|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
7/14/00 Re: Learning to Say 'I've Had Enough' By SALLY L. SATEL. Please already! This is a very dangerous op-ed article from an "expert" who is frightfully ignorant about the nature of addiction. A drug pusher (methadone) advising moderation drinking for problem drinkers who think they're not alcoholics and want to keep drinking? Is drinking alcohol so important to her that she risks more deadly DWI's and other disasters? No addict "wants" to stop using their addiction(s). No addict wants to perceive him/herself an addict. So what? No cancer victim wants to have cancer either. Is that any reason to offer more cancer as an alternative to cancer cure? Let's start advising diabetics that they may not need perfect glucose regulation, but only as much as they desire. We will utilize doctors only for writing prescriptions or doing operations the patients decide they need and want. Let's have patients run their own recoveries. No other area of medicine is advice as irresponsible as Satel's used except for addictionology. This op-ed piece just shows how deeply ignorant some psychiatrists and the field of addictionology, for that matter, are about addictions. Satel has no clue about the pathophysiology, the medical basis for understanding any medical disease, of addiction, nor its consequences. Things she and the rest of addictionolgy don't know about addiction are: 1) The addiction is not "the" or "a" disease, but a symptom of an underlying neurobiological mechanism (disease if you will) that causes addiction only in those people who have the prerequisite genetically determined mechanism. 2) This disease also causes other damaging symptoms such as disastrous decisions in all areas of the person's life and evaluation mistakes that lead to more disasters down the road. 3) Abstinence doesn't cure addictions, but is necessary for recovery from the underlying disease, Hypoism, to begin. 4) In the absense of recovery from the underlying brain disease, abstinence from one addiction is often replaced with another addiction. 5) The recovery from the disease deals not just with the addictions but also these other life problem areas (for example, the hypoic John Kennedy Jr.'s evaluation of the dangerousness of the weather forecast and his decision to fly to Martha's Vinyard). These other disease manifestations are often more harmful than the addictions which are frequently unknown to the hypoic. The list of things they don't know about addictions is endless. The fact is that Satel's advise and opinions come from a paradigm of addictions and its believers, psychiatrists and others, that is currently believed by practically all of addictionology and is completely wrong much like the Miasma paradigm of infectious diseases before bacteria were discovered. Before realistic advise can exist for addicts we must develope the correct paradigm of drug use and addictions. 7/18/00 The mainstay theory of addiction, though not proven in any form, is Alan Leshner's (Chief of NIDA) hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH). This theory is used by many professional addiction groups including the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) as the basis for their treatments and policies. It was also used as the paradigm for Bill Moyers PBS special series on addictions. This theory basically says that the first use of an addictive drug is voluntary, the drug changes the user's brain, and addiction to that drug then follows. This theory has been discounted and debunked by many studies including ones occurring in nature, such as the Vietnam War drug experience and countless animal addiction studies. Now, another epidemiologic study, Pain Treatment and Drug Abuse, Apparently Unconnected, reported in the NY Times, 7/18/00, shows again this paradigm is bogus. There even was an inverse relationship between medical opiate use and addiction. Yet, the HBH persists, not for scientific reasons, but for ideological ones, while the real addiction paradigm is ignored and censored because it doesn't lead to the policies and treatments addictionology desires. In medicine, we call this lack of integrity. On the street we call it lying. This disconnect between reality and theory is rampant in addictionology because the field has been bought and sold by the government, pharmaceutical companies, and rehab industry, and its practitioners make a living from maintaining this bogus paradigm and its (non)therapeutic implications. Even the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, purported to be an advocate for addicts, acquiesces to this wrong and damaging addiction model for its own need to be accepted by the experts, right or wrong, good or bad for addicts. Despite information disproving their pet theory, the field will never change itself. It must be changed from the outside by people armed with the correct information and a desire for the truth. Anyone out there? 