatize addicted doctors and end the persecution of them as well.
Re: Drinking and Drugging, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/opinion/sunday/bruni-whitney-houston-and-alcohols-toll.html?_r=1&hp#postcomment
Your essay is correct up to the end, the conclusion. Messing with the addictor is not the solution. In fact, prohibition only makes things worse. It goes underground and the mob takes over while leaving the paradigm unchanged. Today's problem (epidemic) with addictors, drugs and behaviors, is caused by the paradigm. Today's addiction paradigm is called the hijacked brain hypothesis which has been proven wrong and harmful. That's NIDA's paradigm. It's wrong and therefore a lie. It perpetuates the moral cause of addictions and demonizes the drug and the addict. This kills addicts. Thus, Whitney Houston's death and countless others. The correct paradigm is the genetic dopamine activity deficiency paradigm. I have named it Hypoism. Google hypoism and read about it. Read my web site and my book, Hypoic's Handbook. Under Hypoism we start newly diagnosed children on the recovery program prior to getting addicted as well as those who have gotten addicted. The Hypoism recovery program is based on dealing with the underlying biological problem not the moral problem. In doing so it destigmatizes the addict and frees him from guilt and shame and discrimination. It also prevents addictions and deals with all other problems at their core. It prevents addictions from ever occurring while the current paradigm chases drugs and addicts and prevents recovery with ineffective treatment based on superstitious nonsense and psychobabble. Learn and support Hypoism and end the epidemic.
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
This study shows for the first time that genetic Dopamine D2 receptor deficiency causes alcohol addiction in mice. "This study shows the effects of chronic alcohol consumption on brain chemistry are critically influenced by an individuals genetic makeup." This is exactly what the Hypoism paradigm has been saying since 1992.
Isn't this enough to have us switch from the hijacked brain hypothesis, today's wrong and damaging paradigm, to the Hypoism paradigm? Why do we have to wait for the wrongheaded other side to surrender when their whole carriers depend on the wrong paradigm that is maiming and killing millions of people a year?
Re: WhatĄŻs New? Exuberance for Novelty Has Benefits, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/science/novelty-seeking-neophilia-can-be-a-predictor-of-well-being.html?_r=1
The NY Times has a health web site run by Tara Parker-Pope. They did an article today about the important role dopamine regulatory alleles play in individual's lives as well as in the evolution of our species as a whole. The article also shows how the genetic biological trait of impulsiveness or risk taking is important in the history of human settlement, creativity and exploration as well as in ADHD, various addictions, and risky behaviors.
I've written that web site, called The Well, many times about Hypoism, the genetic biological cause of addictions due to low activity dopamine regulatory alleles but have been ignored. I sent a copy of my book, Hypoic's Handbook, to David Corcoran, the head editor of science times, and he told me my book was not for them even though it is exactly about these same genetic variations of the dopamine regulatory genes in the causation of addictions, just what this article says today. My paper on this information and how it works on my web site, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ , was written in 2000 and was chosen for a poster session at the annual evolutionary psychology conference. The Times ignored a thousand letters to the editor from me about this information. Now, out of the blue, they publish an article about the very same stuff and yet continue to ignore my letters even though they hold out the possibility of solving the addiction epidemic. I am one of those risk takers. The NY Times and David Corcoran are the risk haters, neophobes.
My Hypoism paradigm of addictions is the only correct addiction paradigm out there, is based on the same genetic mutations as are discussed in today's article, and they continue to ignore and censor it. Hey David. How about recognizing my work and let the public know about Hypoism so they can use it to end the addiction epidemic once and for all?
Re: A RabbiĄŻs Teachings on Recovery Find a Wide Audience, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/us/a-recovery-rabbi-shais-taub-finds-a-wide-audience.html?_r=1&hpw
ĄI think he articulated the things IĄŻve always felt are true,Ą} said one of his listeners there, Elizabeth Potter, a therapist who is the daughter of an evangelical minister. ĄIĄŻve always felt spirituality is the key component of any counseling. That there is a God, and that there is hope.Ą}
This passage is a perfect example of confirmational bias, one of the weird things in the book, "Why people believe weird things." Confirmational bias is when you believe things because you already believe them, not because they've been proven correct but only because you already believe them to be true. This is superstition. It is anti-science and anti-medicine yet here it is in the NY Times once again. The Times has a long history of publishing nonsense that it believes to be true while censoring ideas that have been proven true but are against the Time's beliefs.
Religion has never been proven to be a requirement for recovery yet here it is getting promoted by the author of the article, as if this Rabbi knows something the rest of us don't, and by the Times by its being published.
What's the harm in writing about and publishing this topic when it can't hurt, right? How can it hurt to publish this nonsense? Well, it hurts because it misrepresents the disease that causes addictions, a spiritual disease?, and it leads people astray on their recoveries, influencing them to do the "spiritual" recovery rather than looking for a recovery methodology that has a basis in science, exactly like the rest of the field of medicine. And since when is Carl Jung an expert in addictions, or even Bill Wilson for that matter? Just because people may believe in their writings doesn't make them correct. In fact, despite the 75 years the 12 step program has had to prove itself correct it has never been proven correct but rather it has been shown it is no better than chance no matter how many people believe it to be correct. It turns out that AA is a cult like so many religions and gets no more people sober than no program at all. The article doesn't mention any studies done by the Rabbi showing his treatment regimen any better than chance yet the article talks about it as if it were proven.
What this kind of nonsense does is actually help kill more people than it helps because in working this religious program the addict is actually not doing anything helpful for himself and thus is subject to the power of the disease while being powerless. When an addict works a program that doesn't work, even if they believe it to work, their disease progresses and eventually kills them. That is what this article will do for all the hapless addicts out their who believe in this nonsense. They will die, just as they have been for decades and decades. This article drags the addiction field back to the dark ages, an ignorant and superstitious place science has tried to bring us out of. Shame on you.
Re: A Family History Of Alcoholism May Make Adolescent Brains Respond Differently, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/240382.php
Here are the implications of this finding:
"Both Nagel and Herting believe these findings can help to develop better prevention programs based on familial risk factors. "These findings may suggest a neurobiological marker that helps to explain how family history of alcoholism confers risk," said Nagel. "Furthermore, our research may aid clinicians who work with high-risk youth to develop effective prevention strategies for these adolescents to promote healthy decision-making." "
Despite their findings they still don't have a paradigm for treatment, prevention, and public policies because they don't have a brain mechanism for the causation of addictions derived from this deficit. Just because there are frontal lobe deficiencies, this can't explain how addiction happens out of these deficits. There needs to be a physiological reason for the use and addiction to the addictor. Bad decision-making may well help but it makes no connection to how addiction is derived from it. It's a big leap from bad decision-making to addiction. The physiology is just not there. Compare their vague and circumstantial ideas about the premorbid brain changes to my complete paradigm based on the specific premorbid unique and specific genetic alterations of each individual's Hypoism. Genetic low dopamine activity causes the hypoic to unconsciously search out dopamine raising drugs and activities as well as addiction to them. My book, Hypoic's Handbook, goes through this process in detail. There is bad decision-making as well as the required dopamine activity deficiency, the critical physiological requirement for addiction.
They didn't look at the differences in Dopamine receptor levels and other dopamine activity levels in substance naive kids (which I predict when finally studied will show low levels in kids who go on to become all kinds of addicts), a critical mistake, but nonetheless they are showing evidence for an important concept, the existence of premorbid differences in kids' brains who later go on to get addicted, and that prevention of addiction can be started then by dealing with decision-making difficulties in these kids before any addiction has time to begin. This is exactly what I've been writing about since 1992, twenty years ago, and have put into effect with Hypoic's Not Anonymous recovery methodology. This deals with the thinking, feelings, and behavior caused by the genetic changes in the decision-making apparatus also called the instinct regulating apparatus (including any alterations of the frontal lobes) of the brain which cause this disease. I call the genetic-based premorbid disease these kids have Hypoism, hypo for low reward activity via low dopamine receptors and levels in the nucleus accumbans and elsewhere in the brain. I call this prevention program Hypoic's Not Anonymous where all hypoics (addicts and especially not yet addicts) come for recovery from the underlying disease, Hypoism, not just from a single addiction and hitting bottom as the 12 step groups require. Hopefully this is before they get addicted, thus prevention. That's the whole point of the Hypoism paradigm. We deal with all addictions with this recovery program, not just a single one, because hypoics are susceptible to all addictions. But the addiction is not the disease. Hypoism is the disease which all addicts have. Thus the recovery is from Hypoism, not just the individual addictor. We deal with the effects of the entire disease on the individual depending on how the disease works on the individual. The individual gets specific recovery from the specific genetic alterations unique to him alone as manifest by his feelings, thinking, and actions, rather than one size fits all for each specific addiction requiring a different program for each addiction, an absurdity. We stress acceptance of how one feels rather than changing how one feels, exactly how we got addicted to begin with. Thus we avoid mood altering drugs and addictive behaviors of any kind, especially addictive drugs/medications, from the get-go. All this, the complete recovery/prevention methodology, is discussed in my book, Hypoic's Handbook (1996). We need to stop wasting time and begin using my already defined paradigm which is ready to be used for prevention, treatment, and the basis of necessary public policy changes.
