Hypoism



Home Page of Hypoism, The Disease of Addictions


Web site advertising


The Overriding Principle


The reason for this web site


IMAGINE


send me a message


Discussion Page

Buy the book



Buy the Book

Hypoism Issues



Role of Dopamine in Addiction Causation


Theory of Addiction - Hypoism Hypothesis


Why drug use is unconscious and against one's willfulness - not volitional


Misuse of the word choice in addictions


THE INESCAPABLE LOGIC OF ANY VALID ADDICTION ETIOLOGICAL PARADIGM


WHAT OTHER DISEASE....?


What Am I Angry About? - Don't Ask Me This Again


Disease Concept - A Perspective


HYPOISM IN A NUT SHELL


Page Directory of this Site with Explanations and Links


The History of the Proof of Hypoism in the Wake of the P/R Paradigm page 1.


History page 2


Why Addiction Experts and Other People Are Ignoring Hypoism


Strange Brew


AIMING AT AN UNDERSTANDING OF ADDICTIONS


The Paradigm Vacuum in Addictions Today


THE ADDICTION PROBLEM AND THE SOLUTION


What Does An Addiction Expert Know?


The Hypoism Addiction Hypothesis - An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective


Addiction Questionnaire


Misconceptions of addictions and addicts


What's Hypoism? What's an Addiction?


WHY WE DON'T NEED HYPOISM.


Why We Need Hypoism: A Comparison of the Principles and Consequences between the two Paradigms


Entitled to Your Opinion? Not Anymore.


HYPOICMAN: A non-recovering, unimpressed Hypoic


The Field of Addictionology: A Golfing Analogy


NEW YEAR PREDICTIONS


Contact Information

Hypoism Treatment Research



The Addiction Treatment Fraud Finally Exposed


Hypoism Treatment Research Proposal

N4A



I KEPT QUIET


The National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts


Make A Contribution To The N4A


Addict Discrimination Documentation


Social Innovations Award 2000 for The N4A


Third Millennium N4A Conference Keynote Address on Hypoism - Pathophysiology in Addictions vs. Superstition


N4A Goes on the Offensive - Suggesting Real Action


The Verdict


Blind Faith?

Learn More About the Book



Letters from book readers


Title Page of Book


Book Blurb


Book Cover


Back Cover


Table of Contents


Foreword


Preface


Opening Statement


Chapter 1


Vision For The Future


Outcomes of Hypoic's Handbook


Bibliography


Book Corrections


Harm reduction prototype: Swiss PROVE program

Book Reviews



The Phoenix Magazine

Hypoics Not-Anonymous



Hypoics Not-Anonymous

Things You Can Do



What you can do---


My Kids

Special Links



Special Links to important web sites


Addiction Links on the Web

Addiction Genetics



Recent Genetic Studies on Various Addictions from a Large Twin Registry


Genetic Studies page 2.


Gateway theory finally disproven


Celera Discovers Millions of Tiny Genetic Differences in People

Interesting Addiction Science



Clinically Important Neurotransmitter Deficiencies

Hypoism Magazine-Articles by and for Hypoics



EMBRYONIC HYPOISM CIRCA 1968


#1 Hatred, #2 The Words: Opinion, Belief, and Knowledge, #3 Hate Addiction


#4 The Drug War War, #5 Evolution vs. Creationism Revisited for Addictions


#6 American Society for Addiction Medicine Statement for Recovering Physicians


#7 Issues Peculiar to the Disease of Addictions


#8 Critique of Alan Lechner's (NIH), "The Hijacked Brain Hypothesis."


#8a. Update!! Dr. Leshner recently makes a change


#9 MY STORY - The Doctor Drug War - Wrong and Wasteful p.1, 1/6/00


The Doctor Drug War p.2


Doctor Drug War p.3


Doctor Drug War p.4


Doctor Drug War p.5


Affidavit for judicial review of NYS Dept. of Ed.


#10 The Superstition Instinct 3/1/00


#11-Conflict of Interest in Addiction Research


#12 - Controlled Drinking Lands On Its Ass


#13 - The Kennedy Curse or Kennedy Hypoism?


#14 - The Lord's Prayer for Hypoics


#15 - Replacing Alan Leshner is the only way to end the Drug War


#16 - The Brain Addiction Mechanism and the COGA Study


#17 - Letter to the director of the National Academy of Medicine's Board on Neurobiology and Behavior Health on Addictions


#18 - Is Addiction Voluntary, A Choice, as Leshner and NIDA Insist?


#19 - Bush's Alcoholism and Lies


#20 - A P/R Paradigm Addict - "Cured?"


#21 - Congress Misled and Lied to by NIAAA


#22 - Special Letter to the Times on Addiction Genetics


#23 - JAMA Editor Publishes According to His Beliefs, Not Science


#24 - Smoking as Gateway Drug. I Don't Think So!


