|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
9/9/00 In, Nader Endorses Legal Marijuana, NYT 9/8/00, Nader is quoted, "Addiction should never be treated as a crime. It has to be treated as a health problem." Of course, it is a health problem, but what kind? So far, addiction is treated as a voluntary, and thus punishable, health problem based on the bogus psychological/superstitious paradigm of human drug use incorrectly supported by NIDA's, "hijacked brain hypothesis." Until it is finally realized that addiction is caused by an involuntary and genetic brain mechanism based on the Hypoism paradigm, this serious health problem will remain misperceived, misunderstood, unchecked, and mistreated by our people, doctors, and politicians. Saying it's a health problem without defining it as one will do no good whatsoever. Absence of this crucial pathophysiological definition, the Hypoism paradigm, which exists but is being ignored, will continue the horrors of drug, alcohol, and behavioral addictions all of which are explained and handled appropriately in all aspects by Hypoism. 9/14/00 In, Suits Charge Conspiracy by Maker and Doctors' Group to Expand Ritalin Use, NYT, 9/14/00, we see for the first time a much needed confrontation of the abusive paternalism psychiatry has perpetrated on an unsuspecting and trusting, though ignorant, public. My field is addictions, and I find the same kind of conscious and unconscious conspiracies motivated by greed, power, and pride, in all areas of the field from theory to treatment and policy by "experts" who benefit from the same kind of public ignorance and fears about addictions. See my article about the origins and patterns of this silent but deadly conspiracy: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/15replacingalanleshneristheonlywaytoendthedrugwar/ I would hope more lawyers get involved to sue similar psychiatric perpetrators who have misled the public for way too long with their mumbo-jumbo at the public's expense. 9/17/00 What "Hollow Claims About Fantasy Violence" (NYT editorial 9/17/00) demonstrates is that social science is not science. The main reason relates to my definition of the word science: What scientists do using the scientific method. Social non-science rarely if ever uses the scientific method as your editorial points out. They always find some way to pervert the method for the sake of ideology, making their studies invalid for the most part. Ordinary people and the usual media journalists can't tell the difference. It's nice to see your editorial point this out for a change. My field, addictionology, is replete with this non-science usually for similar ideological motives. This has resulted in a paradigm of addictions that just does not fit reality, although it well fits popular biases. Born from this non-science are faulty treatment and policy. I hope someone at the Times has noticed this fact. I have reviewed this non-science of addictions in my book and have replaced it with a hypothesis that fits the available and valid science that does exist. My paradigm is so antithetical to current addiction beliefs and ideology that it is ignored, even by you, not because it isn't valid or helpful to addicts and society but rather is unwanted by addictionology and policy makers for very sick motives. So much for real science. Ask Galileo if he knows what I mean. 10/4/00 The letter from the partnership for a drug free america, NYT 10/4/00, shows the deep misunderstanding of drug use and addiction in our country. To put it simply, drug addiction, and this includes alcohol, is at least 70% genetic and neurobiological, if not higher, and thus, for the most part, is not a conscious choice. Addiction is an unconscious phenomenon until it is all over. In other words, there are two groups of people. Group 1. (about 80-90%) lacks the genetics to become addicted and will never be addicted. They don't care much whether they use drugs or not. They don't have problems with drugs. They can use drugs safely. Group 2. (about 10-20%) has the genetics to become addicted. They will pretty much always use drugs of one kind or another and have problems with them. This means that conscious decision-making has little if anything to do with group 2's use and addiction to mood-altering chemicals, except possibly to which drug they get addicted. This information is clear from the science of addiction although no one seems to be willing to say it publicly - all people are treated as if they were equally susceptible to problems with drugs by the current addiction paradigm. Hiding the above information is a willful decision by the NIAAA and NIDA. As a consequence of the existence of these two groups comes the reality that we all seem to know but don't know exactly why: group 1. doesn't need warnings about the danger of drugs and these warning have no appreciable effect on group 2. These facts make the drug war, including its prevention and miseducation propaganda, by the partnership for a drug free america and other misguided groups, meaningless and useless except for one quite damaging aspect, they continue to stigmatize and demonize addicts and perpetuate addiction. Besides