Re: Overdosing on Extremism, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/drug-policy-needs-centrists.html
Sorry. It's not about extremism vs moderation, democrats vs republicans, left vs right. It's not about the drugs. It's about the wrong theory of addiction running the show. Since 1995 I've written the Times 1000 emails about this and they publish your article rather than mine. That's the problem. The people, all the people, including the Times, involved with the addiction mess are wrong. They are all part of the problem. I'll keep this short. Until the wrong theory, the hijacked brain hypothesis, is replaced with the right theory, Hypoism, we will continue to have the addiction epidemic grow. Only the right theory can result in right and effective prevention, treatment, and public policy. NIDA is responsible for this. Get rid of Dr. Volkow, replace her with someone who knows the right theory and will tell the public and congress about it, and we'll reach a solution to the mess. Read my book and web site to learn about Hypoism.
Although Cigarette And Alcohol Use At Historic Low Among Teens, Abuse Of Alternate Tobacco Products, Marijuana And Prescription Drugs Rife, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/239255.php
Once again we have our yearly drug use among school kids report that is misrepresented as something important and useful when in fact it is neither. Why is it not important and useful? Because it uses the wrong drug use and addiction paradigm, the hijacked brain hypothesis, to interpret the statistics as if all school children are equivalent risks to use drugs and get addicted. This paradigm is 100% wrong about this most critical issue. All kids are not at equal risk of getting addicted and thus what some kids (hypoic kids - the ones who go on to get addicted, while non-hypoic kids don't get addicted after using the same drugs) do is more important than what the rest do. We're not studying this difference in group susceptibility. What this means is that it is more important to know what hypoic kids are doing than non-hypoic kids since the hypoic kids are the ones who have all the trouble with drugs and other addictors. Of course, if we don't use the Hypoism paradigm of addiction we don't even realize we're doing this and we get meaningless numbers, helping no one. I shouldn't say no one. They have prevented some cigarette addictions probably in non-hypoics, and that is a good thing but so would Hypoism, and Hypoism prevention methods would also prevent addictions to all the other addictors which the hijacked brain hypothesis doesn't.
If you don't know what I'm talking about here, read my web site and book on Hypoism. You're using the wrong paradigm too because you've ignored my emails to you for many years. Hypoics require a specialized form of prevention methodology, basically hypoism recovery methodology, a type of methodology that is not being used today anywhere because Hypoism has been willfully ignored and censored by the addictionology establishment. Dr. Volkow knows all about it. I gave a lecture on Hypoism in 2000 at Brookhaven Labs. So does ASAM. They have two copies of my book.
All this means that all (most) of the work you and NIDA have been doing to prevent addictions have gone to naught and the addiction epidemic has grown accordingly each year in Hypoics, the critical group of people we should be helping but we're not. The public doesn't know they exist. The hijacked brain hypothesis doesn't help any hypoics, the group of people unknown to you and them who are the ones that have all the trouble with addictions. They are the ones we need to be targeting, not non-hypoics, and they are not even being recognized. That's the problem, a problem that is being ignored because the establishment doesn't like it. If only the public knew about this. They'd raise hell. But it's been well censored for 20 years.
Re: Medical Marijuana Industry Is Unnerved by U.S. Crackdown,
This article is, as usual, not about the real issue concerning the drug war. We have it all wrong, even backwards, 180 degrees backwards. NIDA, run by Nora Volkow, says drugs cause addictions. This is called the hijacked brain hypothesis (hbh). Thus, we need to go after the drugs and the people who use and sell them, the supply side of the addiction issue. The problem is that drugs don't cause addictions. Hypoism causes addictions. Google hypoism and read about it on my web site and book. The hbh is wrong. It's been wrong and known to be wrong since it was named the hbh by Leshner in 1997. Most people who use addictive drugs don't get addicted. Thus, the hbh is a lie. And policies based on this lie are wrong and don't work. Volkow and the rest of the addictionologists in this country know this but continue to push the hbh anyway. They push the hbh because it is politically correct, not because it's right. Only certain people get addicted, people with genetic low dopamine activity in the reward system. I call this disease Hypoism. This is about 10-20% of the population. Hypoism forces these people to seek out drugs and behaviors that raise the dopamine activity. This was proven in animals in the 80's and 90's and in humans in the 2000's. Hypoism is 180 degrees different from the hbh and leads to public policies that are 180 degrees different. Under Hypoism there is no drug war because it is known that the drugs don't cause addictions and it makes no sense to chase drugs. Instead we need to improve our diagnostic abilities and help hypoics get the recommended treatment. In fact, we need to learn how to diagnose Hypoism in kids and start them on the recommended treatment as early as possible. This is true prevention of addictions, something we have all wrong today. Today there is no prevention. One day, under Hypoism, we will be able to conceptually prevent addictions in 100% of the Hypoics and there will be no addictions to plague us. I've been writing this for 20 years but for some weird reason have been ignored and censored. People just don't like Hypoism as a theory because they think it lets addicts off the hook and we can't have that. So, they continue to push the wrong theory, the hbh, and help maintain the addiction epidemic. People are so ignorant about this that they made Volkow one of the hundred most influential people in Time Magazine last year. She's the problem, not the solution. But people won't read the actual science that shows this. Volkow did some of this science and even she won't interpret it correctly because that would support Hypoism, something she hates. It's up to the people to learn this and demand the necessary changes in policy that would result from learning this. Then the drugs, including Marijuana, would be decriminalized, the drug war stopped, and the right treatment and prevention methods used. Isn't this what we want?
I'd like my web site included in your list of helpful addiction websites. It's www.nvo.com/hypoism. Your statement says, "Please be advised that we only link to quality, relevant web sites." I'd like to ask what your criteria for "quality" web sites are. I know what mine are and they aren't "consensus," money, or "celebrity" - based. All of the web sites listed in your journal use the outdated and incorrect "hijacked brain hypothesis," and lack proof for their claims, including NIDA's. These web sites provide wrong and hurtful information about addictions and recovery. Maybe you should read them. They have been hurting addicts and their families for countless years and it's time they were debunked publicly. They are all biased and lack references to studies that validate what they claim. Objectively, these web sites are not only not quality but they misinform and flagrantly lie, and therefore are damaging. I was one of the first addiction scientists to claim behavioral addictions were equal to drug addictions (1992) and that addictions are caused by genetic alterations, not psychobabble, despite providing the science to back up my claims. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ I have long ago debunked the current paradigm these web sites are based on. My work, though now proven to be correct, is still ignored and censored by the same people, organizations, and journals that ignored and censored it in 1992 even though it's been validated with peer reviewed science while their theories and recovery methods have been debunked with the same valid science. My 501-c-3, the N4A [brochure is on the web site], is the only organization that honestly advocates for the addict, insists on valid science to back its claims, and demands policy changes that will end the drug war and improve the recovery and lives of all addicts, things the current paradigm does not do. In fact, the current paradigm is the cause of all these problems.
Dan Umanoff, M.D.
A quote from the article says, "In fact, if we know where susceptibility to substance abuse lies and low dopamine and altered Drd2 response seems to be it - then maybe we can find better ways to prevent/treat this disorder. " They haven't tried their treatment in genetically induced addictions (Hypoism) only in iatrogenic (chemically induced) addictions which may not be what happens in real life at all. However, they at least are mentioning that addictions are caused by low dopamine activity. This is finally supportive to the Hypoism hypothesis, twenty years after I first suggested this in my first paper on Hypoism. Funny, they still don't know anything about my work.
This information is not new nor is it revolutionary. Not only are these researchers 20 years late (I wrote about this material in 1992), but they don't have any idea about where the decision-making apparatus is in the brain, how this apparatus works, or what causes it to malfunction. My web paper, "Hypoism Hypothesis," and my 1996 book, Hypoic's Handbook," explain all that. In doing so they lead to the necessary treatment methodology - detailed in the book. Moreover, not only do they explain the theory and treatment methods but also the prevention methods which have never been used or even tried - also explained in the paper and the book as well as in my blog. Geez! The treatment and prevention methods are delineated yet they have been ignored, especially by your web magazine to which I have sent countless letters absent any recognition or acknowledgment, putting addicts twenty years behind where they should be already. These authors haven't a clue about prevention and treatment methods derived from the pathophysiology they describe which is already several decades old. Not only is this too little and too late but you and they will continue to ignore my work, by ignoring this letter, forcing addicts and their families to wait even longer until one of them stumble across the correct paradigm, my paradigm, Hypoism. This is unconscionable.