#24B - IS COCAINE ADDICTION CAUSED BY COCAINE?


#25 - One Less Heroin Addict. But At What Cost?


#26 - An Open Letter to the Judge who Sentences Robert Downey, Jr.


#27 - Letter To Schools About The Pride Program Against Drugs


#28 - A Letter To Bill Moyers, Close To Home, and PBS


#29 - HYPOISM IS ACTUALLY A DISEASE OF THE "WILL"


#30 - Brookhaven Labs Provide More Evidence For Hypoism


#31 - Addiction Prevention Revisited


#32 - DRUG WAR EVALUATION BY THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE


#33 - NIDA Is Close But No Cigar


#34 - Bush's Addict Discrimination and Hypocricy Begins


#35 - Maya Angelou's, "Still I Rise."


#36 - Leshner Lies To Congress


#37 - Addiction Combos


#38 Brain tumor proves Hypoism hypothesis


#39: So-called Availability Debunked as Contributor of Addictions


#40 - Hypoism Reproduced By A Pill


PIMMPAL Complex


Cartoons

The Hypoism Blog - The Addiction Blog



The Addiction Blog 4/17/11 -


The Addiction Blog 9/14/10 - 4/16/11


The Addiction Blog 11/12/09 - 9/14/10


The Addiction Blog 7/23/09 - 11/09/09


The Addiction Blog 5/16/09 - 7/22/09


The Addiction Blog 3/3/09 - 5/13/09


The Addiction Blog 8/3/08 - 3/3/09


The Addiction Blog 4/1/07 - 8/3/08

old letters



My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 1.


My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 2.


My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 3.


My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 4.


My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 5.


My New York Times Letters to the Editor page 6.


My Letters to the editor of the NY Times page 7.


My Letters to the Editor of the NY Times page 8.


NY Times Letters Page 9.


New York Times Letters Page 10


My NYT Letters page 11


NY Times Letters page 12.


NY Times letters p. 13


Letters to the NY Times page 14.


Letters to Newsday


Letters To The Los Angeles Times


Creationism/Evolution Letter to BAM 11-25-05

Speeches



Committee for Physician Health Speech
goldbutton.jpg

The Future of Addictions

Addict Discrimination in the News



Mandated Treatment for Welfare Recipients


Anorectic Murdered by Doctors out of Ignorance and "Desperation"(10/20/99)


Six Dead Heroin Addicts-Enough? 10/31/99


American Society of Addiction Medicine Discrimination


Darryl Strawberry Punished Again


South Carolina Forces Pregnant Women to Take Drug Tests


When it comes to drugs, the constitution doesn't apply


Parents of Overweight Girl Will Sue New Mexico


Scrapbook

Downloads



Download Files


huffington post


Custom HTML


Sitemap




Hypoics are born, not made.

Hypoism  
Dan F. Umanoff, M.D.  
941-926-5209  
8779 Misty Creek Dr.  
Sarasota, Florida 34241  

dan.umanoff.md@gmail.com  




Hypoism Research Proposal

 

A few years ago, after reading Hypoic’s handbook, Harold Gordon, PhD, a project director and scientist at NIDA, suggested that I do some treatment research using Hypoism recovery vs. standard treatment to show the skeptics that Hypoism as a theory actually worked. He hoped that this would stimulate interest in Hypoism as a valid hypothesis in the field. One stipulation was that I would have to find a rehab in which to do this seminal research. When I settled myself in Boynton Beach, I made several requests to various treatment facilities in the area to do this work. None responded. I post this protocol and its rationale for the purposes of hopefully finding a rehab that would be interested in doing this work. The rationale and the research protocol follow.

 

Justification for Study

 

The field of addiction treatment is plagued by opinionated beliefs on efficacy despite the absence of valid studies supporting them. Many invalid studies recognize their own shortcomings but don’t ever correct them. Moreover, despite these shortcomings their conclusions are still reported in addiction journals and become part of the addiction treatment vernacular. Many even get reported in media outlets and disseminated to the public only to be shown to be ineffective at some later date[1]. I have collated many of these methodological shortcomings and searched the literature for studies that might incorporate and study all of them. After a review of the literature I was unable to find a study of any drug and/or alcohol addiction treatment incorporating all the following (listed below) essential diagnosis, follow up, and outcome criteria, as well as being over five or more years in duration, to observe the long-term effects of various treatments.

            When this list is assessed, no one studying addiction treatment would deny that all of them are important contributors to the validity and comparability of addiction treatment outcomes. Yet, they have never all appeared in the same study. I’ve queried addictionologists about this and was given many reasons for this. The most common were that they are so difficult and expensive to do that they wouldn’t get funded. My response to this is that it is better to do one study correctly than to do a thousand incorrectly. This would save time, effort, and money in the long run. The addiction treatment literature supports this contention. This deficiency has left us with very little to say about what treatments, if any, are actually effective, the whole point of these studies, and therefore how to best treat addicts.