leading to the discriminatorily harsh punishments of addicts, this demonization and stigmatization keeps addicts from admitting they're addicts, even to themselves, and thereby keeps them out of recovery, and thus, perpetuates the damage their addictions cause to themselves and society, the exact things we say we're against. Our misguided and ignorance-based efforts to control drug use has the exact opposite effect we desire. Isn't this obvious yet? What we do need, instead of warnings about the danger of drugs and the continued cruel drug war, is the truth about the genetic and neurobiological differences between groups 1. and 2. so that group 2. will be able and allowed to enter recovery at the earliest possible time. This is the only real way to prevent damage to our people and society as a whole from drugs, including alcohol and cigarettes. Group 2. needs to know who they are so they can deal with their neurobiological reality as soon as possible. The current addiction paradigm precludes this while the Hypoism paradigm accomplishes this. 10/5/00 Justices Consider Limits of the Legal Response to Risky Behavior by Pregnant Women, NYT 10/5/00, shows the basic unconstitutionality of the drug war and that this war is actually a war on addicts rather than on drugs, a genocide, disguised with the phony justification that it is helping addicts get straight. Yes, get straight in prison, surrender your kids to authorities, lose your welfare checks and medicaid, etc. That physicians would cooperate with this is not unexpected because they, the addictionology community, are already conspiring with the government to promote an academic and pseudoscientific paradigm of addictions out of which is born this fascist drug policy. See: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/15replacingalanleshneristheonlywaytoendthedrugwar/ As I've been telling you for many years, until intelligent people such as you evaluate the nonscientific basis for this nonsense and replace it with the actual science behind addictions more antipeople fascist policies will arise at every opportunity. I confront the Times to review the science behind the current addiction paradigm and publicize what they find. The debate needs to be about the science of addictions and its paradigmatic implications rather than the fascist policies derived therefrom. Fascism always follows perverted science and corrupt and cooperative doctors. Sound familiar? 10/14/00 Civil Rights Versus States' Rights, NYT editorial, 10/14/00, is an editorial I heartily support. As a recovering physician, I have been discriminated against by New York State Education Department who arbitrarily labeled me dangerous for the purposes of refusing my relicensure because of an addiction I had nine years ago. At the time of my addiction to an oral synthetic opiate my practice was at its zenith. I never had a single patient related problem as a nephrologist, a subspecialty wrought with quite difficult cases, but my license was nevertheless revoked and not restored because the licensing agencies of NYS continues to punitively misinterpret relapses I sustained while attempting to get off drugs as personal defiance to their authority rather than part of the process of my eventual complete and continuous recovery of nine years. I have attempted endlessly to find a lawyer to sue the NYS Ed. Dept. under the ADA but they have declined due to the previous ADA vs states rulings of the Supreme Court. There are many hundreds of qualified and well trained recovering physicians as well as other disabled people covered under the ADA who are being similarly discriminated against by state agencies around the country. States have been given a free hand to capriciously discriminate by the Supreme Court at will. Please do more articles on this issue. It's as massive a problem as race discrimination and the states need to be reined in by the Court rather than enabled in this discrimination. 10/15/00 It's ironic that you would entitle the article on shopping addiction in the magazine section of the sunday times, "Cure it with Drugs." According to my neurobiological paradigm on addictions, Hypoism, a paradigm that includes shopping addiction, 50 or so other "behavioral addictions," and all drug addictions, all addictions result from attempts by hypoics to treat their neurobiological deficiencies (thus the prefix HYPO in Hypoism) with drugs, either exogenous drugs, "drugs," or endogenous drugs, their own instrinsic neurotransmitters stimulated by instinctive behaviors repeated over and over such as shopping or sex or gambling, etc. Using SSRI's to "cure" addictions, even if they happen by chance to help addicts stop a particular addiction, is merely switching addictions and leaves the underlying neurobiological disease unchecked to continue wreaking havoc in the hypoic's life. This mistake in the pharmaceutical "treatment" of addictions has been made for decades untold. The first drug treatment for alcohol addiction was morphine. Another was cocaine. Another was Valium. Now it's SSRI's and other even more inappropriate and misapplied attempts to control addictions. These "treatments" have never had long term