DonĄŻt Blink! The Hazards of Confidence,
The conclusion of this article is: "To know whether you can trust a particular intuitive judgment, there are two questions you should ask: Is the environment in which the judgment is made sufficiently regular to enable predictions from the available evidence? The answer is yes for diagnosticians, no for stock pickers. Do the professionals have an adequate opportunity to learn the cues and the regularities? The answer here depends on the professionalsĄŻ experience and on the quality and speed with which they discover their mistakes. Anesthesiologists have a better chance to develop intuitions than radiologists do. Many of the professionals we encounter easily pass both tests, and their off-the-cuff judgments deserve to be taken seriously. In general, however, you should not take assertive and confident people at their own evaluation unless you have independent reason to believe that they know what they are talking about. Unfortunately, this advice is difficult to follow: overconfident professionals sincerely believe they have expertise, act as experts and look like experts. You will have to struggle to remind yourself that they may be in the grip of an illusion."
The answer, the author states, is determined by independent reasons for believing they know what they're talking about. In his work the author did this by analyzing the data with valid statistical methods of actual results. Let's take the field of addictions. Their motto is, "treatment works." The entire treatment industry uses this motto irrespective of treatment methodology. Where's the data? The best study of this question was done by Miller in New Mexico about ten years ago. He reviewed hundreds of studies of various treatments and found that none worked over the long run. In fact, there were no long run studies, so there was no data that even dealt with this issue, not one. Thus, it's been documented that "treatment works" is a lie. I've been writing about this for twenty years and am ignored and censored while the treatment field is believed. The best study proving this lie is discussed in my article: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/theaddictiontreatmentfraudfinallyexposed/ , and the treatment study, project MATCH, was the largest and most expensive study of treatment ever done. It was done by the NIAAA as well. The study, out of Miami, proving the lie was completely ignored by the media and the addiction field. It changed nothing. The same can be said about my 20 years of work showing the dismal failure of the addiction field's theory of addiction and treatment. The experts have not shown themselves in any independent way to be experts yet the media and the addiction field continue to make this claim. The results of all this is the fact that long term treatment succeeds 5% while no treatment also succeeds 5%, in other words treatment works as well as no treatment and both methods are dismally bad. The experts are liars and the media and the public believe them because of their confidence not because of their statistical proof, exactly what today's article says. My web site, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism and my 1996 book, Hypoic's Handbook, discuss this at length and are ignored as if I were the liar. Is it possible for an entire field to be wrong and one person right? Of course, it's happened many times in many if not all fields. Are we all ignored? For the most part yes, to the detriment of the entire world? Well. take a look for yourself. Is the addiction epidemic being cured or is it growing? Are the addiction experts successful or not? You tell me. Isn't it at least time for the experts to admit they're failing? Wouldn't that be a good start instead of continuing to tell the world they know what they're doing and things are improving? Then, at least, we would begin to search for the right paradigm. But instead we're acting as if we are confident with the present paradigm and continue to use it while not looking for the right one, what I've been doing for the last 20 years and ignored. "You will have to struggle to remind yourself that they may be in the grip of an illusion." I've done all the leg work. All you need to do is read it. Is that so hard in order to save yourself and your kids?
U.S. Ranks Last in Preventable Deaths: Report, http://consumer.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=657197 Then it lists several what it calls preventable diseases: treatable cancer, diabetes, childhood infections/respiratory diseases, and complications from surgery.
You don't see addictions on that list. Why? Because there's no current addiction theory that allows any methodology for prevention of addiction. However, there is one theory, a theory I've been extolling for 20 years and ignored, who's treatment methodology is exactly the same as its prevention method. The theory is called Hypoism and its treatment of addiction is exactly the same as its prevention methodology. You just begin it before the child ever uses an addictor.
No one but me has thought of such a massive idea. The same method that keeps an addict sober is the same method to prevent a naive (virgin) child hypoic from ever using an addictor. Today, according to the professionals, one must hit bottom before one will enter recovery. This is because they're talking about addiction recovery. No underlying disease exists in their paradigm. According to them you turn into an addict by overusing the addictor. So, by necessity, you can't get treatment until you yourself are sick of your addiction; you've gone as far as you can go addicted. That's today's paradigm. The Hypoism paradigm states that you can begin treatment (of Hypoism - the underlying disease) when the diagnosis is made, and that can be done at an early age, an age long before you have had your first experience with an addictor. That method is true prevention, and it's not just say no. It's a complete treatment method and is discussed in detail in my book Hypoic's Handbook. It provides for 100% prevention of addiction rather than trying to cause treatment of the addiction itself. As a consequence there would be no addiction epidemic or drug war as there is now. The drug problem would disappear.
But since only a few people have read about this paradigm and even thought about using it to prevent addiction there is no prevention method of addictions right now. That's why it didn't get on the list of treatable diseases.
Read between the lines and do what's necessary.
Searching for creativity on NPR
Dear Dan ,
Thank you for contacting Talk of the Nation Science Friday. Your comment has been forwarded to the showĄŻs staff.
Thank you for listening, and for your continued support of public broadcasting.
To reply to this e-mail, please use the link below:
I want to tell you about my discovery, using the same science as the old paradigm but interpreted honestly and in a new way, of a new paradigm of addiction causation that could, if read and used, turn the world of addictions on its head. This paradigm, it turns out, is the exact opposite of the current paradigm which has been a total failure for 50 years yet it has been ignored and censored for the 20 years since it was discovered and written about despite some major addictionologist's support (see their emails to me on the web site's [http://www.nvo.com/hypoism] first page). Instead of rewriting the whole story I will just give you the url's of the web pages for you to read to learn about the new paradigm. The reason I was able to discover this new paradigm from a new interpretation of the same science was that I was never part of the field of addictionology before (I'm a Nephrologist with an interest in addictions) was that I lacked the old bias of the people who came before me and was able to rethink the science and their ideas into a new paradigm. It just happened to be the opposite of the old and ineffective one. Here are the url's of the new story of the new paradigm. By the way, I sent you the book I wrote on this story several years ago but you ignored it too. So you have the book which you should read this time.
This paradigm needs to be read by everyone so they can have the opportunity to decide between the current paradigm which is ineffective in prevention of addictions and treatment (proven) and in altering the drug war, which hypoism ends. Being censored is no way to inform the public of new and scientifically valid ideas that have the potential to end the addiction epidemic and the drug war - the whole idea.
The book is available off the web page and it has the complete story of the paradigm, particularly the prevention and treatment parts which there is little about on in the web site for many good reasons; the main one is that one needs to read the whole book from the beginning before one can understand how the methodology of prevention and treatment work and why they are the way they are.
One thing that stands out in the article and the comments is that there are no references to studies that prove the statements made by any of the claimants. Thus the entire post is pure opinion and of no value. In fact, essentially all statements in this post are incorrect which is the main reason there are no references, because they don't exist. The article is pure bias and opinion and not backed by valid science. The whole paradigm current addictionology is based on today is wrong. I call it the psychobabble/religious paradigm and all valid science has proven this paradigm absolutely wrong, the main reason there is no effective prevention and treatment for any addiction, which there isn't even though this psychiatrists says there is. Ask him to give us a reference to a valid study showing me to be wrong. I review this problem in my paper http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ on my web site which is about the correct theory of addiction causation which I have named Hypoism. This paper is fully referenced. All addictions are physiologically the same though different genes involvement lead to different addictions in different individuals. The research on this proposition has not been done yet because the addiction establishment refuses to do then research necessary to prove this statement. There is massive bias against the genetic basis of addictions and the Hypoism mechanism. Thus we remain stuck in a wrong paradigm that is perpetuating the addiction epidemic as discussed in my book, Hypoic's Handbook, and many papers on my web site -http://www.nvo.com/hypoism. Read it and write an article about it. That will let the public know for the first time about this new theory and will help reverse the addiction epidemic and end the drug war.
I wrote a book on the cause and definition of addiction in 1996 and sent two copies to ASAM. They were ignored, never read, and never mentioned by the organization in any of its literature. It is called Hypoic's Handbook because the real name of the disease is Hypoism. The book explains why it is called Hypoism - dopamine activity deficiency (HYPO). You need to read this book and inform the public about its validity and value. My major paper on addiction causation which is on my web site at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , would be of great value also for the public to read. It is advocated by several addiction experts such as Eliot Gardner and Eric Stice, two experts who have read it and support it.
One of the major issues involved in the causation of addictions, drugs and behaviors, is genetic dopamine (reward) activity deficiency. This was not even mentioned in your definition. Also discussed in detail is that behavioral addictions are physiologically equivalent to drug addictions, also not mentioned in your definition. You say in your long definition that treatment works and that professional therapy also works and is necessary. There is no evidence for this in the literature. No treatment is just as effective as treatment, very poor, approximately 5% over the long haul, many years. I think the literature points out that your definition is misleading at the least to the public and allows for bad treatment, essentially no prevention, and the perpetuation of the drug war and incarceration and ruined lives of addicts. I could find nothing in your writings imploring the end of the drug war and ending the criminalization of addictions. This lack has lead to the deaths of millions of addicts and their incarceration by the millions as well causing ruination of millions of families of addicts. It has also lead to the severe discrimination of addicts also leading to the ruination of their families especially with devastating results on their children as well as generational perpetuation of the disease of Hypoism, the real disease of addictions. You should be ashamed of yourselves for this lack.