A recent and thorough review[2] studied 33 alcoholism treatment modalities, including 12 step programs, from 381 published studies. Using a quite complex and blind evaluation of these studies by at least seven different addiction professionals for each study this review showed brief intervention to be far and away the best treatment modality for alcoholism. They then admit that the patients in those studies had the least severe alcoholism of the entire group of studies. From Miller’s paper’s conclusion, “The negative correlation between scientific evidence and treatment-as-usual remains striking, and could hardly be larger if one intentionally constructed treatment programs from those approaches with the least evidence of efficacy.” Nowhere in this paper is even mentioned that approaches to treatment ought to be based on a proven theory of addiction causation. In fact, it quotes Funk[3] as if to chide the field of addictionology, “To be a critical scholar means to make empirical, factual evidence -- evidence open to confirmation by independent neutral observers -- the controlling factor in [professional]  judgments.  Noncritical scholars are those who put dogmatic considerations first and insist that the factual evidence confirm [their] premises.  Critical scholars adopt the principle of methodological skepticism: accept only what passes the rigorous tests of the rules of evidence.”

Thus, even with this massive and painstaking review, we are left with no good way to quantify addiction treatment results because they are just not similar enough to compare and clearly didn’t study the patients or the treatments in a comparable way. I found the same mess in the addiction literature that I personally reviewed. Another treatment research study[4] found similarly disconcerting treatment results. In this paper, Dr. Adrian goes right to the crux of the problem, “If we are to determine if interventions work, we must first determine what is the nature of the problem which we are attempting to resolve. For example, what do we mean by the problem of addiction?This is the paradigm vacuum[5] I believe is the origin of the current problems in addiction treatments. This problem will only be solved through grants supporting only scientifically valid and self-critical addiction research.

The conclusion I reached after reviewing the current treatment literature is that after all this money, time, and effort, there are no thorough and valid studies that tell us what is happening to addicts in various treatments over the long haul. It may be that none of the treatments used today have any salutary effect on the recovery of addicts compared with any other modality and that addicts who happen to recover have to find their recovery by chance or luck. Personally, I believe three things about current addiction treatments that have caused this mess. 1) None are based on a proven valid theory of addiction etiology and pathophysiology, 2) They are variations of therapies purported to be effective in other non-addiction behavioral disorders, and 3) They were modeled around the treatment program of AA absent any scientific reason for this except that some alcoholics in the past have gotten sober this way; sort of a tradition.

As a trained physician I find this method of designing treatment for a “disease” to be spurious and rather goofy. It has also resulted in quite poor results for addicts. In fact, a recent paper[6] on the treatment of heroin addicts was so pessimistic about the value and efficacy of non-pharmacological treatments as to advocate methadone maintenance as the number one treatment for this addiction although it stated parenthetically that other help should be tried on heroin addicts after they have been stabilized on methadone maintenance. I thought this recommendation bizarre to say the least. However, that it actually might be better and safer for addicts to be chronically drug addicted than to achieve drug-free recovery is a good example of how bad things are today in addiction treatment.

Over the last ten years I have developed an addiction paradigm, Hypoism[7], from the same neurobiology, epidemiology, genetics, animal addiction experiments, twin studies, and clinical addictionology available to everyone else. The only difference between my paradigm and the current ones, the ones the current ineffective treatment is based upon, is that my hypothesis reconciled all the valid science of addictions into one paradigm rather than picking and choosing just what science to use to develop a paradigm. A funny thing happened when I put all this together. Its implications for treatment, prevention and public policy were found to be exactly opposite from the current accepted addiction paradigm, the hijacked brain hypothesis, as well as all other existing psychological and moralistic paradigms. To me this was good evidence it was probably correct.

Over the last five years I attempted to get well-credentialed researchers in addictions to study my paradigm. Even though most of these researchers agreed with the basis of my paradigm, none would incorporate it into their ongoing or future studies. Thus, out of a deep desire to help other addicts and to clarify addiction science as much as I possibly can, I have decided to do some of this research myself. Incorporated in my proposed study are the criteria and methodologies I found missing in current treatment studies. These are listed below.

 

Criteria:

  • Strict diagnosis of definite addiction using an accepted diagnostic method. Only full-fledged addicts will be included in the study.
  • Matched control group compared to experimental group.
  • Results determined by random forensic laboratory tests on all subjects.
  • Documentation of medications in control group. Experimental group will by design be medication-free.
  • Documented relapses with repeat inpatient treatment if necessary in experimental group.
  • Documentation of patient’s use of other recovery methods, either professional or non-professional such as AA etc.
  • Documentation of concurrent behavioral addictions, eg. gambling, sex, eating disorders, etc.
  • Documentation of problems in significant relationships, vocation, education, criminal justice issues, health, etc.
  • All treatment services received by the subjects are documented.

