|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
THE INESCAPABLE LOGIC OF ANY VALID ADDICTION ETIOLOGICAL PARADIGM Like it or not there’s an inescapable logic to the Hypoism paradigm. You may not like the paradigm or its outcomes, but to dispute it you must dispute the logic, period. Thus, anyone who denies this logic has the responsibility to argue and disprove the following logic, piece by piece. This must be the basis of any debate about the cause of addictions. Using drugs (legal, illegal, and alcohol) as the prototype addictor, the logic is as follows (I footnote individual arguments that need expanding that will appear at the end of the paper):
[i] The heritability argument, including general addictability as well as specific addictor addictions: Heritability is a complex epidemiological genetic concept much misused by the addiction experts. For example: if an epidemiologist studies “alcoholism” in a population and finds 60% heritability, then says “alcoholism is 60% genetic and thus 40% environmental (by default),” this is incorrect. The correct conclusion is really, “alcoholism is at least 60% genetic and the other 40% can still be genetic and/or environmental in etiology,” because if one studies heritability closely one sees that there are many genetic factors and principles left out of this particular epidemiological tool. Proof of an environmental role in the etiology of addictions can’t be derived from heritability studies. And that has been the problem in the past and present in assigning an environmental role in addiction etiology; that it has. Proof that environment has some role in etiology must come from other types of studies. These studies have never been done. Thus, the belief that addictions are caused by both genetics and environmental causes as derived from epidemiological studies is absolutely false and knowingly a lie. There is no proof, yet it is “accepted.” To reiterate: there is plenty of proof that addictions are mostly genetic in etiology but no proof at all that environment has any etiological role. In fact, if you read my book and articles about this stuff you will see that I specifically state that addictability is completely genetic but addictions to specific addictors may have environmental influences. In other words, for one to be an addict of any kind one must have the correct genetics (Hypoism), but the specific addictions (symptoms), which addictor one uses and gets addicted to, may be influenced by environmental issues such as availability, past experiences, peer influences, etc. as well as genetic issues, the specific alleles of specific genes one has inherited. This statement is completely different from stating, “addictions have been shown to be etiologically partly genetic and partly environmental.” For a review of the best epidemiological studies, although they continue to make the above mistakes without discussing or admitting the nuances of the term heritability, read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/recentgeneticstudiesonvariousaddictionsfromalargetwinregistr/ and http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/geneticstudiespage2/ For a review of the term heritability, read any recent Genetics textbook. [ii] General addictability has yet to be studied as an entity, but the data from the COGA study could be looked at to delineate this trait. One such report from the COGA study is: Laura Jean Bierut, MD; Stephen H. Dinwiddie, MD; Henri Begleiter, MD; Raymond R. Crowe, MD; Victor Hesselbrock, PhD; John I. Nurnberger, Jr, MD, PhD; Bernice Porjesz, PhD; Marc A. Schuckit, MD; Theodore Reich, MD, Familial Transmission of Substance Dependence: Alcohol, Marijuana, Cocaine, and Habitual Smoking. A Report From the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism, Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1998;55:982-988. In addition, Goldman and others have delineated this concept in their writings: David Goldman, MD; Andrew Bergen, PhD General and Specific Inheritance of Substance Abuse and Alcoholism, Arch. Gen. Psych. Vol. 55 No. 11, November 1998. So far, however, no epidemiological studies on general addictability have been undertaken. My prediction is that they will show much higher heritability than for specific addictions, thus, adding more weight to the Hypoism paradigm. [iii] Because the reward system subserves other brain mechanism(s), the other, larger, brain mechanism(s) must be the cause of addictions, not merely the reward center itself. [iv] This brings into account “behavioral” addictions as being part and parcel of the same addiction paradigm. [v] A general principle of all medical science. [vi] Read: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/ [vii] Animal addiction studies over the last fifteen years all point to this. |
|
||||||
You can take the addiction out of the hypoic, but you can't take the Hypoism out of the addict.