The entire paradigm of addictions needs to be changed based on the principles of Hypoism, the only way to obtain real prevention and effective treatment of addictions. My book and web site explain in detail why this is so. Hypoism would improve the lives of millions of addicts and their families yet ASAM ignores and censors it. You should be ashamed of yourselves for hurting addicts so deeply by this unconscionable behavior. Your new definition helps no one but yourselves and maintains the current status quo which is a disaster for all addicts and the entire country.
Re: Is Marijuana Addictive? It Depends How You Define Addiction,
Read all the addiction articles.
There are a lot of issues from this week's Time magazine that need to be discussed. How you define addiction is just one of the many. If we don't have a standard definition of addiction how can we discuss anything related to addiction. The reason we don't have a standard definition yet is because the so-called experts don't know what addiction is and what causes it, it's pathophysiology. This is the same for any disease. The true pathophysiology determines everything about how we deal with the disease; its prevention, treatment, and public policies. The addiction world is full of many different definitions and pathophysiologies for addictions including the best one, there's no such thing as addiction. It's a myth. It's damned hard to deal with addiction if there is no such thing. What we don't have is a scientifically valid pathophysiology of addiction. Because of this predicament we don't have a definition of addiction. Why don't we have a pathophysiology? Because there are countless groups of people with different opinions about addiction due to different conflicts of interest, from money to morality and twenty others in-between. Their definitions depend on their particular conflict of interest. They ignore the science of addiction pathophysiology, or at least warp it, due to their particular conflict of interest. When was the last time you heard a debate on the science of the pathophysiology of addiction? I never have. We have different definitions bearing different weights due to the hierarchy of the people stating them. The chief of NIDA's definition has a lot of weight because she is high on the totem pole of addictionology. Similarly for other chiefs of other organizations, including media organizations. They may know nothing about addiction pathophysiology but their theories have a lot of weight with the public and thus get out to the public where they have a large chance of influencing public opinion and thus what the public wants to happen to people with addictions. Take me for instance. I'm a nobody and thus have no influence on policies related to addicts and addictions. I could be 100% correct and my writings may well solve the addiction mess we're in but nobody would know that because of my position in the hierarchy, a position dictated by the people high on the hierarchy who don't like my interpretation of the science. Nobody reads my book or papers and thus they don't have a chance to change things anything for the better based on what I have written about the science of addiction causation, treatment, prevention, and public policy (based on that interpretation). They haven't read my material but are against it anyway. There exist some addiction specialists who have read my material (except for the first one who I don't know if he has read it) and they have written back to me: 1) "Model 2 [the genetic model] (my model) highlights the need for a new direction in addiction research as well as new treatment strategies." --- "Genetic susceptibility to substance dependence," Molecular Psychiatry (2005) 10, 336NC344, by N. Hiroi and S. Agatsuma. 2) "I think you know (from previous exchanges between us) that I have been - and continue to be - receptive to your concept. I think it has much merit, as I have said previously." ---ELIOT L. GARDNER, M.D., PhD, NIDA/IRP
3) From: Eric Stice , Senior Research Scientist, Oregon Research Institute
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:52 PM
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!"
4) From: "Dr. Drew Pinsky" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 10:04 PM
Subject: 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.
Drew Pinsky MD=
I've sent my book and multiple letters to Time magazine and many other powerful media outlets but have gotten no replies showing that they haven't read any of it, thus proving they are ignoring and censoring my writings from the public, the ones who need to know about this stuff. How are they going to know the so-called experts are lying to them to maintain their conflicts of interests against the best interest of the people, just like this letter will not be published. The important thing to those high on the hierarchy is that things remain the same so they will continue to have plenty to write articles about and get paid by publishing them - because the brainwashed public likes them. They use addicts and their families as commodities - things that sell magazines - as if the truth wouldn't sell magazines. I think the truth will both sell more magazines as well as fix the mess in addictionology, the addiction epidemic. It won't be good for the addiction "experts" but who cares about their check books. We care about addicts' lives which are currently being expunged just for the sake of the conflicts of interests of the experts. You know, I hope, that it's been estimated that we are wasting a half a trillion dollars a year on the addiction epidemic. That's a lot of money that could be used for better purposes.
why limit yourself to AA. haven't you heard of the hypoism theory of addiction causation and its paradigm which includes prevention of addiction starting at age 6 or 7 in biologically diagnosed kids (mostly adhd) as well as the recovery program based on the science of addiction origination having nothing to do with any higher power or god? it's a complete paradigm of science based recovery of all addictions, drugs and behaviors. first of all it's the correct theory of addiction causation, and secondly, god is in no way a part of that origination. it's all genetic. read the book and the web paper http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/
that explain in purely scientific terms (referenced) the basis of addiction and its prevention, treatment, and public policy changes.
dan umanoff, m.d.
Re: Editorial on the Addiction Mess Today
There have been so many articles about addictions and their consequences recently that I decided to just editorialize today, to make sure the readers know about what I've been complaining about over the last 20 years.
Twenty years ago I realized several things. There were a hell of a lot of addicts. Who we were calling addicts was wrong. We were leaving out most of them from our purview. These were addicts to certain drugs like marijuana and glue, and all behavioral addicts. I decided to read as much as I could about the physiology of addiction to see why we were doing this and finally realized this was because we were using the wrong theory of addictions to understand and categorize addiction and addicts. According to the experts there were no behavioral addicts because you needed a drug to get you addicted. This assumed theory was finally codified in 1997 by Alan Leshner in the infamous paper defining addiction as being caused by the voluntary use of an addictive drug followed by this drug changing the brain into an addicted brain. This was named the hijacked brain hypothesis (hbh). The drug hijacked the brain, in particular the reward system of the brain. Other similar theories were also floated having other properties like if you didn't have enough spirituality, and/or several other traits in your life, you moved closer to being an addict and vice versa. This was Begleiter's theory, a highly environmental/psychobabble theory. There was no evidence supporting any of this as etiological.
In the background was Volkow and Blum showing that dopamine deficiency was absolutely necessary for addiction to happen. Blum even included a behavioral addiction, gambling, and one allele of one particular gene, the A1 allele of the dopamine D2 receptor. I added all addictive drugs, all the instincts, all beliefs, and in particular the attachment instinct leading to people addiction, the most common addiction on earth but totally unknown. From my readings I also hypothesized that alleles of maybe hundreds of genes were involved in the making of an addict. That was in 1992 and I was completely ignored despite the science behind it. In fact, there was no science behind the other theories and all the science was behind my theory called Hypoism, especially the animal science done in the 80's. We all knew that most people who used addictive drugs never get addicted. So, the hbh had to be wrong, period. It could not be the drug that caused the addiction. Volkow unconsciously admits this in her "smoking" story, a story she told on the NPR radio show called Fresh Air - (see the archives of this show on the web), an interview show that was supposed to give the public a breath of fresh air - because she respected her language teacher who smoked so much and wanted to be just like her she tried to smoke but just couldn't get herself to do it. "She just didn't have the right genes." The hbh empirically failed miserably. Nonetheless the hbh is still the ruling addiction causation theory and it's pushed by NIDA's web site.
However, no one but me could answer the simple question, "why was this phenomenon (that most people using addictive drugs don't get addicted) true?" The simple answer was that it wasn't the drug that caused the addiction but a certain part of the genetically altered brain caused the genetic hypoic (the person who had the prerequisite genetic alleles) to seek out the drug and get addicted to it against their will. The drug didn't cause the addiction, the brain did. These are two diametrically opposite theories and have two diametrically opposite prevention methods, treatment methods, and public policy implications. Opposite. I discuss them in detail in my book and on my web site. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/
When one looks at the prevention, treatment, and public policy results obtained from using the hbh methodology and we see that none of it works [anyone who says it works is lying - there is no science supporting that assertion] maybe we should look at using a theory that is both supported by valid science and is diametrically opposite to a theory that is proven not to work. Not only does the hbh not work but it has caused a genocide among hypoics and their families. Half a million dead hypoics a year and half a million in jail a year. Massive unemployment. Massive spread of disease. All caused by a wrong theory of addiction causation being pawned off as correct and effective. You say the theory is right but it's the addicts that refuse to cooperate and do what we tell them to do. Ha Ha. That's like saying it's the leukemic's fault for the chemotherapy not working. No. It's the wrong theory and the liars that are pushing it on us that is the cause of the addiction epidemic. I predict that when we use the right theory of addiction causation the addiction epidemic, the drug war, and their consequences will end. That's why I wrote my web site and that's why I wrote my book. If the public were allowed to know about this theory and its implications and methods (stop the censorship) I predict the whole mess will disappear. Isn't that what we want? or not? How about we let the public know and see what happens? Could it be any worse?
