“I truly believe no treatment will work on a person with an addiction if the patient hasn’t fully given themselves over to the fact that they have a disease that does not heal itself.”

Margaret F.’s words capture a core belief of the traditional type of treatment program she attended, one common in 12-step-based facilities. Leading professional organizations – including the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, World Health Organization, and American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) – subscribe to the notion that alcohol and other drug addictions are diseases.

However, a growing number of experts are challenging this view. One of them is neuroscientist Marc Lewis, Ph.D., who eloquently elucidates his reasoning in a new book, The Biology of Desire: Why Addiction is Not a Disease. Real-life stories of five different people who have struggled with addiction flesh out the framework he’s constructed from the latest neuropsychological findings.

From his home in the Netherlands, this Canadian expat and Pro Talk columnist gave me several hours of his time to answer the following questions:

Q: The ASAM defines addiction as “a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry” and goes on to say that “dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations… reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors.” What’s wrong with this?

A: It’s not that all these brain changes aren’t involved in addiction – they are, but they’re also involved in becoming a basketball fan, falling in love, in becoming a jihadist, in developing any new passion. So why would we call addiction a disease that requires medical treatment?

Saying addiction is a disease suggests that the brain can no longer change…that it’s an end state. But no, it’s not end state. -MARC LEWIS

We know that treatment isn’t required by most to overcome addiction, so in that sense it’s not a disease. And the changes in the brain that occur because of addiction are not irreversible. We’ve been talking about neuroplasticity for decades. That is, the brain keeps on changing – due to changes in experience, self-motivated changes in behavior, as a result of practice, being in a different environment.

Saying addiction is a disease suggests that the brain can no longer change…that it’s an end state. But no, it’s not end state.

Q: If addiction isn’t a disease, what is it?

A: First, I’m not saying that addiction is not a serious problem – clearly it can be for many people. In terms of brain change, you could say that neuroplasticity has a dark side. But rather than a disease, I would say that addiction is a habit that grows and perpetuates itself relatively quickly when we repeatedly pursue the same highly attractive goal. This results in new pathways being built in the brain, which is always the case with learning: new pathways are formed and older pathways are pruned or eradicated.

…rather than a disease, I would say that addiction is a habit that grows and perpetuates itself relatively quickly when we repeatedly pursue the same highly attractive goal.-MARC LEWIS

But with addiction, much of this rewiring is accelerated by the action of dopamine, a neurotransmitter released in response to highly compelling goals, creating an ever-tightening feedback loop of wanting, getting, and loss.

As the addiction grows, billions of new connections form in the brain. This network of connections supports a pattern of thinking and feeling, a strengthening belief, that taking this drug, ‘this thing,’ is going to make you feel better – despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

It’s motivated repetition that gives rise to what I call “deep learning.” Addictive patterns grow more quickly and become more deeply entrenched than other, less rewarding habits. In general, brain changes naturally settle into brain habits – this is the case in all forms of learning. In addition, the habits are learned more deeply, locked in more tightly, and are bolstered by the weakening of other, incompatible habits, like playing with your pet or caring for your kids. [In the book, Lewis describes in detail how addiction changes the brain.]

Q: You note that the neurobiological mechanics of this process involve multiple brain regions, interlaced to form a web that holds the addiction in place and that gouges “deep ruts in the neural underpinnings of the self.”  Yet you go on to say that “brain change – even more extreme brain change – does not imply that something is wrong with the brain.” How can that be?

A: Such brain change may signify that by pursuing a single high-impact reward and letting other rewards fade, someone hasn’t been using his or her brain to its best advantage.

The notion that you never forget how to ride a bike reflects our recognition that normal habits can be deeply ingrained. Thus, deep ruts in the brain don’t make the brain damaged. And new ruts can be formed on top of or beside old ruts. For example, when you lose a relationship, the deep ruts are still there – they can cause pain and create barriers to a new relationship. But then you say, “Enough of that.” And with some effort, you meet a new person and the brain modifies itself, which it constantly does.

