Letter to the Editor
A few weeks ago, I read an opinion piece in the Baltimore Sun titled "'Parity'Through The Back Door" by Richard Vatz, of Towson University, and Jeffrey Schaler, of American University. It enraged me so much that I felt obligated to write a response in the form of a letter to the editor. Below is what I wrote:
After years of breakthroughs in the realm of understanding addiction and the treatment of it, it is appalling to see that a trained psychologists could be so easily dismissive and patently wrong about the nature of addiction and its treatment ("Parity through the back door," Oct. 23).I hope that if you are considering attending American University, particularly to major in anything within the School of Public Affairs, you seriously consider whether a department that would hire someone with such misguided views is right for you. If you do decide to attend American, I would ask that you refuse to take any classes offered by Prof. Schaler.I worry that a reader of the Sun will see this editorial written by Robert Vatz, a professor of psychology, and Jeffrey Schaler, a psychologist, and take it as gospel. Addicts and those who treat them already must counter the misguided opinion that addiction is a choice. Far from being "behavioral choices," as Schaler and Vatz call them, addictions are the hijacking of personal choice. Mountains of evidence -- from Dr. James Milam's "the Alcoholism Revolution," to Dr. Robert DuPont's "The Selfish Brain: Learning from Addiction," to Milam's and Katherine Ketcham's "Under the Influence" and Ketcham's and William Asbury's "Beyond the Influence" to hundreds upon hundreds of other texts and studies -- confirm that addiction is a disease that requires treatment. As such, it warrants insurance coverage equal to that of physical conditions.
Furthermore, even if addiction begins with a person's own volition, it hardly means the treatment of addiction shouldn't receive health insurance coverage. Schaler and Vatz's example that illness such as cancer, heart disease of diabetes should receive insurance coverage because people cannot "will their onset" is silly. Should people not receive insurance coverage if they contract cancer through smoking, or have heart disease or diabetes because of a bad diet and lack of exercise?
Schaler and Vatz are also misguided when they identify stigma as a "marvelous negative reinforcer for undesired behavior." Stigma associated with addiction and mental illness creates shame, which can create a cycle in which an addict returns to their drug of choice or prevent a person from seeking treatment. Thousands upon thousands of Americans go without mental health treatment that could result in healthier, more productive lives for fear of being seen as weak. The further barrier of lack of insurance access need not be there.
Finally, that Mr. Schaler is employed by the university at which I am pursuing a graduate degree makes me embarrassed to attend American University. It is of note that it is not the Department of Psychology, but rather the School of Public Affairs that employs Mr. Schaler; I would hope that the psychology department is smart enough to realize the danger of his opinions.
24 comments:
Addiction is a choice buddy
The disease concept is false and shaky and tenuous at best.
Haven't you done your research?
Addiction and alcoholism are behavioural in nature, sure addiction may change the structure of the brain once you are advanced. but it still doesn't take away the addicts complete control to stop when they want to and to even budget out their drug of choice so they have enough for tomorrow or a rainy day.
Ppl like you disseminating this ignorance and misinformation are doing a great disservice to the whole addiction field..
Kind regards
~angelbrite~
The field of addiction research has come so far.
Yet, it's comments like this that prove just how much further we must go to eliminate ignorance and the stigma.
The disease concept is accepted by every reputable researcher in the addiction field.
Most people who feel it's a choice think about the addicts first experience with a drug and say, "They had a choice to either do or not do that drug." The problem with that belief is that the "choice" has already been made for the addict; external forces -- such as abuse, mental health issues, etc. -- have already worked upon the addict. The only "choice" remaining is which drug or thing to which they'll become addicted.
We must eliminate the false belief that addiction is a choice; rather, the truth is that addiction is the hijacking of choice -- it robs an addict of free will, and that free will had already started to erode long before the addict ever found his/her drug of choice.
Uh no... The disease/powerlessness concept robs the addict of choice and it is self defeating and also adds to the stigma so prevalent still in our society surrounding addiction.