A General in the Drug War, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14volkow.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&src=dayp&adxnnlx=1308067311-VWHI3U7VXE3dQD5pgfzBmA
The major question we have in the field of addiction is why most people use addictive drugs and behaviors but most people don't get addicted. Well, I, not Volkow, answered that question in 1992 in my paper, "Hypoism - A Real Disease." This paper evolved into a second paper, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , and a book, Hypoic's Handbook." The answer was that most people are born with normal amounts of dopamine activity genetically and don't get addicted while a smaller number are born genetically with low dopamine activity and do get addicted. The low situation is called Hypoism. It is Hypoism that causes all addictions from drugs to behaviors, all hundred of them depending on differences in the nuances of the genetic differences. Had Volkow and the rest of the addiction field acknowledged this back then the whole problem of the addiction epidemic would have been solved long ago, but Volkow ignored and censored this theory and set back the field of addictions 20-30 or more years. Volkow is personally responsible for the millions of deaths and destruction due to addictions because of this biased behavior on her part. She's no saint. She's the devil. In fact, she's still pushing the same warped addiction theory, the hijacked brain hypothesis (hbh), that has caused all this ruin. For evidence of this read the NIDA web site. It's all about the hijacked brain hypothesis and nothing about Hypoism.
In order to cure the addiction epidemic we need to change paradigms from hers to mine and use the recovery method dictated by Hypoism rather than by the hijacked brain hypothesis which happens to result in the diametrically opposite policies. It's quite obviously that the hbh doesn't work yet the addiction field keeps pushing it on the unsuspecting public. Reversing this theory and its policies will cure the addiction epidemic as shown by my paper and book as well as end the drug war, also directly caused by the hbh.
I've written the NYT about this since 1995 and I've been ignored while the addiction epidemic has gotten worse. She's talking about writing a book about this. I've already written the book in 1996 and it's been ignored and censored. Why should her book get the press my book should have had since then? Pure bias. My book solves the problem and should have already solved the problem. Read it and let's switch paradigms and get rid of the addiction epidemic and the drug war.
It's nice that this panel sees that the drug war is a failure. I've said the same thing since 1992. I had a scientific reason for why this is true. They don't. In fact, they have no idea why addictions occur and thus would have no idea what to do about them. So, just saying the drug war is a failure while supporting the wrong theory of addiction causation, the theory pushed on us by NIDA, ASAM, and the treatment industry, will get us to the same exact place we're in now, another failure.
When Nora Volkow was nominated to be chief of NIDA I wrote a letter objecting to it because her theory of addiction causation was wrong as well as causing the drug war. She's still wrong, still supports the drug war and still hurts millions of addicts and addict families as I've written hundreds of times over the last ten years. Yet she's still running NIDA and the drug war continues.
My web site and book explain the cause of addictions as well as how to prevent them and get rid of the drug war and why. My writings, which have all turned out to be correct and validated, are still being censored and ignored by NIDA as well as this panel talked about today. Thus, no solution will be forthcoming from this panel even if they happen to stop the drug war because they don't know what addictions are or where they originate in the brain. I do. And it's time to read, write about, and use my theory and policies derived from my theory called Hypoism.
Why this panel gets credibility while I'm ignored is beyond me. They know nothing about addictions. All they know is that the drug war is a disaster. They have no solution. Just ending the drug war won't improve things. The current theory must be replaced by the correct theory and the public needs to learn about it before effective policies will be born. My book, Hypoic's Handbook, and my web site papers have this theory and the solutions. More than just saying the drug war has failed we need a solution which my paradigm has. Write an article about this and then maybe we will make some improvements and progress.
I've been discussing the connection between ADHD and addictions for many years. In other words ADHD is a large sub-group of Hypoics. Volkow and Wang proved this in their JAMA article in 2009. When they quantify associated addictions, they only mention substance addictions. The researchers have consistently left out the behavioral addictions, the instinct addictions. I predict that if they included behavioral addictions they would find a higher number of connected addictions and a higher percentage of addicted ADHDer's compared to non-ADHDer's. This would make the point even stronger and more inclusive, something that is highly needed to improve the meaning of the association and the paradigm. Why they leave out the behavioral addictions is, I suggest, that they don't understand that behavioral addictions are equal physiologically to drug addictions. In other words they don't understand the pathophysiology of addictions and what makes an addictor an addictor, two very important issues in regards to understanding the disease that causes addictions and translating that to a paradigm the public can understand. This mistake misleads the public deliberately who remain incapable of making rational political decisions about addiction attitudes and policy, helping maintain the lethal current paradigm that is good for the experts but deadly to the addicts. The public has been bamboozled and they don't know it because Hypoism has been censored by the media and the addiction community which knows it's the correct theory but won't admit it because of conflicts of interest.
Yes, Boogaard died from an accidental overdose if you consider a known addict given a months supply of opiates, the usual regimen for someone being treated for chronic severe pain, accidental. I don't know a single addict who can control his drug intake when it is prescribed this way. When tolerance builds up and the addict/patient is no longer getting the feeling he used to get from the prescribed dose he begins to take extras to get that high. Holding a months supply gives him many opportunities to take extras, sometimes more than he can handle because its always a gamble how much extras he can handle, particularly when he's adding other drugs like alcohol or benzodiazepines, a usual concomitant drug for sleep or anxiety from withdrawal. Whether or not he was also getting extra amounts of drugs from other doctors or street suppliers (to cover the extras for the rest of the month) is another issue as well. The point is that pain patients who are also addicts are forced to deal with this issue because that's the way pain doctors prescribe these drugs, like it or not.
Pain patients who are also addicts are a special case in the pain management world where only a small percentage of these patients are also addicts. Thus, the pain management doctors don't think about these patients as different from the non-addicts and haven't come up with another way to dole out these opiates and benzos. They treat them the same as if they were the same, but they're not. Too bad Nora Volkow hasn't made this an issue for her department to solve mainly because she and the rest of the addiction field believe and act as if addiction were a moral issue, expecting these patient to be disciplined or die - it's their fault. "We tell them to stop but they just keep taking them." What universe are they working in? These are the "experts." They're killing addicts by the bushel load because they won't admit they haven't a clue about how to help addicts and the public has been convinced that they do by the media, like Time Magazine making Volkow one of the hundred most influential people in the country. I think that was meant to be a positive influence, and her story was written up by an addict no less. Of course, this addict knows nothing about addictions and Time picked him to discuss why she was picked. This was nauseating to me when I read it. But that's where this country is in regards to addictions and we wonder why the addition epidemic and drug war worsen day after day. I was vehemently against Volkow being chosen chief of NIDA by pres. Bush back when that happened. But my email against that choice was ignored; not even discussed. I've written similar emails to Pres. Obama, but they're ignored as well. We need a new administration at NIDA run by someone who knows the truth about addictions and is willing to share it with the country. I know of no one but me who fits that description. They all have conflicts of interest while I have none, besides the fact that I interpret the existing addiction science correctly while the current addiction establishment interprets this science according to their conflicts of interest. This is major fraud being inflicted on our country but no one, even the ones who know about it, some of whom work at NIDA, won't say a word about it.
For some time I have recognized this problem according to the principles of the Hypoism paradigm of addiction and have been pushing for a better way to prescribe these drugs to addict/pain patients to prevent "accidental overdoses." No one has listened because no one listens to me about anything, especially about the Hypoism paradigm, the only proven theory of addiction causation and not the one used by the addiction field because of conflict of interest reasons. You won't find a single word about Hypoism on the NIDA web site or a word about harm reduction in these addict/pain patients.
But there is a solution for this problem which would end these numerous overdoses currently being blamed on the patients, like everything else in addictions. This blame is wrong wrong wrong. The blame belongs to the addiction field 100%, and until this is clear among the public nothing will be done to fix it. But the public knows nothing about this because the only one writing about it, me, is being ignored and censored by the media and the addiction establishment. What's the fix?
1) Addiction must be seen as genetically caused, not caused by simply using the drugs (the long disproven hijacked brain hypothesis). This rids from the patient's mind denial and stigma, the two major reasons addicts don't go to treatment. These two things are not part of the disease but instead they are part of the wrong paradigm, forced on the addict by the addiction establishment who demand the use of the wrong paradigm. 2) Once addiction is diagnosed, in pain patients or in non-pain patients, the addict must be advised and supported to do only recovery for a year to begin with, and that recovery must be done according to the Hypoism recovery method, not the current superstitious and psychobabble methods which don't work any better than no treatment at all. This is detailed in my book. Yes, he must stop working and just do recovery. The financial aspects of this can be handled by a disability insurance program yet to be delineated. But it has to be thought of first, something only I have thought of. Forensic urines must be done frequently and quantitatively to measure how much of these drugs he is taking as well as whether he's taking any other drugs so that can be dealt with as well. Recovery is run by the sponsor, not by some clueless therapist. This method is detailed in the book as well. Remember, recovery can be done in pain patients from Hypoism rather than from the addiction. Thus recovery can be done (from the Hypoism rather than from the addiction) even when the addict is taking his pain medications, a concept unknown in the present paradigm. 3) Instead of being given a month's supply he must be given each prescribed dose individually at a clinic open 24 hours a day and also free of charge like the rest of the recovery should be. That way discipline is not required as if that were possible anyway. Thus, extra doses can't be taken because he's not holding them. No one but me has thought of this either. 4) The Hypoism paradigm, because it allows for harm reduction methods while the moral paradigm of NIDA, ASAM, and the "recovery" movement do just the opposite, breaks the back of the drug cartels, ending the black market where addicts today get their non-prescribed drugs. Thus, street drugs are not available for the addict to get extra doses. This ends the drug war as well because the cartels are gone, making rehab and sobriety the only game in town. And all this is supported by the community at large. We're talking about saving a million addiction related deaths a year, some of whom are your kids and relatives in addition to your friends and neighbors. All these principles have been proven to work in the Swiss "PROVE" program - http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/harmreductionprototypeswissproveprogram/ - even though they know nothing about Hypoism. They developed their program based on a financial model but it works nonetheless. It would be a hundred times better if they incorporated the Hypoism paradigm into it, but they're closed minded about this like the rest of the world.
