|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
6/28/00 Re: responsible drinking by Peter H. Cressy. Both Caroline Knapp and Mr. Cressy, and the entire country for that matter, are addressing the wrong issue. The issue isn't alcohol, a drug, or other drugs. The issue is the human brain, its genetically based diversity, and how it deals with mood altering drugs. The current incorrect addiction paradigm proposed by Alan Leshner of the NIH says drugs hijack the brain, thus misplacing the emphasis onto the drug and the "irresponsible" conscious and misperceived volitional choices of the drinker, the brain being a hijacked innocent bystander. In fact, only certain peoples' brains have problems with drugs, as Mr. Cressy points out, but not because of "irresponsible" choices at a conscious level. These people, hypoics, have an unconscious and inexorable brain physiology that forces them against their conscious wills to use and get addicted to drugs, including alcohol, resulting in the known consequences of addiction. Addicts are as surprised as the rest of us when their addiction becomes manifest. This brain disconnect in hypoics is why drug control efforts aimed at conscious choices, either through criminalization or education and prevention don't and can't work. There is no such thing as "responsible drinking" for hypoics. Until we change to and accept the paradigm that does deal with the neurophysiological reality of addiction in this group of people and its method of dealing with this unconscious brain mechanism, all problems with drugs will continue and grow. We don't need to change people, just paradigms. 6/30/00 Re: $1.3 Billion Voted to Fight Drug War Among Colombians, NY Times, 6/30/00. Both Columbia and the US would be much better off if the drug war were stopped. 1.3 billion dollars will burn many people, including some Americans, in Columbia. No one will benefit from that fiscal irresponsibility. The US government would be better advised to buy the cocaine and heroin produced over there directly from the peasant growers and give it free of charge to registered addicts here under controlled conditions so as to end the death, disease, and violence caused by the black market in drugs. Simultaneously, the government should build hundreds of low tech rehabs run by recovering addicts for these same registered addicts to go to when they're sick and tired of being addicted. This would be money well spent because it would solve all the problems associated with drug addiction in one fell swoop: 1) no more black market, 2) no more war on the streets, 3) no more addiction associated crime, violence and spread of disease, 4) massive recovery for addicts, and 5) end the high priced rehab and recovery racquet here. 7/1/00 Re: Seeing drugs as a choice or a brain anomaly, and the letter, Deciphering Addiction, are both focusing on the wrong issues and, thus, are confusing rather than clarifying. Massing is wrong. Cleveland is wrong. Leshner is wrong. Satel, Goodwin, A.A., Hyman, and McCaffrey are wrong too. They're looking at behaviors which cannot be diseases. Their arguments are not only wrong, but are confusing themselves as well as the polarized public. They're looking at the horse after it's left the barn. Addictions, OCD, and Compulsive Gambling, just three of the multitude of addictive behaviors, are not the issue, the disease or even a disease. Behaviors are not diseases, they are SYMPTOMS. The disease, Hypoism, is in the brain and present from birth, as are all genetic diseases, not caused by taking drugs, beginning to gamble, or choosing this or that. Addictions (including compulsive behaviors) are just SYMPTOMS of the underlying neurophysiology of the decision-making apparatus altered by numerous (not a single gene) low activity alleles of genes making up parts of this system. Lack of choice and true volition, when its comes to the addictions, are caused by this mechanism, a mechanism located in an unconscious part of the brain not amenable to conscious control (read The Emotional Brain by Joseph LeDoux for the neurologic basis of this concept). This fact doesn't, however, make hypoics helpless, only powerless; the absence of control. Absence of control doesn't remove responsibility or prevent recovery. Does a leukemic have control over leukemia? Since when did any medical patient have control over his disease? In fact, acknowledgment of absence of control is the basis for recovery and taking responsibility, but only when one knows the true nature of one's disease; knowledge that doesn't exist today, except in my book. Attempts at control by the addict only make addictions worse because these attempts are done in the absence of knowledge about the disease causing the addictions. Self knowledge can only occur when you know