Scientifically the contention that addiction is a disease is empirically unsupported. The person we call an addict or an alcoholic always moderates their consumption in relation to relevant circumstances. This is not to say that their conduct is at all wise simply that they are in control of what they are doing.
There is no theoretical obstacle to acknowledging the fact that thoughts, desires, values and other mental phenomena can dominate bodily functions. Show me a research study that proves otherwise?
To deny people’s regularly demonstrated ability to reduce or cease self-debilitating/destructive behaviours no matter how powerfully embedded in their lives is to minimise the opportunity and the power of humans to change their smoking, drinking, drug use and so on.
Name these reputable researchers that supposedly research the disease theory and prove that it is indeed a valid concept.
At no point in my active addiction with meth, pot, pills and alcohol did I ever lose the power of choice to suggest otherwise is absolutely ludicrous...
Now the ball is in your court good Sir
Kind regards
~angelbrite~
\P.s and how bout sending me an email with your address on it!! LOL
It seems to me as if you and I are coming to the same conclusion via different paths. Whereas I -- and every reputable addiction specialist, treatment center, psychiatrist and therapist -- believe that labeling addiction as a disease eliminates the stigma and allows the addict access to treatment by eliminating the shame of identifying oneself as an addict. Furthermore, eliminating said stigma opens up insurance coverage, without which most people would not have the ability to afford treatment.
My concern with your method is that too many addicts already think, "If I was just stronger ..." or "If I just had more willpower ...," and, inevitably, fail to stop, further pushing them into the cycle of shame. While I'm assuming it has worked for you -- and my applause and congratulations for that -- I don't think it will work for most addicts. Pulling oneself up from their bootstraps is a nice concept, but it's one that most addicts falsely believe -- they think that they're "strong enough" to maintain an addiction and a normal life and that they can "quit anytime they want." But yet most don't.
I can't send you an email with my address on it -- these messages are automatically forwarded to you via blogger.
Also, I mentioned the research in the article:
Mountains of evidence -- from Dr. James Milam's "the Alcoholism Revolution," to Dr. Robert DuPont's "The Selfish Brain: Learning from Addiction," to Milam's and Katherine Ketcham's "Under the Influence" and Ketcham's and William Asbury's "Beyond the Influence" to hundreds upon hundreds of other texts and studies -- confirm that addiction is a disease that requires treatment.
That, and 23 years of my own "research."
"This conformity make them not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars. Their every truth is not quite true… so that every word they say chagrins us and we know not where to begin to set them right." -Emerson
Ooh puhlease I asked you for credible research material, I meant material that is empirically supported scientifically wise. What you gave me was two authors that were from the same treatment centre site Lakeside Recovery Rehab or some such thing. The others say things like alcoholism can never be cured and an alcoholic can never return to drinking and then one other actually advocates for the drug war and you give these clowns to me as credible evidence? Don’t make me laugh. I would much prefer to take your 23 years of ‘research’ over their garbled nonsense. Not in one of the names that you gave me did I find any scientific evidence/no graphs/no annotations to look up, nada, zilch! One or two of the authors that you purport to believe in so much don’t even have any material available for the general public instead we are urged to buy their books at every web site we go to.
They only serve to perpetuate myths that have clearly been proven false based upon the vast amount of research that has been done in the field of substance abuse. I am sure that you operate only out of the best motives but we have all heard that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
The disease model of addiction is intellectually sloppy and unscientific. This model does much more harm than good because it undermines peoples' feelings of self control.
Here are its basic premises: Addicts inherit the disease of addiction. They are born with this disease and are therefore already addicts long before they ever use drugs. Their disease is characterised by loss of control and progression. In other words, addicts can never control their drug use and their disease inevitably gets worse and worse. Their only hope is to remain completely abstinent from all drugs and become a lifelong member of a twelve-step support group. I did not make up this definition of the disease concept; I took it from the book of Narcotics Anonymous.
Counsellors, AA members, and other disease proponents often talk about inheriting "the gene for alcoholism."