To summarize, the problem raised by today's article is solvable by switching paradigms and using the new paradigm to dictate prevention (starting in hypoic kids before the age of 8 diagnosed genetically), treatment, and public policies. Until this is done we will just have many more of the same wasted people who should be alive today except for the closed mined and conflicted addiction and pain management fields basically run by money and pseudomorality.
You made this observation at the end of the press release published in HealthDay (http://consumer.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=653041),"There is substantial comorbidity of gambling disorders and mental and substance use disorders. How concurrent disorders should be addressed in gambling treatment is not well understood and has not been empirically studied." The fact is that in 1992 I wrote a paper called, "Hypoism - A Real Disease," that answered that phenomenon. That paper has evolved into the paper, "Hypoism Hypothesis," http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ and my book entitled Hypoic's Handbook. If you choose to read these works, instead of ignoring them as the addiction field has chosen to do for the past 20 years, you will find your answer. It's quite simple and rational. You see, about 10% of the population is born with genetically determined low dopamine activity in the reward system, part of the instinct regulatory apparatus of the brain. This low (hypo) dopamine activity causes the disease called Hypoism, the disease that causes all addictions and several other symptoms as well. This low dopamine activity isn't due to a single genetic allele but by possibly hundreds of them leading to slightly different manifestations of the disease depending on which alleles of which genes each individual hypoic gets at conception. Some people get single addictions while others get multiple addictions, all symptoms of the underlying Hypoism but with different alleles involved. The details of this genetic deficiency have not been worked out yet but the concept has been clearly delineated. Thus, the problem these people face is not primarily the addiction(s) but the underlying disease, Hypoism. I go through the understanding of this in my paper and book. Too bad they have been ignored and censored or by now we would have delineated the complete pathophysiology and confirmed the prevention and treatment which happen to be the same thing as you will see if you choose to read them. I gave a lecture at Brookhaven Labs while Volkow was still there in 2000 so she had the opportunity to learn about this disease and how it works had she attended the lecture which she purposely didn't do. Jack Wang did, however, so he knows better. He also received a copy of the book as a present by me. Too bad he never referenced any of this in his future writings so that the addiction field (and the media and public) would have had the chance to know about it. He chose instead to censor it as did the rest of the people who attended the lecture which I have on tape. Obviously the answer to your question is that instead of treating gambling addicts for their gambling we would treat them for their Hypoism which would have taken care of not just their gambling but all their addictions additionally. In fact, we can begin Hypoism treatment in children with Hypoism and prevent all addictions from happening from the get go. That's real prevention. The treatment for Hypoism is delineated in the book in detail and it's not what you intuitively think it would be because it is based on the actual pathophysiology rather than the guess work of the so-called addiction experts who actually are using the wrong paradigm for addiction based on the hijacked brain hypothesis which has been disproven long ago. This is why prevention and treatment of individual addictions don't work and we're in the same place we were in 50 years ago. So, all you need to do is read the paper and the book to know the answer to your question about why there is so much "co-morbidity." It isn't actually co-morbidity at all. It's multiple symptoms of a single disease we are seeing and all this requires is treatment for the underlying disease of Hypoism to deal with all the addictions simultaneously, not a different treatment for each addiction, what is currently happening; the reason we are failing to help all addicts. If you have any questions after reading my writings please contact me. I was given assurances by the grant people at NIDA that I would be funded to do my treatment protocol http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismtreatmentresearchproposal/ if I could find a rehab that would cooperate with me. Would you believe that I have not been able to find a rehab to cooperate with my protocol even though it would be funded 100% by the government to prove which treatment works better.
Anyway, the reason there is so much co-morbidity is that the underlying disease causes it and we need to change paradigms and use the treatment method for the underlying disease rather than each individual addiction - different treatment for each addiction. That treatment turns out to be the treatment for the underlying disease, Hypoism. In Sarasota we are just beginning to use this treatment methodology in a group meeting called Hypoics-not-anonymous administered similar to AA but with a different treatment modality based on the science of the underlying pathophysiology. Wish us luck in getting this methodology running and maintained. We will be studying ourselves so that someday we will have an idea whether this process works and why.
It should be titled, "Genetic Sensitivity to Alcohol......"
This phenomenon is exactly what happens in hypoics, but it's not just to alcohol. It's to all addictors. That's how all addictions happen. Increased "sensitivity" is really increased dopamine release in a person who is genetically low (hypo) in dopamine activity at conception. I've been writing about this phenomenon for 20 years. It's the Hypoism paradigm of addiction. It's exactly what my major paper, the Hypoism Hypothesis, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ , and my book, Hypoic's Handbook, are about. I think it's time for all of you to start reading this material so we can begin to use it for addiction prevention, treatment, and public policy. The methodology for all this is defined in these writings. It's not just a theory. It's a complete paradigm from soup to nuts, and will end the addiction epidemic which is currently worsening under the auspices of the current wrong theory of addiction causation pushed by NIDA, ASAM, and the recovery movement whose theories are diametrically opposite to this phenomenon - speaking instead to the volitional and willful drinking style of people who "become" addicts. Rather, people are born to be addicts depending on their genetics, exactly what I've been writing about for the last 20 years but have been ignored and censored to the detriment of all addicts and their families, killing up to a million of them of all kinds every year, year after year.
This article is just one more in a long list of validating studies confirming the Hypoism paradigm. What more do we need to acknowledge the paradigm change? Those who interfere with this acknowledgment and paradigm change are liars and killers of addicts. It's as simple and straightforward as that. Read the addiction literature and you will easily see who these people are. We need to get rid of them from the field of addictions so that the public has the opportunity to make this necessary change in their absence, something that will never happen while their still in charge of the field.
Re: David Brooks,
'Blink': Hunch Power,http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/books/review/16COVERBR.html
I've observed your psychosocial transformation over the last few years highlighted by this book review which fits your new view of how the brain works. Well, I made the same transformation in 1990 during my research into the cause of addictions. My addiction hypothesis, documented by my first paper called "Hypoism - A Real Disease," was based on real science (the same science used by the opposition) though the interpretation of that science was quite different from theirs mostly because of my realization of the unconscious part of the brain which I called "the instinct regulating apparatus," which was the part of the brain where addictions originated. This first paper evolved over the next few years into "the Hypoism Hypothesis," which is on my web site at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ . The evolutionary psychology paper supporting this paper is at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ . It also evolved into my book called "Hypoic's Handbook," a more complete discussion of the development of the Hypoism theory of addiction causation based on genetic variations of the reward system, part of the instinct regulating apparatus. Basically, one must be neurobiologically capable genetically to become an addict by being born with genetically low dopamine activity. This is Hypoism and people with Hypoism are the only ones capable of becoming addicts (about 10% of the population) and will develop some or many addictions whereas people without hypoism can't and won't become addicts even if they use the same addictors. Addiction experts who have read the papers and/or the book have agreed strongly with my theory. Some of their emails to me are on my home page. These are world class addictionologists absent bias as well as having done research proving Hypoism to be correct. I gave a lecture on Hypoism at Brookhaven Labs in 2000 and Dr. Wang, Volkow's right hand man, also agreed with my theory. In fact, their research proves Hypoism to be correct (see my blog 9/9/09 - 9/13/09 about their research on ADHD which is a large subgroup of people with Hypoism). Volkow didn't attend the lecture because she is biased against this theory and has conflicts of interest which make her censor the theory from the public, a sin for any addiction scientist with integrity.
The point of all this is that it is the unconscious part of the brain in the Limbic System that causes addictions inexorably making addiction causation not a voluntary or willful phenomenon; not a moral issue as the current addiction causation theory, the hijacked brain hypothesis, does. It makes everything we're doing in addictionology medicine and politics wrong as well. That's why the addiction epidemic keeps worsening and why we are making no progress. Thus, all our efforts to deal with addictions today are based on a wrong theory and inevitably produce wrong methods for prevention, treatment, and public policy, thus perpetuating the drug war and all other failed policies meant to eradicate addictions and their consequences. My work has been ignored and censored by the addiction field for conflict of interest reasons (bias) as well as ignorance. The media follows the lead set by the addiction community and refuses to publish my letters to the editors about this mess. Thus, you, and the rest of the public, haven't heard about Hypoism and haven't been given the opportunity to evaluate it or use it to improve the addiction mess.