what you have and what you are and doesn't necessarily lead to control, but is necessary to allow the surrender of control which is absolutely necessary for recovery from Hypoism and its symptoms. The reason we're not making any headway with addictions is exactly because people like Massing, Cleveland, and Leshner can't comprehend this paradox. The current addiction paradigm is based on the wrong physiology and thus leads to the wrong interpretations of addict's behavior and wrong prevention, treatment, and policy concepts. The reason the disease model advocates like Leshner, A.A., Kleber, and Volkow can't convince the moralists that addiction is caused by a disease is because they have the wrong disease model and it doesn't make any sense. It's therefore not a convincing argument. Hypoism is the correct disease model, makes sense, and will convince the moralists. It also will lead to massive recovery and policy changes that are completely helpful, even to nonaddicts. If no one reads my book and considers its ideas, the irrelevant argument that I call the drug war War as depicted in the above pieces will continue endlessly as it has for the last sixty five years and absolutely nothing will change. I've been writing the Times about this book for seven years and have even sent your book reviewers a copy but you haven't taken the time to read it. Deal with it and see if something good happens. How can you lose? 7/4/00 In the book review of The Mysteries Within, Dr. Nuland is quoted, "Mankind naturally inclines in the opposite direction from critical thought; supernature and superstition supersede reason -- reason is a hard-earned product of advanced civilization, requiring, like freedom, eternal vigilance." Dr Nuland leaves out two other requirements: HONESTY and INTEGRITY. Lacking these qualities, medicine becomes a religion (based on myth and superstition with no need for proof). A current example of religion based medicine is seen in the field of addictionology. We can see the disastrous results of this occurrence in our public policies for addicts and addictions as well as in its ineffective but highly touted spiritual and ritualistic treatments. Addictionology remains in the dark ages of superstition and bias and has given rise to private and governmental witch hunts, burning people at the stake, mind control, ritualistic torture, cruel and unusual punishment, and even fantasies of eugenics. Nowhere in medicine do the warnings of Dr. Nuland need to be more heeded. The main reason no one objects to this situation is that the public believes the same myths as do the recovering addicts. There's no one to left to object but the N4A that is ignored and censored for its heresy. 7/4/00 Re: Letter entitled Truth About Alcohol Mr. Hacker, Alcohol Policies Project, Center for Science in the Public Interest, is correct about the moralistic view of alcoholism being wrong and nonproductive. However, his view that alcoholism is a disease has been promoted for 65 years and hasn't led to any positive changes either. This is because "the addiction is the disease" is wrong and doesn't make sense. A behavior can not be a disease, only caused by one. There must be a disease causing alcoholism (and all other addictions as well). That disease is Hypoism. This disease is in the brain and as such makes sense - diseases must have a pathophysiological basis. I suggest you read a textbook of medicine which will inform you that modern medicine is based on the pathophysiological model of disease, not the make-up-your-own-disease model as current addictionology has mistakenly done. The Hypoism disease model is based on pathophysiology and is the only current addiction model that is. It, thus, makes sense and will change what needs to be changed for all addictions, medically as well as in peoples' attitudes about them. 7/9/00 Audrey Kishland became a guru to thousands of people just like her by writing a book derived from nonsensical beliefs motivated by her addiction to alcohol and inability to get sober. Despite her tragedy, her murderous scheme, moderation management, survives intact, still rationalized by irrational opinions pushed by other gurus, some mentioned in your article, and their desperate addicted followers. Do we all hate addicts so much to continue this way? Take a look at addictionology. Is it a mess or not? If it is, which it is, then we need to ask why. The answer to this is question is the absolute lack of a valid and real paradigm that explains human use of and addiction to drugs, including alcohol, and other behavioral addictions. Because of this paradigmatic vacuum, there have been invented and believed infinite numbers of nonsensical and polarizing ideas concerning addictions from all conceivable positions: etiology, treatment, recovery, and