These genes have never been found (although a lot of time and money has been spent looking for them). Most researchers, in fact, agree that it is highly unlikely that any such genes exist. A study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association(JAMA) on April 18, 1990, linking alcoholism to a specific gene. The study was accompanied by press releases, news conferences, and interviews with the researchers. Eight months later another study was published in JAMA that reported a lack of association between alcoholism and this gene (the dopamine D2 receptor gene). Of course this study was not publicised like the original study and most people never heard of it. They still believe that the alcoholism gene has been found.
All scientific attempts to define an addict have failed because the concept itself is fundamentally flawed. Whatever happened to choice, responsibility, and the ability to control your own actions? If your beliefs are based on those names you gave me then I am sorry Sir but you are a danger to everyone who comes to your site and swallows your theories whole.
Kind regards
~angelbrite~
P.S are you going to let this comment through?
Of course I'll let the comment through. Only through dialogue can we eliminate the ignorance that exists out there, ignorance you exemplify.
Not two days ago researchers identified a gene associated with cocaine use: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4792618.stm
Furthermore, I don't necessarily believe you are born with an addiction. Instead, outside factors contribute to a predilection toward it. Just as cigaratte smoke contributes to lung cancer, abuse or other mental traumas contribute to the disease of addiction.
Despite the hammer of hard research hitting ignoramuses such as yourself in the head over and over and over and over and over, the "choice" model still rears it's ugly head. It's sad, really. I'm sure you still believe in creationism, too.
Also, I forgot to mention: I have the advantage in this argument, because this is the direction addiction treatment is going. What with the mental health parity law and advocacy organizations pushing for the disease model, it's inevitable. I just hate to see people suffer because of unneeded stigma associated with false "choice" premises.
What you are talking about is a new science, not enough has been documented or replicated to have any established scientific merit.
I can see you are feeling touchy so this shall be my last post to you for now. I read a thousand emails in a week about addiction being a disease ~ it not being a disease, the stigma of addiction and 12 step programs and mental illness. I do for the addiction and dual diagnosis group that I run.
A predilection towards addiction is one thing ~ having no choice and no control but to give in to what are I know incredibly powerful compulsions suggests nothing but defeat and powerlessness. I ask you again what ever happened to free will, the power of choice and the responsibility for one’s actions?
You may throw ad hominems out there to me all you want. It is not going to distract me from that task at hand and that is to demonstrate to everyone who may come to your narrow-minded and ignorant little blog how you are perpetuating the stigma against all addicts and alcoholics...
You appear to fail to realise that stigma is the main barrier to recovery for addicts. Addicts are out there dying because they feel they have an incurable disease that is progressive, one they will only ever be rid of by constant self examination, and submission to a 12 Step program.
Just like diabetes or kidney stones right? WRONG.. They are all psychical diseases. Addiction is committed through action, through behaviour. When a person dies the coroner will find obvious symptoms of disease, but oh wait hang on, that’s right they can find no signs of this disease we call addiction. I wonder why that is?
The creationism comment seemed beneath you at first. But when I consider all the evidence that has been presented to date I understand that you are on shaky ground and feel the need to try and belittle me.
Like I said save the insults, stick to the debate and the free exchange of ideas. Knowledge is power is it not? Does it really hurt to have an open mind to what I am saying when it has been pertinent to the scientific community for years and is also just basic common-sense.
Kind regards
~angelbrite~
Calling you ignorant is not an ad hominem attack. You _are_ ignorant to all the research and the prevailing view of addiction researchers and those who treat addicts.
I'm not perpetuating stigma toward addicts, I'm promoting treatment. No one is ashamed to receive treatment for cancer because it's a disease. Then why are people afraid to receive treatment for addiction? Because people, like you, who say it is a choice; like it's some some of moral failing or lack of willpower.
The creationism comment goes toward your ignorance. There's a MOUNTAIN of research proving the disease model, yet there you are, with your head in the sand. You can ignore it all you want; you can scream your brains out that it's a "choice," but yet this is the direction that treatment is going.