The notion that you never forget how to ride a bike reflects our recognition that normal habits can be deeply ingrained. Thus, deep ruts in the brain don’t make the brain damaged.-MARC LEWIS

Psychiatrist Norman Doidge, author of The Brain that Changes Itself reminds us of a classic remark by Alvaro Pascual-Leone, a renowned Harvard neuropsychologist: The brain is plastic, not elastic. It doesn’t just spring back to its former shape. Rather, like Play-Doh [before it hardens], it can continue to be modified from whatever shape it’s currently in.

Q: Why does “The Biology of Desire” assume importance over your subtitle, “Addiction is Not a Disease”?

A: Basically, most of our attention is committed to achieving the goal, not to the goal in and of itself – it’s all about the drive to get to the pot of gold at the end, not the pot itself.

Basically, most of our attention is committed to achieving the goal, not to the goal in and of itself – it’s all about the drive to get to the pot of gold at the end, not the pot itself.-MARC LEWIS

According to recent advances in addiction neuroscience, there is a “wanting” system (desire) that’s mostly independent of the “liking” system. “Wanting” is really what drives addictive behavior. In the book, I talk about eating pasta – before you eat it, your attention is converged on getting that food into your mouth. But once it’s there, your attention goes elsewhere; perhaps back to the people you’re dining with or the TV show you’re watching. How much attention you pay to the taste of that bite of food is a drop in the bucket compared with the amount you spent to get it to your mouth.

Desire and expectancy make up most of the experience. The “wanting” part of the brain, called the striatum, underlies different variations of desire (impulsivity, drive, compulsivity, craving) – and the striatum is very large, while pleasure itself (the endpoint) occupies a relatively small part of the brain. Addiction relies on the “wanting” system, so it’s got a lot of brain matter at its disposal.

Article Source


Faith based Christian help with a compassionate recovery process that leads to full recovery is available HERE.praying 7

 

 

Long-Term Marijuana Use Changes Brain at the Cellular Level, Say Scientists

In March, long-term marijuana smoker Woody Harrelson surprised fans by announcing he was giving up his chronic pot habit, saying it made him “emotionally unavailable.” Likewise, in June, notorious stoner Miley Cyrus did the same, saying she “wanted to be really clear” while making her new album. Long-term pot smokers who have quit cite similar anecdotal evidence about the chronic effects of weed, but scientists have only recently begun understanding what, if anything, it actually does to the brain.

In a study on mice published Monday in the journal JNeurosci, scientists report that long-term marijuana use does indeed change the brain.

In their study, the researchers from Brigham Young University’s neuroscience department, led by Jeffrey Edwards Ph.D., focused on the brain’s ventral tegmental area (VTA), a region rich with the dopamine and serotonin receptors that comprise the brain’s reward system, looking at how its cells changed as the teen mice they studied received daily THC injections every day for a week. Researchers know that drugs of abuse, like opioids, alcohol, and marijuana, act on the VTA, and it’s thought that the active ingredients in these drugs stimulate the release of dopamine in this area, thereby triggering the flood of pleasure that drugs (as well as friendship and sex) provide — and creating cravings for more.

DEAUVILLE, FRANCE - SEPTEMBER 09: Woody Harrelson attends the naming ceremony of his dedicated beach cabana during the 43rd Deauville American Film Festival on September 9, 2017 in Deauville, France. (Photo by Francois Durand/Getty Images)
Woody Harrelson, a long-term marijuana user, said he quit because it made him emotionally unavailable.

In particular, they looked at a type of cell in the VTA known as a GABA cell that marijuana researchers hadn’t looked at before. The cells are named for the type of neurotransmitter they pick up — GABA, short for gamma-aminobutyric acid — which is well-known for its inhibitory properties. Imagine GABA as the high-strung friend who becomes anxious when the rest of the group has too much fun. When GABA is released in the brain, it regulates the levels of happy-making dopamine, making sure revelry doesn’t go overboard.

This friend is a bit of a buzzkill but seems to be necessary to prevent the brain from having too much of a good thing. But, as it turns out, GABA neurons can be incapacitated, too.

This working model shows how chronic exposure to the psychoactive component of marijuana may increase dopamine levels by altering the function of an inhibitory cell type, contributing to the drug's pleasurable and potentially addictive qualities.
Chronic marijuana use might lead to unnaturally high dopamine levels in the brain by messing with GABA neurons.