I write to you because you have made the required transformation about understanding how the brain works and are thus capable of evaluating Hypoism without intellectual bias. If you're interested in helping fix the mess we are experiencing in the addiction epidemic please read my papers and blog and book. I will send you a complementary copy if you promise to read it, evaluate it, and write something about it for your readers so they too will have the opportunity to re-evaluate their understanding of addictions and help change the paradigm to the correct one, the one that will end the addiction epidemic and drug war.
This article is typical of articles about addictions which aren't recognized as such, and boy, is it a riot; funny. So funny that they have TV shows about these people, their messes, and their hilarious thinking and decision-making. Now we're reading about the poor "children of hoarders," as if it were some special disease in itself, like children of alcoholics, etc. Not a word about their neurochemistry and very little about their genetics and that the genetics is what gives these kids their problems, not the hoarding of their parents.
These articles are all the same - no insight (heat but no light); pseudoinsight and misconception leading to perpetuation and worsening of the problem. I predicted this outcome 20 years ago in my first paper on Hypoism and it's happened.
In reality hoarding is part of the larger entity I have named Hypoism; named after hypo (low) dopamine/reward activity in the instinct regulating system. I've been writing about Hypoism and its implications for 20 years but still only a few people know about it because it's been ignored and censored by the addiction field (conflicts of interests), and therefore the media. My book and web site on Hypoism are extensive and document all the addictions and how they get to be addictions; caused by the underlying disease, Hypoism. The kids? Well, just like with all other addictions the kids inherit the genetics from both parents, both of which are likely hypoics (assortive mating) and therefore have hypoic genetics. Their genetics is the cause of whatever weirdness they have, not the fact that they grew up with an addict. So, like all kids of all kinds of addicts, their lives are run by hypoic genetics, not the environment of whichever addiction(s) their parents have - the major misconception about "children of addicts." So, she writes her memoir (like all the other kids of addicts) and misinforms the readers because the authors have no idea what their writing about. And the Times writes the misinforming book reviews the same way each time because it also has no idea what their reading about as well. But write an article about the underlying disease, Hypoism, that causes these addictions? Never. Thus maintaining the misconceptions about each individual addiction and all of them simultaneously. Thus maintaining the addiction epidemic because you can't fix something you don't understand. Thus, the vicious cycle of addiction and misconception of addiction over and over and lots of laughs while these hypoics suffer indefinitely.
The Unwisdom of Elites, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/opinion/09krugman.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp
"Otherwise, theyĄŻll do even more damage in the years ahead."
This last sentence says it all. The exact same problem has been happening in the field of addictions over the last 70 years (not 3) and no one except for me has raised this issue. The addiction experts have caused and maintained the addiction epidemic and blamed it on the addicts rather than on themselves, something I've been writing about for 20 years, from when I first started studying the addiction mess back in 1990. And I predicted things would just get worse if we didn't re-interpret the science and change paradigms. The paper that said this was rejected by 12 addiction journals though one editor confided in me that he was for this change but his peer reviewers wouldn't let him. Since then I've written many papers and emails about this issue and have been unanimously ignored and censored by everyone, not just all the "experts." Oh, there are 70 or so laymen on my email list who have read my stuff and agree with it (though they've done nothing about it) and about 3 or 4 true experts (see their emails to me on the home page) who have read some of my writings and agree with it but also have done nothing about it, not a word in public, so that the public might have a chance to find out about it. There's no accountability in the totally warped field of addictionology because those capable of telling the public about this mess, the media, have ignored and censored my work (read my emails and blog on my web site) especially the ny times since 1995, the date of my first letter to the editor of the Times. They don't seem to have any problem recognizing this problem in the global economy, but in a much worse place, the addiction epidemic, where things have worsened over the last 70 years they don't seem to recognize this same issue here even though it's infinitely more obvious. And blaming the addicts no less is even more unconscionable. What's even worse is that no one even knows (admits) it's happening. This is the biggest health disaster ever and no one even knows it's happening. And it could be have been solved so easily over the last 20 years if anyone in the addiction field publicly mentioned it and the media published something about it. But this is just not happening because the media believes in the experts just like they have for the last 2000 years irrespective of how bad things have gotten. Blaming addicts is just too easy and just too believable.
This is why we need sponsors to be decision-making consultants in our Hypoism recovery program for ever. We need them on day one through day infinity. There's never a time when we "learn" how to run our own lives on our own without the need for the sponsor. The sponsor is the key to effective recovery in the Hypoism recovery program, not self-sufficiency or learning to think better, two things that hypoics just are incapable of doing in their own best interest. These are two of the major mistakes current recovery methods make and which cause so much trouble for the recovering hypoic. And to say that god takes over this function through prayer and meditation is just massive self-delusion. There's no evidence that god can replace the sponsor in the recovery process; that he helps us make viable decisions. Thus, the high rates of relapse in recovering hypoics and especially in those with long term "sobriety."This equates to the autonomous thinking belief difficulties and why we aim our recovery at that part of the decision-making apparatus. This is why current recovery methodologies don't work and why trying to continue to use them result in high levels of relapse. Of course, this is explained in detail in my book and my hypoism hypothesis (theory) paper.
These news releases get published via knee jerk reactions. Did anyone read the news release before publishing it? "Expand and improve treatment for addiction." What does this mean and in what context? The first thing that must be acknowledged is that current definition of addiction is wrong and therefore not understood or capable of being a basis for addiction prevention, treatment, and public policy. This is the reason the addiction epidemic is worsening and growing - the experts don't know what addiction is and they don't know what needs to be treated. They call addiction a disease, for example, "Alcoholism is a disease." Now, I've been writing and proving that "alcoholism" is not a disease but is a symptom of a disease, the disease that causes all addictions. So, treating an addiction and "improving treatment of an addiction" is a waste of time, energy, and money. For example, if you have a rash caused by lupus and you improve treatment of the rash you are wasting your time if you don't simultaneously learn what lupus is and learn how to treat lupus. Get rid of the lupus and the rash goes away and never comes back. treat the rash and the lupus continues to do its damage and the rash keeps coming back. It's the same for any symptom of any disease. It's the same for addictions. You're wasting your time if you merely treat the symptom. That's what's happening in addictionology and has been happening for the last hundred years. We are treating symptoms with horrible treatments that don't work and completely ignoring the fact that addictions are all caused by an underlying disease. I call this disease Hypoism and define it in my book, Hypoic's Handbook, and multiple papers on my Hypoism web site. I've been writing this for years but have been ignored and censored for all this time - 20 years. And things just keep getting worse. We need a paradigm change in the understanding of the cause of addictions - change from addiction as disease to Hypoism as disease and addiction as symptom. Then we can do what is necessary to be done. We can define the treatment of the disease Hypoism from its pathophysiology which I define. This treatment also acts as the prevention of addiction causation. Thus, 1) Diagnose people with Hypoism at birth (it's a genetic disease). 2) Start treatment of this disease at the earliest possible time in these children, before they ever have any contact with any addictor. No need to ever get addicted or "hit bottom." 3) Focus research on better ways to diagnose and treat Hypoism, not the addictions. Thus, we prevent addictions and stop the addiction epidemic. Then the addictions and their consequences become much less of a problem except for the few that fall through the prevention process. We will no longer have to come up with better treatments for the addictions because they won't be occurring. Today, by focusing on the individual addictions, we just chase our tails and don't get anywhere except dizzy. Change paradigms and the addictions will have been prevented by the treatment for the underlying addiction causing disease, Hypoism. This entire paradigm has been ignored and censored, but it's the only real solution to the addiction epidemic. Ignore this paradigm change and we will continue to have the tail wag the dog, the way things are now.
This entire process is defined and detailed in my 1996 book and web papers but they've been ignored and censored. Keep ignoring this paradigm change and we will just continue to perpetuate the addiction epidemic. This makes no sense and is killing millions of addicts, ruining their families, and putting too many people in jail instead of in recovery.
I wrote my first paper explaining this issue in 1992 called, "Hypoism - A Real Disease." Hypoism is defined as genetically low dopamine activity in the limbic brain being a prerequisite for addictability. This was well proven in animals but not so in humans because the PET scans needed to prove this hypothesis could not be done in children, exactly where it needed to be done. But if they had been done, they would have shown that genetically low dopamine activity is a prerequisite for becoming an addict, some kind of the hundreds of addictions, not any one specific addiction. This genetic state is called Hypoism - hypo for low. My 1996 book, Hypoic's Handbook, goes through this complete hypothesis, its science and its prevention, treatment, and public policies. About 200 people have bought and read this book including some well known addictionologists who have agreed with the hypothesis. For the most part, however, it's been ignored and censored, especially by the addictionology community and the media, like your journal. Thus, the public has no idea what causes addictions nor what to do about it because it has never heard about it.
So, now we have a new book, 15 years later than mine, that will basically say the same things as mine and a lot less because she hasn't discovered the instinct regulating mechanism, the place in the brain where low dopamine activity works to cause addiction to drugs and instincts; drug and behavioral addictions. The Instinct Regulating Apparatus gives us the mechanism and the methodology for addiction prevention, which should be 100%, and the correct treatment for those who slip through the prevention methodologies.