I do have an open mind. I've read the research. I've experienced it first hand. And, given all that, I've decided -- like the prevailing majority of addiction specialists, treatment centers, psychiatrists and researchers -- that the disease model is correct.
No one is saying that addiction is incurable. It's as curable as any other disease. Your use of the word "stigma" is incorrect; stigma connotes that someone is ashamed to receive treatment. Why would someone be ashamed of being treated for a disease? They wouldn't, except for people out there who make it seem like they're weaker for having "chosen" their addiction.
I pray for the addicts you counsel. I hope they realize that they can be cured and that when they do struggle to stop, it's not through some moral failing or wrong choice. It's because their brain chemistry has been altered.
You say you'll stop commenting; I hope it's because you realize that your opinion on "choice" is wrong. Stop the shaming of addicts. Please.
"The disease concept is accepted by every reputable researcher in the addiction field."
Obviously not "every reputable researcher" or people wouldn't be listening to Jeffrey A. Schaler. Or Robert Vatz, or Stanton Peele or Thomas S. Szasz or any number of others in the field who do not believe in the disease theory.
The first person in the US who declared it a disease was Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Of course he also thought being black was the disease of "negroidism".
The idea that alcoholism was a disease was popularized by Alcoholics Anonymous even though Bill Wilson used "illness" or "malady" as a metaphor and admitted that he did not believe it to be a disease. Marty Mann (a PR woman) and E.M. Jellinek (google "Jellinek's Phantom Doctorate") joined forces and in 1944, started the National Committee for Education on Alcoholism for the sole purpose of spreading the word of AA and the disease conception of alcoholism. They convinced the AMA to vote on whether alcoholism was a disease or not. In order to get paid for treating alcoholism, more doctors voted for disease than against; that's how alcoholism became a disease.
People have been trying to prove (unsuccessfully, so far) that alcoholism is a disease since the forties. It has only been in the last 25 years that the definition of "disease" has changed and a case for disease might be made for the self-replicating changes in the brain fitting one of the definitions of "disease".
"What with the mental health parity law and advocacy organizations pushing for the disease model, it's inevitable."
This was a economic/political decision, not a scientific one.
You'll notice I said "reputable." Jeffrey Schaler is NOT a reputable researcher. There's a reason American does not employ him in the psychology department; he works in the department of law and social justice. There's a reason Schaler, Vatz, Peele and Szasz are regularly laughed at by respected members of the psychology and research field. I can only speak on Schaler, because I only researched him because of this letter and my attendance at AU, but the reason he is so well-quoted is because he is one of the few people with a contrarian view on the disease model. When a reporter tries to get the other side of the story on the disease model, he/she must find someone that doesn't believe in the disease model. There are only a few choices, and Schaler is one of the bigger blowhards, so they generally pick him. His career continues for two reasons -- because many people out there WANT to continue to believe the "addiction as a choice" theory -- IMO because they're afraid of becoming addicts and they want to think of themselves as "strong" enough to avoid it -- and because he's sensationalist. Substance is not one of his strengths.
Rush did not declare it a "disease," but rather was the first to call it an "addiction." Dr. Thomas Trotter, a medical physician, was the first to call it a disease.
The mental health parity law WAS a political one. Absolutely. However, it was based on mountains of evidence from the majority of the psychology, psychiatry, addiction treatment and research fields. Fancy that -- the politicians referred to the experts for their knowledge on the matter and they didn't consult Schaler, Vatz et al.
I'm not sure where you got the "economic" part -- adding premiums is not exactly economical. CBO estimates a +/- 1% increase in premiums, on average. Not a lot, but certainly not a way to save money. Still, paying an extra 1% to eliminate the discrimination that people with mental health issues have faced is negligible.
I said that Dr. Rush was the first "IN THE US". He declared "chronic drunkenness" a disease in "Inquiry into the Effects of Ardent Spirits upon the Human Body and Mind". Thomas Trotter was a British Royal Navy physician.