7/25/00 There's something deeply wrong with, Anorexia Can Strike Boys, Too, NY Times, 7/25/00. The author, a physician, states, "Thanks to a better understanding of anorexia and other eating disorders, early recognition and concerted efforts by physicians, mental health professionals and -- most important -- family members, this deadly disorder can be conquered." What exactly is this better understanding? If this were the case, why did the boy die? If fact, there is no understanding whatsoever of anorexia or other eating disorders. In fact, family members are the last ones who should be involved with their offspring's anorexia, a general principle in addiction recovery. Psychiatrists have misinterpreted anorexia as they have most psychiatric illnesses, and more specifically, addictions, for as long I have been involved in medicine, 32 years. According to my neurobiological paradigm of addiction, diametrically opposed to the current held paradigm, (addictions are to neurotransmitter substitutes [exogenous neurotransmitters] and instincts [intrinsic neurotransmitters] in people with in-born neurotransmitter deficiencies), anorexia is an addiction to self-punishment, the ostracism instinct, much like self-mutilation, known to be associated with serotonin and possibly other neurotransmitter deficiencies. Treated as something that needs to be "conquered" rather than surrendered, as all addictions must be, addicts die by the carload. The author, believing and promoting the wrong addiction paradigm, the one currently believed by practically all addictionologists and psychiatrists, and consistently wrong about psychiatric etiologies for time immemorial, would better serve the public by admitting he and his field knows absolutely nothing meaningful or helpful about anorexia and other seemingly self-destructive compulsive behaviors. At least then, we could have an open-minded discourse that would have the potential to discover the true etiology and best recoveries for these confusing and deadly misunderstood maladies, symptoms of an underlying neurobiology rather than specific diseases themselves. I may be wrong, but my hypothesized paradigm, unlike theirs, is based on neurobiology rather than psychobabble, and deserves to be explored, unless, of course, it is more important to follow "experts" blindly than to discover the reality of at least 50 deadly and misunderstood addictions of all sorts. 7/26/00 Sudden Exit as Clinic Chief Sends Addiction Specialist Reeling, NY Times, 7/26/00, demonstrates one thing only: that when the paradigm is wrong, all kinds of nonsensical policy opinions are considered equally valid, and doing the right thing for the wrong reason is just as damaging as doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. Although abstinence in substance addictions is definitely a prerequisite for real and safe recovery, the critical issue is WHY (the correct addiction paradigm) this is so. Currently, no one comprehends the WHY of this, so irrelevant "debate" continues about the necessity for abstinence and all other aspects of addictions. When the paradigm is wrong, as is the case today in addictionology, everything derived from it is wrong even if right by chance. This principle holds as well in medicine as it does in politics. While this ignorance based debate rages, addicts of all kinds suffer from the lack of a valid addiction paradigm, something I've been writing you about for years. The debate, instead, needs to be on the validity of the paradigms on which these "experts" are basing their arguments and policies. Smithers' paradigm is as wrong as DeLuca's, so it doesn't really matter what their opinions are on abstinence, a policy that is derived from the paradigm that they use to envision all aspects of all addictions. Let's get the debate centered on the paradigm behind addictions rather than on specifics that are derived from these paradigms. Only then can valid and helpful policies be forthcoming. 7/26/00 Clinton Ends Peace Summit Saying It Is Deadlocked, NY Times, 7/26/00, says nothing about the middle east that it doesn't say about our collective lack of wisdom concerning human nature. As long as humans act instinctively on their incorrect beliefs about themselves and others, conflicts of all kinds will continue to rob us of real human gains. I am personally not a religious person so the two quotes below are not to be taken as religious ones. "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us," means changing our beliefs about ourselves and others so we won't have to continue to make the same damaging mistakes (trespasses) over and over again - true forgiveness. Here's my suggestion for the middle east (and for everybody, for that matter): Dump the beliefs that differentiate you all and maintain the hate, start believing you are all similarly humans rather than israelis or palestinians, dump (forgive) the past mistakes both of you (and everyone else) have made based on the later distinctions, keep your differing beliefs in the private realm where all beliefs belong, and start living in the present. "Turn the other cheek," doesn't mean presenting your enemy the other side of your face to be hit. It means to present to them a change in your beliefs (the correct one) about them and yourself, a counterinstinctive belief rather than an instinctive one. If you can't figure out the correct beliefs, pray for the correct belief and don't act (truce) until you discover it. Don't hesitate to ask for help from a source of wisdom having no conflict of interest. See if this wisdom doesn't produce the effects you're all after. I believe it works for all conflicts, for all "different" people. 