|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
10/23/00 The letters speaking to America's Endless War on Fat all show the same denial of the science, denial of the genetics, denial of the neurobiology, and a misunderstanding of how the genetics and neurobiology work in a human. Refer back to How the Body Knows When to Gain or Lose, from 10/17, where Dr. Flier uses the words control, conscious, will power, and free will to characterize what certain obese peoples' eating behaviors are not about. Several quotes from the letters show the conceptual problem the current paradigm has with obesity. "I'm all for discipline, but being better informed about the way our bodies work is the first step to weight control." True, but with the emphasis on how the brain works to produce behaviors. "Doctors who care about health know there are better ways to achieve and maintain a healthy weight than learning to think about food as the enemy." True, the underlying brain physiology, not the symptom, eating. Then the psychiatrist queries, "Why must feeling trim and healthy, unencumbered by the fatigue of a diet laced in fat, be viewed as loss?" This question pathetically comes from a doctor who is actually "treating" obese patients. Doctor, it isn't viewed as a loss, the unconscious brain neurobiology defines it as a loss. The tail wags the dog, doctor. It's not a view, it's a disease outside their control. The only realistic way for people to deal with the compulsive use of neurobiologically mediated instincts and instinct system mediated behaviors (addictions) such as eating, sex, drugs, gambling, etc. is through acknowledgment (I don't have control and never will), realization (My attempts to control have lead to continued failure to control and misery), surrender (I give up the control), and acceptance (I will let someone else, my decision consultant, another recovering person voluntarily selected by the addict and unpaid, control my behavior on this issue). This sequence is exactly the opposite of what the "experts" are trying to "teach" addicts, and is based on the neurobiology rather than on a faulty belief system. Of course, this is why addicts are overwhelmingly failing to control their addictions - bad for the addict, but good for the therapist's pocketbook. Addiction therapists (and our society at large) have a conceptual bias concerning how the brain works to produce behaviors in addicts. I call this the psychological/religious paradigm (the religion of psychology). There never has been any proof for this paradigm, yet it is still believed to the detriment of addicts around the world. I have attempted to shift this paradigm over to Hypoism, one that fits with Dr. Flier's view of obese people and addicts in general, the only realistic one if you honestly and openmindedly look at addictions. Either Hypoism is correct or there are a lot of stupid and obstreperous addicts out there. Wake up New York Times so your readers can discover the neurobiological and recovery reality of Hypoism where the emphasis is on how the brain works rather than on the addictors and the conscious origins of specific addictions. I know it blows your belief system, but for the sake of addicts, let it go, at least in this instance. It's killing and maiming too many good people. 10/24/00 Erica Goode states in, Watching Volunteers Eat, Psychiatrists Seek Clues to Obesity, "They have uncovered abnormalities in the biological systems controlling hunger and satiety that may play a role in many eating disturbances. And they have learned that eating disorders tend to run in families, suggesting that the vulnerability to such problems may be at least in part genetic." This statement is a typically biased Erica Goode remark minimizing genetics and biology. Eating disorders are rather genetic disorders with some environmental influences, not the opposite. [See: Br J Psychiatry 1998 Jul;173:75-9 Genetic epidemiology of binging and vomiting. Sullivan PF, Bulik CM, Kendler KS Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. Conclusion: In contrast to 'environmentalist' theories, our results suggest that genetic influences may be of particular relevance to the aetiology of binging and vomiting.] Other genetic addiction studies by them and others show the same thing. They are profoundly genetic based. http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/recentgeneticstudiesonvariousaddictionsfromalargetwinregistr/ The history of addictions, eating disorders being one of them, has traversed a landscape of superstition based etiologies over the last 100 years or more. They can all be called environmentalist, based on psychobabble mythologies mixed with conscious choice and willful decisions. These theories have killed and maimed uncounted millions of addicts and their families. New York Times science writers subscribe to this paradigm. However, if one reviews the history of this field you will find one dead environmentalist theory after another littering the battle field along with countless dead addicts killed by these biased theories. This reality is paralleled in the overall field of Psychiatry. Environmentalism has been replaced by biology (frequently genetic based) in one instance after another such as personality types (temperaments), Tay-Sachs, autism, schizophrenia, epilepsy, Huntington's disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, alcoholism, depression, neuroticism, and many many others. Even happiness has been shown to be genetically based and innate (Lykkens). Yet, psychiatry and the Times persists in minimizing genetics and biology for the sake of environmentalism and its various superstition based "therapies" at the expense of the sufferers. I couldn't help but laugh at the picture of psychiatrists watching fat people eating as a way to understanding fatness. Only a psychiatrist would do something as ridiculous. I can see them in bars watching alcoholics drinking too! This approach has resulted in no real improvements in understanding addictions. If real physicians and scientists were enlisted to understand these behaviors instead of environmentally biased psychiatrists working within a prejudiced and dead environmentalist paradigm we would have real answers to these disorders in a heart beat. All the information about the etiology of addictions, compulsions, and other biology based "behavioral" diseases is readily available to make the complete transition from superstition and bias to neurobiology if only the field were open to use it. Biased psychiatrists will not even look at it. My book on the neurobiology of addictions does just this but has been ignored by biased psychiatrists and newspapers alike. Massive damage to people with these disorders as well as to our society in general will persist as long as long as this continues. Shame on the Times for not exploring and reporting on my book as a means of helping addicts. 