There has been changes made in the definition of "disease" in the last 70 years, under some definitions involving neurotransmitters, a case could be made for disease, but these were not known back in the early days of AA or when Mann and Jellinek sold the AMA on the disease theory..
When the AMA declared alcoholism to be a disease in 1957, it was the only disease that had to be voted on. The arguments for were based on economics, not empirical evidence, they wanted to get paid for treating alcoholism and calling it a disease made it easily billable.
"A recent Gallop poll found that almost 90 percent of Americans believe that alcoholism is a disease. In contrast, physicians’ views of alcoholism were reviewed at an August 1997 conference held by the International Doctors of Alcoholics Anonymous (IDAA). A survey of physicians reported at that conference found that 80 percent of responding doctors perceived alcoholism as simply bad behavior." Thomas R. Hobbs, Ph.D., M.D., medical director of the Physicians’ Health Programs (PHP)
If it is a medical disease, then why is the treatment for it faith healing? A common joke told in rehabs is about people who spend thousands of dollars to learn to go to free AA meetings. AA has been declared "religious in nature" by three Federal District Courts and two State Courts.
The "disease vs choice" debate is a smokescreen that the current treatment industry uses to distract people from the real issue, which is that what they are doing now, 12step treatment, does not work. They used addiction as a disease to thwart insurance companies by piggy-backing the Mental Health Parity Bill which was tacked onto the bailout.
The new mental health parity bill's main difference with the Mental Health parity bill of 1996 is that this one includes drug and alcohol treatment. Sounds great, but what they have done is guaranteed financing for the existing treatment method, the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. Insurance companies were refusing to pay for treatment, usually repeated treatment that has such a low success rate. What this is going to end up doing is driving up insurance costs for EVERYBODY while delivering a success rate no better than no treatment at all. Insurance companies are in business to make money and resent throwing money away. One of the many reasons that 12step treatment doesn't work is because it is primarily mandated treatment for a lot of folks have no desire to stop.
This will take more money away from real mental health treatment. This bill does not benefit people with mental illness as much as the bill of 1996 did, this bill is to save the flagging substance abuse industry.
"CBO estimates a +/- 1% increase in premiums, on average...."
Sorry, at this time, I don't find the Congressional Budget Office's estimates reliable.
As long as alcoholism is considered a disease, it should be treated MEDICALLY and through EDUCATION, not with 12step faith healing.
Stigma is the use of stereotypes and labels when describing someone. Stigma is a mark of shame. Stigma is a harsh reality for people who have addiction or dual diagnosis because it prevents them from enjoying a normal and productive life. The answer lies in education and understanding.
The key point, though, on an enlightened understanding of the moral dimension of addiction, is that it is specific behaviour that's the potential target of sanctions, not the mythical moral core. Once bad choices are seen as outcomes of causes and conditions, not free will, then we won't imagine that there's any virtue in the blanket condemnation of the addict as a bad person, even though we must still judge some behaviour as wrong.
We replace the moral essentialism of the soul with the moral consequentialism of making sanctions contingent on particular choices.
A better approach would acknowledge that addiction is not a disease, but rather a bio-behavioural disorder involving persons who, although gripped by strong desires, remain rational for many, if not most, of their waking hours.
The neural reward system in the "old brain," modified by repeated exposure to drugs, certainly drives behaviour, but higher level cortical processes involved in decision making and choice still exist.
This means that addictive behaviour has a significant voluntary component, and is sensitive to foreseeable consequences. Addicts anticipating the agonies of withdrawal can and will tailor their actions to suit the exigencies of the moment, including selling drugs to support a habit or hiding bottles to avoid detection. As clinicians will testify, some addicts make the best of their misery with considerable ingenuity.
Today, the AA-modified disease modal represents the dominant American conception of alcoholism, and public opinion polls indicate that about 90% of Americans accept the view that alcoholism is an illness that must be treated medically.
Issues of drug use and other excessive behaviour have always been morally tinged, just as models about these things have from the beginning of scientific theorizing about them been heavily influenced by politics and social conceptions.