 

Basis of treatment methodology

  • The experimental group treatment model is defined by a theoretical addiction paradigm based on the brain science of addictions.

 

Outcome criteria:

  • Total abstinence and length of abstinence at the end of the study period as primary success criterion.
  • Secondary outcomes will be survival, retention in study, number and duration of relapses.

 

Duration:

  • Minimum of five year follow up on all patients with an aim toward indefinite follow up of all subjects.

 

[1] Krystal J. H., Cramer J. A., Krol W. F., Kirk G. F., Rosenheck R. A., the Veterans Affairs Naltrexone Cooperative Study 425 Group, Naltrexone in the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence, 
N Engl J Med 2001; 345:1734-1739, Dec 13, 2001

[2] William R. Miller, Paula L. Wilbourne, and Jennifer E. Hettema, What Works?  A Summary of Alcohol Treatment Outcome Research, Chapter 2 in Handbook of alcoholism treatment approaches: Effective alternatives; Allyn & Bacon, in press.

[3] Funk, R. W., Hoover, R. W., & the Jesus Seminar (1993).  The five gospels: The search for the authentic words of Jesus.  New York: Macmillan.

[4] Manuella Adrian, Do treatments and other interventions work? Some critical issues.
Subst Use Misuse. 2001 Dec;36(13):1759-80.

[5] http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/theparadigmvacuuminaddictionstoday/

[6] Stimmel, Barry, M.D. and Kreek, Mary Jeanne, M.D. Neurobiology of Addictive Behaviors and Its Relationship to Methadone Maintenance, Mount Sinai Medical Journal Vol.67 Nos. 5 & 6 October/November 2000

[7] Dan Umanoff, M.D., Hypoic’s Handbook, etc.

 

Brief Proposal

 

Justification of study: In order to quantitatively and qualitatively test the utility and practicality of Hypoism recovery (as defined in book) vs. “standard” treatment in drug and alcohol addicts who are admitted to a large rehab; to compare recoveries between routine and the Hypoism oriented paradigm for effectiveness (abstinence from primary addiction and other drugs and behaviors to be decided upon for each individual, utilization of sponsor, surrender of decision-making) and quantify recovery time, numbers and depth of relapses, survival, recovery attitudes and behaviors. We will exclude patients with major mental illnesses such as manic depressives and schizophrenics for the time being for simplicity sake. Theoretical justification – see above.

 

Methodology:

Take two groups of matched (by various criteria to be decided upon) addicts.

One group goes through the rehab. as usual.

The experimental group does all the rehab’s activities except where my recovery program is substituted for theirs as time requires: lectures on Hypoism, Hypoism group, begin to do the first 3 Hypoism steps in rehab and the others after discharge, individual interaction with me or someone trained to do what I do which will include autobiography and family tree eval., they get a local sponsor trained to do Hypoism sponsoring (I will be that in the beginning as well as find and train people – hired staff - like me to do Hypoism sponsoring techniques. Eventually we will use recovering patients - free of charge - who remain local to do this as would be the case in real life), Hypoics not-anonymous meetings will substitute for some of the AA or NA meetings they are required to attend. Fun activities decided upon by the patients and me together, health, occupational and educational needs, Etc. Family teaching and recovery as far as is possible absent the patient. No psychiatric meds.

 

Both groups will have done and be followed as defined over a 5 year period of time for the study (and indefinitely if possible):

  • initial eval by me or my staff to delve into the course of their disease and all Hypoism symptoms prior to entering rehab
  • family tree
  • Initial hair, urine and breathalyzer testing
  • Random urine and breathalyzer testing over the course of the study
  • Course of recovery and relapses and occasional interviews for disease and recovery attitudes and behaviors
  • Rigorous follow-ups as far as possible after discharge for data collection
  • Monitoring of prescribed medication in control group.

 

Data collection and statistical analysis

Results

Discussion

 

 

 

I would require:

  • my own space [office(s) and group room(s)], for evaluations, individual and group work, family stuff and lectures.
  • Money for all salaries, including mine, staff, and staff training, forensic testing, some of the fun activities, and treatment grants for some of the patients if they don’t have the do-re-me to pay for the rehab., phones, traveling expenses, and whatever we deem we need.
  • Access to full real library and online library.
  • Administrative personnel and/or services.
  • Access to occupational, medical and social services.
  • Whatever else we think of.

 










You can take the addiction out of the hypoic, but you can't take the Hypoism out of the addict.




Sign In