10/28/00 For the first time in the history of the NY Times science section we see a glimpse of reality concerning human "behavioral" problems. "Experts are coming round to the view that the body has a preset range; gluttony can take you up to the upper limit, rigorous diet can put you at the bottom limit. But almost nothing can take you outside those limits. Though food intake seems to be under conscious control, it may in fact be controlled beyond the will's limit or the mind's knowledge just as are temperature or salt balance." The key word of this quote is SEEMS. I've been writing you letters concerning this misperception surrounding conscious control of other instincts and the use of their regulating neurotransmitter substitutes (mood-altering drugs) for 7 years and finally Nick Wade makes the statement himself. My Hypoism paradigm which concerns addictions to instincts such as eating, sex, gambling, and drugs states this categorically and has been ignored for all this time. The above quote needs to be extended to all instincts and drugs in certain people who genetically don't have conscious control over their use in the nonrecovering state. These are hypoics as defined in my book, Hypoic's Handbook. Maybe Nicholas Wade would read this book and report to your readers on a general paradigm concerning these issues; a paradigm that explains the SEEMING "conscious stupidity" of all addicts, not just fat people. What SEEMS under conscious control in nonhypoics is never under conscious control in hypoics. This is the key to understanding all people who misuse drugs and instincts. Hey, check out my book. It's been waiting impatiently for you Nick. It's all there, and what these people can do about it too. 10/31/00 Supreme Court Accepts Case That Challenges Prison Law, NYT 10/31/00, raises important issues on administrative law in this country that requires complainants to exhaust local or state administrative remedies before using any real legal remedies. Administrative law has none of the civil rights safeguards found in real courts and cases may be dragged on for years before these remedies are exhausted. This process is usually futile and very costly, as it has been in my medical license revocation case. One might run out of money for lawyers before getting to a real court where civil rights laws might be used against administrative perpetrators. Of course, this is why administrative law exists, to prevent access to any real legal remedies. Thus, I have started The National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts (N4A). Our main purpose, besides reviewing addiction research for scientific validity and disseminating valid information about addictions and recovery, is to legally advocate free of charge for discriminated and abused addicts in any area; in administrative, civil, or criminal courts. The N4A is the only legal advocacy group for addicts and by addicts with no ulterior motives or conflicts of interest. 11/5/00 I laughed and cried as I read the article, Citing Intolerance, Obese People Take Steps to Press Cause, NYT 11/5/00. I was also angry; angry at both sides of the issue. Not only do "normal" people misunderstand fat people, they misunderstand all Hypoism manifestations. Moreover, hypoics themselves misunderstand their own symptoms. All this misunderstanding is due to scientific ignorance and associated denial of biology, including the biology of instinctive xenophobia, the basis for discrimination and prejudice. People with many hypoism symptoms such as massive obesity, alcoholism, and ADD have formed groups to stop their discrimination but are unwilling to base these groups on a premise that both informs people about the true biology of their symptom as well as transforming public attitudes based on this emotionally neutral biology as in previously discriminated medical diseases such as epilepsy, down's syndrome, and autism not to mention depression and schizophrenia, etc. As stigmatized medical diseases are better understood scientifically, the stigma and discrimination recedes. This is not happening in hypoism for two reasons: 1) the science is wrong and confused and frequently based on biased science, and 2) the people with the disease, in this case fat people, don't want to see their problem as based on a true disease - it makes them feel defective and they don't want to feel this way. Well, the only way to overcome both the symptoms (addictions) and the discrimination is to do exactly what addiction scientists and addicts don't want to do - accept the biology and base recovery on that biology. I have done this for all addictions. The biology is called Hypoism. The group that fights discrimination of all addicts, The National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts (N4A), is based on this biological premise. Hypoism puts all this together in one complete package yet is ignored because the biased scientists don't like it and the addicts don't like it. Obviously, the Times doesn't like it either because I've been informing it about Hypoism for 7 years and it hasn't examined it nor published a single letter to the editor about it. Until Hypoism is seen as the cause for these assorted addictions, leading to massive societal understanding and acceptance, discrimination and nonrecovery from addictions along with their associated medical and social problems will be perpetuated. I invite all groups formed around individual addictions to learn about Hypoism and to coalesce into the N4A to form one large and powerful organization to effectively deal with all their issues. I also invite the Times to explore the Hypoism hypothesis. 11/9/00 The letter below clearly shows the height of NIDA'a arrogance and stupidity and is an example of the crap coming out of addiction pseudoresearch and the addiction research conspiracy mentioned on my article at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/15replacingalanleshneristheonlywaytoendthedrugwar/ Where is the peer review? This study is so pathetic it also speaks to the complete irresponsibility of JAMA, the so-called medical journal that publishes whatever Leshner wants it to. The lack of integrity involved speaks for itself. It also exemplifies the crap the NY times will publicize while completely ignoring Hypoism. Someone other than me needs to hold all their feet to the fire, but no one else realizes what crap it is. Most people and addictionologists will buy this nonsense and probably cite is as another example of good research funded by NIDA and produced by its funding.