beneficial effects and never will because they don't take into account the entire brain mechanism causing addictions nor its complete neurobiology. They focus, instead, on the addictions which are just symptoms of the larger disease. As long as we continue focusing on the addictions, the behaviors, and the addictors, the things hypoics get addicted to, we continue to miss the true nature of the whole jigsaw puzzle of addictions, the entire underlying brain mechanism. My book, Hypoic's Handbook, defines and describes this brain mechanism, what it does in nonaddicts, "normals," and how it is altered genetically in addicts, hypoics, to produce inexorable addictions of all varieties. Moreover, the recovery from addictions must be, instead, recovery from the underlying neurobiological disease, not from each individual addiction or by changing addictions, because Hypoism not only causes all the addictions but causes other life ruining effects unrelated to addictions that hypoics also manifest such as disastrous decision-making like JFK Jr.'s decision to fly to Martha's Vineyard that fateful night. The Kennedy family is not cursed, it is rather the prototypical hypoic family. Addictionology run by psychiatry has been missing the forest for the trees because of their environmentalist and pharmacological biases. Thus, they have been misinforming us about addictions for years while they go about sticking their fingers in little holes in the dike rather than dealing with the causes of the flood. "Cure it with Drugs" is a finger in the dike that ignores and thereby helps perpetuate the flood. Hypoic's Handbook deals with the flood. Modern medicine is based on understanding and treating the underlying disease, not just the symptoms, in this case, Hypoism and addictions. I ask you, which paradigm makes more sense, and which will lead to massive real recovery, meaningful prevention, and appropriate public attitude and policy changes? 10/17/00 The brain regulatory mechanism discussed in, How the Body Knows When to Gain or Lose, NYT 10/17/00, is exactly what I've been telling you about for over seven years by now, not just concerning food regulation, but concerning the brain regulation of all instincts which includes the regulation of mood-altering drug use, legal and illegal, because these drugs are chemical substitutes for the actual endogenous controlling neurotransmitters, like leptin, for the feedback control of instinct use, like eating, drinking, control of blood sugar level, and more complex instincts like sex, risk taking, and attachment between people. Some of these neurotransmitters are dopamine, serotonin, endorphins, neuropeptide Y, etc. There are 50-100 of them. Moreover, as is mentioned in the article numerous times, these mechanisms are not only unconscious but are outside control of the will and conscious decision-making of people. Of course, this only makes sense in humans because the behavior of all animals, which includes humans, is run by unconscious neurobiological feedback mechanisms deep in the ancient and unconscious part of the brain. This food regulation paradigm presented in the article is the biological basis for the entire Hypoism paradigm of all addictions, including addiction to food. Addictions to drugs and behaviors are just manifestations of biologic disorders (genetic diversity) of this mechanism. The Hypoism paradigm of addictions is a hypothesis that is provable and capable of being scientifically studied exactly like the work in this article, but isn't because it doesn't jive with the incorrect and biased current "conscious" paradigm of addictions. As you should know, specific addictions are from at least 67% to 80% heritable, eating disorders are about 80% heritable, and it is the inherited diversity of this instinct controlling mechanism that leads to these high degrees of inheritances. The overwhelming importance of the biological paradigm discussed in the article and more broadly discussed in my book, Hypoic's Handbook - The Hypoism Paradigm of Addictions, once acknowledged, is that it changes the addiction paradigm from one of conscious control to one of unconscious regulation, outside the will of the person involved in the genetic alteration causing the addiction. This paradigmatic change in the understanding of all addictions, not just food addiction, brings all addictions into the realm of real biological diseases whose recoveries necessitate a completely different approach and orientation, as discussed in my book, from the one we currently are using based on the wrong paradigm of addictions, the psychological/religious (conscious and moral) paradigm. It also explains clearly why prevention, education, psychotherapy, and other conscious controlling methods such as the drug war and illegalization of various addictions don't work. What works is a recovery paradigm that is actually based on the only way to deal with addictions caused by unconscious neurobiological forces outside the control of addicts, surrender of control, the exact opposite from the current approach to addiction treatment, but quite similar to the only known, and at least somewhat effective, means of recovery, that