7/29/00 The first sentence of Mr. Lewis' article sows the seed of the mistake we are making with the burgeoning drug war. The seed is the word democracy, which we are not. In a true democracy the populous is educated, intelligent, thinks critically, and is not afraid of authority. No matter how we perceive ourselves, we are not a democracy but are instead living in the dark ages under the rule of the church (current addictionology), at least in regards to human drug use and addiction. The drug war is a symptom of our collective ignorance and superstiousness on this issue. It is a repeat of the prohibition of alcohol, and based on the same ignorance and wrong paradigm. As was the case then, the anti-drug war folks are just as ignorant on this issue as are the pro forces. We are currently having a typical emotion-driven and polarized (not rational in the least) debate based on the wrong paradigm of human drug use, and, thus, both sides, as seemingly rational as they believe themselves to be, are wrong. This debate, silent or vociferous, will come to the same kind of results, bad policy. I explain this in the article #4. The Drug War War found at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/articlesbyandforhypoicspage2/ Neither side of this debate seems interested in critically evaluating their underlying paradigms, only arguing their policies. Much heat but no light. This is the history of this debate over time immemorial. As much as Mr. Lewis, Ms. Huffington, and Mr. Soros desire to make changes in this arena, the problem will only get worse, as it has despite their efforts over many years, until they first, critically evaluate, and second, replace the underlying paradigms behind their beliefs with the actual and correct paradigm of human drug use and addiction, whatever the correct paradigm turns out to be. The correct paradigm, the one that will solve all these problems when accepted, exists, in my opinion, but is being ignored by all sides for many irrational and desperate reasons. Only under this paradigm's influence can truly RATIONAL debate and policy ensue. This principle, right paradigm-right policy, is always true, irrespective of the issue, in medicine, rocket science or politics. 8/2/00 In New Drug Battle, Use of Ecstasy Among Young Soars, NYT 8/2/00, an article that could have been written 50 years ago about marijuana, heroin, or cocaine, shows one thing for sure: there are brains out there that, under the current drug use and addiction paradigm, will seek out drugs and use them. In fact, it is the current drug use and addiction paradigm itself that ensures these brains will get the drugs they are looking for. Yes, it's a paradox, but it's true. The exact paradigm that is attempting to control drug use is actually ensuring its own failure. Isn't this obvious yet after its clear failure to deal with drug addictions and abuse over the last hundred years? The reason for this is that the paradigm is wrong, and wrong paradigms usually have paradoxical effects. The current incorrect drug paradigm is defined by NIDA and the addictionology medical community, is taught to the public, produces antidrug policy, and causes a paradoxical increase in drug use and complications. The response to such misunderstood and incorrect paradigm paradoxes is to increase promotion of the wrong paradigm, increase funding of this paradigm's paradoxical policies, followed by increased drug use and complications. Then we blame the users? No. If we want to see different results we need to find the correct drug paradigm. That can only be accomplished by critically reviewing the current paradigm for its faults, instead of blindly believing the addiction "experts," and replacing it with the correct paradigm. I have done this in my book. I have developed a replacement paradigm that fits all parameters of clinical drug use and addictions based on real science and insight into the reality of the problem and, it produces the outcomes we all want. Until this critical evaluation is done by someone outside the biased and interest conflicted addiction field, you will continue to publish more similar articles. There are many reasons why the addictionology field hasn't rallied around the Hypoism paradigm. Every one of them involves self-interest and lack of integrity on their part, rather than Hypoism being wrong. We have entrusted our society's faith in addictionology to the wrong people, people who want to be in control instead of people who want to help. 8/3/00 Evolution Foes Dealt a Defeat in Kansas Vote, NYT 8/3/00, shows there is hope for the future of humans on earth, possibly. A parallel to the evolution-creationism debate exists in the field of addictionology which is currently stuck in a concept of addictions based on superstitious belief and personal bias, believed uncritically by the public, as opposed to the purely scientific and evidence-based Hypoism paradigm, and is producing paradoxical results. Hypoism is being ignored, censored, and suppressed over the last 10 years just as opponents to evolution have similarly done over the last 150 years. The outcome of this has been increased addiction related statistics, deaths, incarcerations, accidents, violence, spread of infectious disease, wasted money, destroyed families, etc. Of course, this is to be expected from the wrong paradigm. The paradox of this is, however, that instead of these numbers being used as evidence against the validity of the current paradigm, they are interpreted as our needing to use this paradigm more intensely. LOL! Will it take another 140 years of continued disasters before someone with clout and an open mind such as you examines the current addiction paradigm with a critical mind, realizes its superstitious and faulty basis, and calls for the use of neurobiological science to explain this curious phenomenon od addiction - something Hypoism already does? Why are you ignoring Hypoism? I've been writing to you about it for 7 years. 