I gave a lecture on this hypothesis in 2000 at Brookhaven Labs (on tape), invited by Dr. Wang but not attended by Nora Volkow even though she was in the building, showing her bias against this hypothesis and helping put addictions back in time 15 years till today. See NIDA's web site. It's still pushing the hijacked brain hypothesis, the theory that has been disproven many years ago that maintains the addiction epidemic. It will be interesting to see if today's book will change anything seeing that the bias against the correct hypothesis is overwhelming to the addiction field. The addiction field does not want the correct theory of addiction causation to run the field because of all the many conflicts of interest held by the leaders in this field. And these leaders dole out the research money. So, the bias against Hypoism by the leaders causes money to be withheld from researching the correct theory. Besides changing the theory we need to rid the field of the conflicted people running the field at ASAM, NIDA, NIAAA, and AA, all of whom say they want to end the addiction epidemic but really, by their actions, do not, because they control the grant money. The PIMMPAL complex, http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/pimmpalcomplex/ , needs to be expunged and the leaders in each area need to be replaced in order to get the leadership fixed.
If my work had been acknowledged and read 15 years ago when it was first published by me, the addiction epidemic would long be over. The N4A and Hypoic's Not-Anonymous meetings would be doing the actions necessary to prevent addictions and change public policies needed to end the addiction epidemic, the drug war, and stop addict discrimination. All the necessary methods from the ground up would then be in effect to cure the epidemic and save the lives of the approximately 30 million hypoics running amuck in just this country. But because of its censorship it hasn't been able to do anything to cure this mess. Read my web site and book, and give it to your friends. We need a grass roots revolution in addiction theory to end the addiction epidemic. Otherwise, even with this long outdated book, nothing will change for the better.
It would be nice if the title of this article were true. The fact is that these experts know a little about addiction but not what they need to know in order to help people prevent and treat their addictions or especially keep people out of jail for being addicted. In fact, I rarely if ever see anything written by these experts about decriminalization and anti-discrimination. Why? Because for the most part they all, especially NIDA and ASAM, believe addicts are bad people and it comes across in their theories and writings. This doesn't come out consciously (consciously they say they're against criminalization and discrimination but they're behaviors say the opposite) just unconsciously, but it has the same effect - suffering and dead addicts.
Here's an article that supposedly explains why certain foods are addictive. The answer? Well, they're addictive because they're addictive. Not a very good answer. There's no evidence for why most people don't get addicted eating the same kinds of foods as those who do get addicted. This has not been answered by anyone but me in the last 20 years and by no one before that. It's a complicated answer but has to do with how the food intake regulatory system works and how it is linked into the instinct regulating apparatus which includes the reward system. Simply stated: there is genetic diversity of people's instinct regulatory apparatus in the reward system. It is this that causes most people to not get addicted and a small percentage to get addicted. It is the amount of genetically determined dopamine activity in the instinct regulatory apparatus people are born with and this is a genetic issue. Without knowing this there is no way for "experts" to find methods of addiction prevention and treatment as well as determining public policies. My book, Hypoic's Handbook, is the only book that tells us about this brain apparatus and a little about how it works to cause various addictions. But no one knows about this book because the addiction community has ignored and censored it - on purpose I might add. Why would they do such a thing? Because they are addictophobes; bigots against addicts. Yes. The world of addictionology is made up of people who hate addicts. And the public who, generally, are addictophobes as well, go along with whatever the experts say and do, and this keeps the addicts addicted, sick, suffering, and dead. I have seen no public outrage about this. I have never read anything from NIDA saying we need to make public policy for addictions a purely compassionate policy. They're still cooperating with the criminal justice system and so are the addictionologists in ASAM. I used to belong to ASAM until I sent them my book. They told me that only drugs are addictive and all the behavioral addictions I was calling addictions weren't addictions. They kicked me out because of this.
Hypoism, and only Hypoism, explains why things are addictive and uses this genetically altered system to derive prevention and treatment methods and public policies. But because the public hasn't been allowed to know about Hypoism and its mechanism of addiction causation, none of its policies or methods have been allowed to be used. Thus, the addiction epidemic gets worse and more addicts go to jail, get fired, get divorced, and get sick in many other ways, all because of criminalization and discrimination.
The authors of this study know nothing about why people get addicted to food or anything else, but because they say they do they get published. I proved that I knew and I get censored. Isn't it time the public, including the science media, demand the addiction community prove their theories of addiction causation publicly and answer the question: why some people get addicted and most people don't? And have a public debate on this so that the public can be allowed to know that these experts don't know and therefore can't help anyone. The public needs to know this so they can demand we begin to look for the correct theory of addiction causation because only then will we be able to help addicts and addicts-to-be as Hypoism does, and end the addiction epidemic, including all things addictive, not just what they want to be addictive. Only Hypoism does this. Publish this letter and let the public read my work so we can finally put an end to the addiction epidemic.
There have to be ten news articles today about the prescription drug epidemic and various plans to stop it. They're all being pushed by "experts" who have already failed and allowed the epidemic to grow to become the number one cause of accidental death in the country. The ones who have already failed are still running the show. Now, that makes lots of sense. It turns out that the new plan is "just say no" wrapped up in Christmas paper. Don't think so.
Hypoism, on the other hand, has several new ideas to stop this epidemic as you all know from reading my stuff yet these ideas have been ignored and censored. First, getting the right theory, Hypoism, out to the public so they can know what the real cause of addiction is and how it works, so that secondly, we can rethink policy ideas using the correct theory. What are some of these policies? 1) Diagnose hypoics early in life and start the recovery program for hypoism in kids, not having to wait for addictions and their consequences before starting treatments (that don't work by the way) after most of the damage has already happened. This is called prevention, something that doesn't exist today. 2) Opening clinics for just hypoics, the hypoics who have gotten addicted, where they can get their pain meds as often as necessary each day under supervision, so they don't have to keep a 30 day supply of drugs around which can either be sold or used to kill themselves accidentally. This policy doesn't exist today anywhere. Everyone knows an addict hasn't the capability to control his own drug intake. These clinics, free of charge too, would solve that problem. Also available in these clinics would be hypoism meetings and information for free detoxes and rehabs using the Hypoism methods of recovery as well as ordinary medical treatment available for addiction related diseases. This kind of clinic would stop the overdoses, stop the leaking of drugs onto the street, stop all the ancillary consequences of addiction, and make harm reduction, prevention and treatment a reality - all in one place. In reality it would stop the addiction epidemic and its associated problems.
Why is this kind of new policy being ignored and censored when, in fact, its the only way to stop the epidemic and save our kids? The nonsense the politicians are pushing will not do anything except make thing worse as they've already proved they're experts in.
WomenĄŻs Health: What to Believe?, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/opinion/l17health.html?hpw
Here are a few quotes from a group of letters to the editor that should wake up some people especially at the Times which continues to ignore rational thinking in the field of addictions.
"Americans have given up on trusting research produced by the health care establishment because contradictory studies are published so frequently, and itĄŻs overwhelming to stay on top of the most up-to-date advice. Too many opinions influenced by drug companies and other special interests have muddied the waters and made it harder to know which studies to trust." I'm not a drug company or a special interest but the Times ignores my work while blindly believing the conflicted experts even though the lies are clearly pointed out to them while killing their kids.
"We need to move away from the model in which patients ask for a drug because they saw an ad on TV, and toward one where they challenge their providers to back up recommendations with sound evidence. One important step in improving health care in this country is to improve the health literacy and self-advocacy of our population." Caitlin doesn't know she's doing the same thing herself. People don't want to become health literate or self-advocate. They would rather blindly believe the "experts" and let their kids die while believing they're health literate which apparently she does.
"I gave up trying to teach because I came to the conclusion that it is impossible to teach medical students and residents to apply reason in medicine. The field of medicine is consumed by pseudoscience, by studies that go in circles and produce contradictory results that benefit only those who want to maintain the confusion that keeps the money rolling in. The fundamental problem is the culture of academic medicine. It is backward and corrupt. Until it is reformed, contradictions and confusion will continue." I haven't given up trying to apply reason to medicine but, as she says, it doesn't work. I try to explain these issues to people but they ignore my attempts.
"The perception that medicine Ąon the moveĄ} produces confusion, distress and uncertainty is correct, but this reflects an intolerance of uncertainty and illusory confidence in oneĄŻs ability to control health through behavior. Diet, exercise, antioxidants and supplements can do only so much. What seems to be more important is oneĄŻs genetic makeup." My letters (for 16 years) saying essentially the same kinds of things aren't published even while they kill their kids.
"The underlying principle of contemporary medicine is that it is an empirical science. When new information is developed, physicians must re-evaluate their opinions in light of it. For ideologues, whose opinions are fixed, this philosophy must seem baffling." Now, how many times have I written letters to the Times saying exactly this? But my letters are ignored and censored. Why is it that proven and lethal lies are more believed than proven truths?
The Truth must be looked for and found and then proven to oneself, not BELIEVED. This is just not being done. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.