found in A.A., but without the superstition. In Hypoic's Handbook, I have combined the biological basis of addictions as discussed in this article with the recovery paradigm based on surrender of control to produce a complete paradigm for all addictions that, once accepted, will lead to massive recovery from all addictions, and a transformation within our society concerning addictions. This paradigm shift is immensely important as you might well imagine. Please let your readers know about it. 10/18/00 I read the Times everyday, and pretty much everyday an article appears in the paper relating to a general theme I would call DIVERSITY. These articles usually are misrepresented as being about one peculiar behavior or another and attempt to shed some light on each individual behavior. In presenting these behaviors this way, the forest (overall diversity and what it means) is missed for the trees (specific peculiar behaviors). Today's diversity article is, A Theorist With Personal Experience of the Divide Between the Sexes. Again, if viewed from the microscopic perspective of weird sexuality, readers miss the point, the forest. Clearly, the author presents a story about sexual diversity and one transgenderist's theory about why he/she is this way. Most readers will be confronted with their own ignorance based biases about sexual identity and turn the page to the next article, not gaining any insight whatsoever because no insight was provided by the author. I would like to see an article about the general topic of human diversity, more precisely biologic diversity among humans, where it originates (DNA evolution), and how it is manifest as diverse behaviors in order to provide a context into which individual diverse behaviors can be placed. Most importantly, this article would be about the existence of many genetically programmed human instincts (sex for one) and a genetically programmed system in the brain that regulates human use of these instincts. Genetic diversity of this system at all its organizational levels leads to behavioral diversity of incredible proportions for each instinct. There is genetic instinct diversity, a bell curve for each instinct, and genetic regulator system diversity, a bell curve for the activity of the regulatory and reinforcing (reward) system. This system is quite like the genetic diversity of the complex personality producing system known as biologic temperaments, but even larger and more complex. The point of this letter is that until your readers are provided with knowledge about the biology and evolution of all human instincts, what these instincts are, how they are regulated in each individual as well as across the board within the human species, and how diversity in this system is translated in each person to thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (what we today mislabel "choices"), they will have no way to assess the validity or import of the numerous articles in your paper surrounding the larger issue of diverse behaviors, believing mistakenly that this diversity is a product of the conscious will rather than built-in biological diversity (yesterday's diversity article, How The Body Knows When To Gain Or Lose, brings this point home quite well). Mistaken beliefs about the origins of behavioral diversity result not only in misunderstandings by observers of these peculiar behaviors, but also in the ones who act out the peculiar behaviors, in other words, other- and self-ostracism and stigmatization. As today's diversity article attempts to point out, this is both unnecessary and wrong, but absent the biological context and perspective I have just discussed briefly, this is missed, and ignorance-based prejudice is thus perpetuated. Just as transgender behavior originates from diversity in this instinct regulatory system, so does the whole range of addictions, from substances to behaviors and beliefs. Moreover, addictions are misunderstood for exactly the same reasons as is Roughgarten's transgenderism. I have, like Dr. Joan Roughgarten, theorized and hypothesized an explanation for all addictions and their recovery as well as the basis for public attitude and policy changes surrounding addictions. This hypothesis, called Hypoism, stems from biologic and genetic diversity in the same instinct regulatory system discussed above, and is based on known current neurobiology more detailed than Roughgarten's transgender theory, has implications incredibly larger than transgenderism and addictions, and yet it is ignored by the addictionology community as well as your paper, and for the same reasons, intellectual and emotional bias. It's time to reveal the genetics and biology of human diversity to the public so they can better understand the bases of human diversity in one fell swoop. When this is done, I believe many great, positive, and much needed social changes will simultaneously occur to the benefit of all humans and ecologies around the world. 