Now, as much as or more than ever, the science of addictionology has become a political, economic, and religious tool. We feel confident that we long ago left behind the era where Galileo could be persecuted for maintaining empirically based but unpopular conceptions of the universe. Yet, we have progressed in some ways remarkably little from Galileo's time in the sense that what is declared scientifically "true" depends primarily on popular opinion. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of addiction, an area that touches our deepest fears about our ability to manage ourselves, our children, and our society.
Kind regards
~angelbrite~
When I first got to AA I was taught that I was powerless over my addiction and that I had a disease.
What great excuses for relapse. I went around telling people that I had a disease while drinking like a fish for years. Also got to pass some blame unto my family since it's genetic too.
Powerlessness and the disease theory are a set up for the religious message of AA. "Of course you can't do anything about it, only God can, may you find him now."
It wasn't until I took responsibility for my addiction that I could take responsibility for my recovery.
Just like diabetes or kidney stones right? WRONG.. They are all psychical diseases. Addiction is committed through action, through behaviour. When a person dies the coroner will find obvious symptoms of disease, but oh wait hang on, that’s right they can find no signs of this disease we call addiction. I wonder why that is?
Yes, just like kidney stones and diabetes. Kidney stones can be acquired through excessive intake of certain foods. Diabetes can be caused by poor diet and lack of exercise. When a person with untreated kidney stones or diabetes dies, it is quite evident.
Addiction can be acquired through excessive use of drugs, alcohol, etc. When an addict dies, it is quite evident the ravages of alcohol on their liver and their brain or drugs on their organs and brain.
A better approach would acknowledge that addiction is not a disease, but rather a bio-behavioural disorder ...
That is semantics. And nearly your entire post goes toward my argument. Thank you for doing my work for me.
Stigma prevents treatment.
Here is a list of addiction for you
Now read these and tell me why and how the disease concept/theory can explain each and every one.
# Alcohol Addiction (alcoholism)
# Drugs, drug addiction, "substance abuse"
# Cigarettes, nicotine
# People addiction (so-called co-dependency).
# Compulsive overeating, food addiction
# Bulimia, Anorexia
# Self-mutilation, Hair pulling
# Narcissism, Body Dismorphic Disorder (BDD)
# Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
# Exercise addiction, body building addiction, anabolic steroid addiction
# Sex addiction, voyeurism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, etc.
# Gambling addiction, games
# Money addiction
# Work addiction (workaholism), hobbies
# Power: Military, police, politicians, Mafioso, religion addiction, cult and gang leaders, correction and probation officers, gurus
# Shopping addiction, collecting addiction
# Comedy, acting, performing
# Theft, vandalism, con-men, compulsive and impulsive lying, image (phonies)
# Violence addiction
# Hate addiction
# Religions addiction, cults, superstitions, self-help addiction, and gangs
# Racism
# Risk taking addiction
# Internet addiction
From our friend angelbrite comes a long and confusing missive seemingly copied from somewhere on the internet. In short, it's an interview with a poorly prepared addictionologist by someone seeking to make him look like an idiot. I chose not to publish the comment mostly because it's long, poorly edited and nonsensical.
Some highlights (Keep in mind that I edited heavily because it was nearly unreadable):
QUESTION:OK, but before I ask you further questions about addictions, let me ask you some simpler questions. Is the earth flat or round?
ANSWER: Round, of course.
QUESTION: It actually is spherical. But, can you prove this?
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: Does the sun go around the earth or earth around the sun?
ANSWER: The earth goes around the sun.
QUESTION: Can you prove that?
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: How old is the earth?
ANSWER: 4 billion years old.
QUESTION: Can you prove that?
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: Is there a God?
ANSWER: Of course, yes.
QUESTION: Can you prove that?
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: You have never THOUGHT critically about these things. How is it that you know these things?
ANSWER: They are what I believe and what experts whom I believe have told me.
If I'm not mistaken, which of course, I could be, I think angelbrite is attempting to say that addictionologists can't prove that addiction is a disease.