policy - all quite reminiscent of religious beliefs. Like religions, they are all just opinions, some right, some wrong, each with their expert proponents but all without a valid premise. This is an untenable way to approach such an important and obviously dangerous reality. Addicts have been dying and suffering on the cross of this religion far too long. The current psychological/superstitious paradigm (religion) of addiction is responsible for this mess. The Hypoism paradigm of addictions replaces this religion with a brain physiology and mechanism that explains addictions and provides solutions for them based on a rational and valid neurobiological premise. How about including Hypoism in this discussion so that addicts will at least have one paradigm available that can actually be of some help to them? 7/11/00 Re: Addiction Center's Director Quits in Treatment Debate, NY Times. I congratulate Smithers on firing Dr. DeLuca, whose motive for incorporating "moderation" drinking into recovery was probably financial rather than being helpful to addicts. However, they did the right thing for the wrong reason. Abstinence in addiction recovery is not a choice, conviction, belief, or opinion. There is no debate about this, much like the non debate between creationism and evolution. One side is reality, the other is superstition and other motives lacking personal integrity. This debate only exists because of deep ignorance and superstition in the addiction arena including Smithers' beliefs. That Smithers is correct about abstinence is fortuitous. Their addiction paradigm is otherwise as wrong as Dr. DeLuca's. Both their paradigms are based on beliefs rather than science. Abstinence is a necessity in recovery from addictions because of the neurophysiology of the addict's brain, not for philosophical or moral reasons. Non addicts don't need abstinence. They don't need recovery in any form. The difference between addicts and non addicts is astronomical as much as it is neurobiological. In Kishline's case, there was no science backing her "moderation" nonsense. Her motivation was her inability to get sober and personal denial of her addiction, common occurrences under today's addiction paradigm. Other supporters of MM have similar fraudulent and delusional motives for their support of this "program." Fraudulent claims and "programs" in addictionology is the rule, to the detriment of all addicts, their families, and society, because there is currently no valid paradigm behind addictions. Why do you think this field is such a mess and arguments such as this one abound? It's not because addicts are defiant assholes or psychopaths, it's the paradigmatic nonsense currently called addictionology. Until we adopt a neuroscience based paradigm such as Hypoism, the reality behind all addictions, this kind of nonsense, based on opinions and beliefs that have no place in medicine, will continue. The addicts, exactly like Kishland, and their inadvertent victims, two dead in Washington, are the losers while we debate superstitious nonsense and ignore reality. 7/12/00 Re: Hollywood Is Asked to Join a Campaign Against Drugs, NY Times, 7/12/00. How long has America been AGAINST drugs? How has being AGAINST drugs improved America's drug problems? Isn't it clear yet that progress with drug problems will not be made with programs AGAINST drugs? Progress will be made only with programs FOR and about the biological truths concerning drugs and why certain people get into trouble with them. The current drug paradigm offers no way to have a program FOR this truth because it is an invalid paradigm - it doesn't comprehend drug use and addiction, and thus, cannot deliver solutions. It can only be AGAINST drugs and therefore gets nowhere. Drugs are not the problem. The problem is the paradigm, or more correctly, the absence of the valid paradigm about drugs and their human consequences. Hypoism is a paradigm that explains why and how certain people have problems with drugs and what they can do about it - on an individual level rather than at the level of a society or a war. Being AGAINST cancer will never help a cancer victim, while being FOR the correct cancer paradigm will help all cancer victims. The successes of modern medicine are all based on this principle. Being FOR Hypoism, the correct paradigm, and letting individuals apply its paradigmatic implications will solve the problems the current paradigm is AGAINST but is impotent to change. We're all AGAINST people being hurt and getting into trouble. Being AGAINST this will not change anything. We must be FOR the correct paradigm of drug use and addiction for the changes we all desire to occur. |
|
||||||
You can take the addiction out of the hypoic, but you can't take the Hypoism out of the addict.