10/20/00 There is two ways to view the story told in, The Odyssey of Twins, 13, in Rape Case, NYT 10/20/00. One way, the way it was written, is to see the behavior of these two kids being a result of crappy and irresponsible parents along with crappy and abusive foster care. Somehow this led to rape and robbery. The implication of this is that we just need to get parents in line and improve foster care to prevent such incidents. If this were true, then what about the Skakel kid in Connecticut? Good family, yet a kid who is an addict and (alleged) murderer. The other way to look at this is that it's a story of a certain kind of hereditary neurobiology at work in a family, Hypoism, and how it causes, against their wills, at least until it's too late, awful decision-making, horrifying behaviors, and disastrous outcomes for all involved. The differential implications of the two views of this story are, in the first case, there really is nothing we can do to prevent it without unconscionable social changes, and in the second case, promotion and acceptance of Hypoism as a neurobiological entity with behavioral consequences, massive voluntary help in hypoic's recoveries, hypoic families in recovery instead of acting out, and minimization of long-term addiction to drugs, behaviors, and beliefs as were evident in this sad case as well as many others, even happening in "good" families like the Kennedys. See: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/13thekennedycurseorkennedyhypoism/ If you keep publishing stories explained by the first paradigm you perpetuate the problem while promoting ineffective and harmful social policies. Written in the context of Hypoism, the problem gets solved. Why do you persist in your environmental perspective on social ills, an outdated and dead paradigm, at the expense to your public while knowing about and censoring Hypoism? There is something deeply wrong at the Times. 10/21/00 Rigidity, close-mindedness, discrimination, and exclusion are key elements of fear based groups. Groups like this may produce some good acts, but overall they hurt people deeply at the expense of the members, those who need their help, and society at large. That President Carter chooses to opt out of one of them on principle is an extraordinarily wise and courageous decision. I have experienced the same quandary in my recovery from addiction. Can one change a faith based group with the above characteristics for the better from the inside? My answer was, NO. I had to start a new recovery group, Hypoics Not-Anonymous, that uses the positive aspects of A.A. but absent the above hurtful and outdated characteristics. Recovering people in A.A., including my sponsor, disagree with my decision to oppose A.A. and act from the outside, because of deep seated superstitious fear and lazy inertia. However, for recovery to grow from its the present narrow focus and tenets of A.A., for it to include the rapidly developing neurolobiological basis of the cause of addictions in its medication-free recovery, and to open it to all addictions, making recovery public, inclusive and more effective, my decision will, in the long run, benefit addicts around the world as Carter's decision will benefit protestants and mankind. 10/22/00 The review of the book, Betrayal of Trust, NYT Book Review 10/22/00, reminds me of what is ongoing right here in America with addictions. "That Western medical discipline was widely practiced throughout India, and the Indian Medical Association adhered to scientific traditions that roughly mirrored those professional standards in place in England. But on official, equal footing under Indian law were ayurvedism, homeopathy, yoga, Tibetan treatments, and a host of other health care traditions that viewed the human body and its illnesses in fundamentally different, usually spiritual, ways." In theory, practice, and policy, addiction in America fits the latter description rather than the former. This is why addictions are such a mess today right here at home. My book, Hypoic's Handbook, uses the paradigmatic problems of antibiotic resistance and emergence of "superbugs" as being emblematic of the deeper problems in the current addiction paradigm which have resulted in the drug war, ineffective and superstitious treatments, and criminalization and widespread abuse of addicts as viewed incorrectly from the perspective of this nonsensical paradigm, much like the superstitious medicine in India. I have written the book to highlight the case for this nonsense occurring right here in the USA, why look to India? A much better story is happening right here, right now. The "experts" we have entrusted to decipher addictions here are betraying us in exactly the same way, from NIDA and NIAAA to ASAM, APA, and the rest of the pseudoscientific groups of psychology and psychiatry dealing with addictions. The problem is that the superstition and pseudoscience Laurie Garrett showcases as the cause of the betrayal of India's patients, is the same kind of erroneous nonsense that is believed to be true about addictions in this country. So, we all sit back and watch the addiction epidemic unfold here thinking someone is actually doing something about it, while they're just bamboozling us while we blame the addicts instead of the "experts." |
|
||||||
You can take the addiction out of the hypoic, but you can't take the Hypoism out of the addict.