8/11/00 It Isn't Just a Game: Clues to Avid Rooting. NYT 8/11/00, gives the evolutionary psychological perspective of sports from enjoyment all the way to addiction. (see: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ and http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thirdmilleniumn4aconferencekeynoteaddressonhypoism/) Phrases such as, "sense of community," "increased self-esteem," and, "physiological responses," suggest a deep connection between people "identifying" with sports teams, their brains, emotions, and physiological reactions. The explanation for these neurobiological responses is that there is a human instinct, a built-in mechanism in the brain, making all these neurobiological connections, and stimulated by sports that "feels" as good as sex to some fans, another instinct, although the word instinct is not used in the article. In fact, there is a neurobiological mechanism in the brain that uses all the human instincts, (there are many instincts that all work the same way) for behavioral decision-making (decisions and their resulting behaviors). These instincts are all hooked up to and rewarded by the dopaminergic reward cascade deep in the mesolimbic brain, the "reward system." "For some fans, the emotional roller coaster of watching a game can be addictive," says the author. I've been informing you at the Times for over seven years about this system that modulates human behavior and that, most importantly, result in all the known varieties of addictions, from drugs to behaviors, including the less important but equally as valid addictions sports, sports stars, and celebrities. There is a neurobiological system behind all this, and you have ignored my hundreds of letters about it that explain all addictions and their consequent peculiar behaviors as they all related to the instinct mechanism. People with genetically based critically low activity of the evaluator of this system have Hypoism, are hypoics, and becomes addicts. Nonhypoics enjoy these chemicals and behaviors, hypoics get addicted to them. Addictions all relate to the neurotransmitters of reward and the built-in instinct substrates behind them. Hypoics get addicted to neurotransmitter substitutes (all addicting drugs stimulate the same receptors as do endogenous neurotransmitters) or the actual endogenous neurotransmitters themselves via using and "abusing" the instincts that stimulate these neurotransmitters to be released internally. The importance of public's awareness this concept cannot be underestimated. I think it's time you checked it out and reported on it before millions more Americans get punished for lack of this information. 8/13/00 Re: Mrs. Lieberman's Story, and Others', NYT 8/13/00. What if I told you Mrs. Lieberman, a holocaust survivor, is supporting a worse holocaust in this country unbeknownst to her and her husband? Would you be shocked? Would you ignore it? The German people believed in their leaders' rationalizations during the 30s and 40s. The American people, including Joe and his wife, holocaust victims, likewise blindly believe their leaders, specifically Alan Leshner, chief of NIDA and the architect of the current holocaust. Today's holocaust is based on similar pseudoscience to Hitler's pseudoscience, yet 50 years later intelligent and liberal people such as the Liebermans are unable to see the similarities, both in terms of lousy science and rhetoric. Ideology always produces lousy science and worse policies. The drug war is today's holocaust and is based on the same kind of impossible theoretical paradigm as Hitler's, yet victims of that horrendous genocide are strongly backing today's genocide. Is this a paradox or just another example of how irrational fear, ignorance, and superstition can pervert even the most intelligent minds to act against their own interests? Read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/15replacingalanleshneristheonlywaytoendthedrugwar/ and wake up America. You are the perpetrators. 8/13/00 Re: Science Expands, Religion Contracts, NYT 8/13/00. America is unable to walk and chew gum at the same time. While it is seemingly interested in it's kids getting the right answers about evolution on science tests it isn't interested in using this practical information. A pseudoscience based religion similar to creationism is being taught to our country in all schools and by all media outlets called "The Hijacked Brain Hypothesis (HBH)," dictated by the US government's addiction maven Alan Leshner and uncritically read and believed by the people and media. This paradigm is based on beliefs no different from creationism and is causing as much trouble for our people, no different from when infections were believed to be caused by Miasma. We all think we're beyond believing such nonsense, but it's deja vu all over again. The HBH, the basis for our country's drug policies and the drug war, is creationism disguised as science. Leshner is a priest dressed in scientists clothing. Bad science based on faulty assumptions such as the first assumption of the HBH, "the initial drug use is voluntary," always results in damaging policies especially when that science is driven by ideology rather than on objective observation controlled by the scientific method. This assumption seems so obviously true that no has asked Leshner to prove it. It's no different from, "God created man in his own image." What then follows is dangerous and superstitious nonsense that has been used to kill millions of innocent people throughout history. When will we learn? Read, the following articles on my web site for more info on this: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/15replacingalanleshneristheonlywaytoendthedrugwar/ http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thirdmilleniumn4aconferencekeynoteaddressonhypoism/ http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/articlesbyandforhypoicspage58/ http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/articlesbyandforhypoicspage2/#Evolution 8/15/00 Erica--There are several issues in, Acupuncture Aids Some as Therapy for Cocaine, that need to be addressed. First: The study lasted eight weeks, whereas these people will live scores of years, yet the title of the article states categorical help. Many studies on many medical issues including addictions show hypershort-term benefits while over longer time periods show no difference. Eight weeks is just too short a time period to conclude what they conclude in an addiction that is life-long. This is irresponsible reporting. Additionally, the study needs to be reproduced in other centers before it's reported as something meaningful. Many bogus "successful" treatments turn out to be wrong and useless when studied longer and repeatedly. These kinds of articles lead people to believe incorrect "factoids" for long periods of time resulting in ineffective and damaging treatments that keep addicts away from effective ones. Second: If indeed the mechanism of acupuncture is release of endogenous neurotransmitters, this would merely be trading addictions, and not real recovery which is what is essential for dealing with all addictions. Stopping a drug is not recovery, a concept NIDA ignores because they are only interested in stopping addictions to certain drugs and don't care about the whole person. Thus, the patient is not receiving help at all, much like methadone as "treatment" for heroin addiction, a national disgrace and delusion since it seems better than using heroin on the street but is really a life sentence to nonrecovery. Third: Treating specific addictions (symptoms of the underlying disease causing addictions) is not a substitute for recovery from the actual disease which is not even mentioned in the study or in the paradigm of addictions promulgated by NIDA. Addicts need recovery, not just abstinence from one drug or another. Absence of recovery leads either to relapse, switching addictions, and/or to the occurrence of consequences of the underlying disease unrelated to the specific addictions that then destroy the addict's life insidiously and unrecognizably because NIDA doesn't know about these other damaging symptoms of the same underlying disease that cause the primary addictions. These other manifestations are NEVER studied or discussed because NIDA doesn't recognize an underlying disease causing addictions. This study, I predict, will turn out to be useless over time, as have other studies touting acupuncture as some miracle for addictions. This study is being prematurely published in the press at the behest of NIDA as hype to show they are doing something useful for addictions. In reality, NIDA is unaware of and actively ignoring the concept of an underlying disease causing all addictions and the need for recovery from this disease rather than control of specific addictions because they don't want there to be an underlying disease. That would ruin the dug war. In the meantime, the underlying disease is running rampant among Americans and doing its individual damage unappreciated and untouched except in the rare person who has found real recovery fortuitously. There are many articles that relate to these issues on my web site and in my book. Please take a look at them. This nonsense must stop. 9/4/00 The letters about the drug policy debate, 9/4/00, demonstrate the current absence of understanding that when the paradigm is wrong, the policies based on it are wrong. The second letter requesting more money for after school programs is delusional and typical of the "prevention" approach which misinterprets drug use as a way to kill empty time. This environmentalism belief is nonsense, completely misses the point, and actually, through its ignorance and misappropriation of energy, perpetuates the problem. Addiction is caused by a neurobiological disease unrelated to anything the addict to be does or doesn't do with his/her free time. The first letter is more realistic concerning the disease aspect of addictions but nonetheless expects better treatment to come out of a vacuum. Better treatment will only arise from a better understanding of the etiology of addictions, something that will never happen under the current paradigm of addiction etiology. Better treatment can only come from the correct understanding of addictions, an understanding that is currently being blocked by NIDA and the addictionology community for political, financial, and ideological reasons. The public is unaware of this conspiracy to maintain the status quo in addiction etiology. The real debate that needs to be made public is the etiology debate, the debate concerning the real cause of addictions. See: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/15replacingalanleshneristheonlywaytoendthedrugwar/ Your paper has been printing articles about the drug war and its alternatives for years. Why do you think no effective solution has yet been discovered for the drug problem? It's because of the invalid addiction paradigm believed for too long. See: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/theparadigmvacuuminaddictionstoday/ Until the correct paradigm of addiction is appreciated by NIDA, NIAAA, and addictionology, no progress will be made in policy! |
|
||||||
You can take the addiction out of the hypoic, but you can't take the Hypoism out of the addict.