Ah, of course. Let's ignore the experts. They know nothing of which they speak. That's the ticket! Bury our heads in the sand! Do not go forth and attempt to make life better, because for all we know, we're wrong -- despite all evidence to the contrary!
But, let's be honest: all this really proves is that addictionologists can't prove that the world is round, how old it is or whether there is a God. I wouldn't expect an addictionologist to prove that. That's like saying a guy who installs tires can't prove that a 4-3 defense in football is superior to a 3-4 defense. Why would he be able to? It's not his field of expertise. But I bet you he can prove that radial tires last longer than performance tires.
It does end like this:
That this is the most complex disease in all of medicine and is confounded by the most superstition, pseudo-science and misconceptions is the cause of past perspective problems.
Finally, an admission from angelbrite: It is a complex disease.
WHAT OTHER DISEASE……?
What other disease…..
Was headway begun by a recovering stockbroker rather than a doctor?
Took 65 years for the medical establishment to catch up to where he began?
Will take another 65 years, if ever, for the medical establishment to get it right?
Are the recovering patients hamstrung, passive and kept ignorant about their disease by fear of relapse imposed by their guru or punishment by the public and public agencies?
Is physical and mental punishment and incarceration believed and used to enhance recovery?
Are the non-recovering or relapsing patients ruled by the criminal justice system?
Are the doctors directed by the government rather than by their scientific integrity?
Are the advocates for the patient’s lawyers who are paid by "treatment" providers rather than doctors or the patients themselves?
Have corporations, lawyers, judges, and prosecutors fighting over control of the patients, seen as commodities rather than people?
Where the patients have no advocacy group run by themselves for their own sake?
Is the primary basis for recovery thought to be a belief in God or other superstition?
Are the symptoms of the disease misbelieved to be primary diseases in themselves?
Is the actual disease unknown to both the doctors and patients because of unfounded beliefs and intellectual and moral bias?
Is pseudo-science and morality ruling the medical paradigm?
Is scientific integrity absent?
Does a dead guru continue to run the only barely successful recovery program from the grave?
Is the recommended treatment not based on a single scientifically valid study or on a scientifically valid paradigm?
Is the recommended treatment based, rather, on a superstitious methodology designed 65 years ago by a recovering stockbroker and currently ruled by previously unsuccessful psychiatrists, social workers, bureaucrats, and politicians?
Where public attitudes are based on fear, hate, prejudice, bias, morality, and ignorance?
Where the only sensible, valid, and testable scientific paradigm is ignored by the medical, scientific, political, and media communities?
Are addictive and/or disabling medications used to treat its symptoms?
Are public opinions used and thought to be valid criteria to dictate disease related policies?
Are the people with the disease totally uninterested in the actual basis and principles of their disease?
Why is that?
Kind regards
~angelbrite~
Re: the list of addictions.
Easy: dopamine.
Addictions activate a single circuit for pleasure deep in the brain. This circuit, for the neurotransmitter dopamine, is the site of the high that substance/thing/action bring. Repeatedly dosing the brain with addictions alters the structure of the neurons in the circuitry for pleasure. These changes starve brain cells of dopamine, triggering a craving for the substance/thing/action that will once again swamp the brain with it.
Re: WHAT OTHER DISEASE ...?
I've done well to publish your comments. But if they continue to be things you merely copy & paste from an internet search, I'll stop publishing them.
Furthermore, most of the questions in your list further confirm my argument.
Thanks again.
You are an arrogant S.O.B with an ego the size of a hot air balloon.'
I no longer with to continue this discourse with you either. It is getting us no where and I cannot stand being around someone so brutally ignorant for one more second.
So its goodbye from me. Have a nice life and all that good stuff won't you!
Kind regards
~angelbrite~
Re: 'hot air balloon'
Posting and defending my opinions -- based on years of scientific research and the belief of hordes of experts -- on my own web site suddenly makes me an 'arrogant S.O.B with an ego the size of a hot air balloon.'
Post a Comment