Anxiety Seen in Teenagers Who Smoke, NYT 11/8/00, does not show what the
authors say it shows and is scientifically invalid and misleading. This
study only shows that the presmoking psychological testing didn't
differentiate the ones who would go on to the latter symptoms. The only
way to say that smoking causes these anxiety symptoms is to take two
matched groups, make one group smoke and the other not, and see if there
is a difference in anxiety symptoms down the road. This study is much
like the ones purported to show that marijuana is a "gateway drug" to
cocaine or other "hard" drugs. It is also reminiscent of George
Valliant's "The Natural History of Alcoholism" study that did
psychological testing on a group of Bostonians and couldn't
differentiate from these tests which would go on to alcoholism in the
future. The same kind of incorrect conclusion was drawn from that study
as in this one: that there is no alcoholic personality. From this
conclusion Valliant leaped to the next incorrect conclusion, that there
is no disease causing alcoholism as if a disease that causes alcohol
addiction must be distinguishable from the psychological tests they
were using. Not so. All three of these conclusions from the above
studies are invalid and result in misleading concepts of causation of
the future symptoms - anxiety attacks of one sort or another or future
addictions. Because the symptoms studied in these works are predominant
genetically based it makes no sense to attribute drugs as their cause
even though NIDA wants this to be the case. As in most invalid
association studies, the most likely way to connect the two attributes
that are misconnected by the study in this article as one causing the
other is by knowing that some other entity causes both of them instead,
thus, the causal misassociation. In the current study, cigarettes are
not the cause of the future anxiety, but rather, an underlying
neurobiological etiology not uncovered in the prior psychological
testing that causes both the smoking and the future anxiety disorders and
thus smokers have a higher likelihood of also having anxiety disorders.
This possibility was not taken into account in the study nor in its
conclusions. It is exactly this underlying neurobiological entity that
is being ignored by current researchers, for the most part, of
addictions and other psychological symptomatology seen in drug addicts,
including cigarette addicts. If accepted as is, this study has the
potential to roll back the clock on real advances in addictions and to
prevent the real paradigm of addictions from being realized. The
researchers and the grant providers, NIDA, are both biased in favor of
the conclusions of this study because it promotes their invalid
addiction paradigm at the expense to addicts and society while
simultaneously supporting the war on drugs and their other draconian
treatments and policies. This study is a good example of misleading
science used to promote damaging and ignorance-based public policy.
I'M LEAVING FOR NEW ORLEANS IN AN HOUR AND WON'T BE ABLE TO RESPOND
FOR THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. SEND ME YOUR ADDRESS AND I WILL MAIL
YOU A COPY OF THE ARTICLE YOU REQUESTED. A NUMBER OF STUDIES,
INCLUDING OUR OWN, HAVE INDICATED THAT CHILDHOOD ANXIETY MAY BE
ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED RISK FOR ANXIETY PROBLEMS DURING ADOLESCENCE
OR EARLY ADULTHOOD. You didn't answer the
question: do these childhood evaluations detect kids with the
future triad of symptoms, yes or no? if not, then they are useless
for this study. you need to find a method of evaluating kids who
are likely to develop the symptom triad, then follow them for
smoking or not, and latter development of the triad. These tests
might have been predictive of both those who smoked and
developed these anxiety symptoms later in early adulthood. One
would need to find the ones predicted to smoke and develop anxiety
symptoms, keep them from smoking and then see if they still develop
anxiety symptoms or not, thus preventing the symptoms with non-smoking.
Also, do the anxiety symptoms disappear with smoking cessation?
Or, are the symptoms made worse with additional nicotine? Some
experiments such as these would be necessary to confirm the conclusion,
and in a double blind way. Before this result is validated, it
must be repeated by other groups and some experimental variant
must be used to distinguish the several causal possibilities.
|
|
||||||
You can take the addiction out of the hypoic, but you can't take the Hypoism out of the addict.