As the researchers observed these cells in teen mice over their THC-filled week, they saw that the ability of the GABA neurons to regulate dopamine faltered as the trial went on. In contrast, mice who only received a single injection of THC — the Bill Clintons of the group — didn’t show any changes in their GABA neurons, suggesting that the effects seen in the chronic users are a consequence of long-term marijuana use. Those changes led dopamine to linger in the VTA longer than usual, which caused an abnormally drawn-out feeling of reward. And too much of those pleasurable feelings, scientists have found, is what leads to addiction.

miley smoking weed
Miley Cyrus has put her pot-smoking days behind her so her brain would be more “clear.”

The team behind the study hopes that their findings can eventually be used to treat people with cannabis use disorder, defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 as a “problematic pattern of cannabis use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress.”

The term problematic, in this case, refers to a range of criteria largely centered around the inability of people to do what they need or want to do because of their addiction to the drug. It’s not clear whether Harrelson and Cyrus had been diagnosed with cannabis use disorder, but their reasons for quitting weed seem to line up.

Abstract:

The ventral tegmental area (VTA) is necessary for reward behavior with dopamine cells critically involved in reward signaling. Dopamine cells in turn are innervated and regulated by neighboring inhibitory GABA cells. Using whole cell electrophysiology in juvenile-adolescent GAD67-GFP male mice we examined excitatory plasticity in fluorescent VTA GABA cells. A novel CB1-dependent long-term depression (LTD) was induced in GABA cells that was dependent on metabotropic glutamate receptor 5, and cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1). LTD was absent in CB1 knock-out mice, but preserved in heterozygous littermates. Chronic injections of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol occluded LTD compared to vehicle injections, however, a single exposure was insufficient to do so. Because Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol depresses GABA cell activity, downstream dopamine cells will be disinhibited and thus this could potentially result in increased reward. As synaptic modifications by drug of abuse are often tied to addiction, this data suggest a possible mechanism for the addictive effects of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol in juvenile-adolescents, by potentially altering reward behavioral outcomes.

ARTICLE SOURCE

Opioids passed out like pez in professional sports, contributing to the addiction epidemic

hillgrant_99medr8400_crop_northGrant Hill, a former basketball star, told The Daily Mail how athletes would do anything to recover quickly after surgery to play again. According to Hill, athletes want to be back on court immediately right after an injury or surgery because of pressure and impatience. They want something that quickly fixes everything, and for most, the solution is opioids.

Other basketball stars like Shaquille O’Neal, Jay Williams, and Rex Chapman admitted they used the drugs and how these are easily acquired. The rampant distribution of these drugs in the sports industry contribute to the opioid epidemic happening today. Most injured athletes are often prescribed opioid pain killers to get them by. Consequently, opioid prescriptions lead to a completely avoidable addiction. (Related: Student athletes becoming drug addicts after doctors prescribe opioids for their injuries.)

“One of the major issues we have is that doctors don’t want to leave their patients in an empty spot on a Saturday night in pain with nothing to do,” Paul Sethi, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in sports medicine, tells The Daily Mail.

“We’re accustomed to follow the physician’s orders and decisions, but you need to know that it’s important to take ownership of your health, and ask the important questions,” Hill expresses.

Sethi also explains that doctors may be overprescribing opioids to give out way beyond what athletes need to “cover their backs.”

More on the opioid crisis

Opioids are highly addictive painkillers that have killed, and are still killing, millions of Americans because of overdose. It is the leading cause of death for Americans below 50 years old. They are a class of drugs — which include heroin, fentanyl, and pain relievers — that are legally available through a doctor’s prescription. Opioid pain killers are generally safe, but because they also produce euphoric effect, they can be abused.

According to QuintilesIMS Institute as cited by The Daily Mail, nine out of 10 patients are exposed to opioids to manage post-surgical pain. These patients take an average of 85 pills a day. The report says that reducing surgery-related opioid prescriptions would cut the number of unused pills in the United States by 332 million per year, lessen the number of addicts by 300,000, and save $830 million.

Signs of opioid addiction started as early as the 1980s, but drug manufacturers reassured the public that opioids were less addictive in the 1990s, which led to the misuse and addiction of the drugs. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) only began reporting the rise of opioid overdose and addiction in the beginning of the 2000s. Health authorities announced in 2013 the addiction was an epidemic. In 2015, over 33,000 Americans died because of opioid overdose and over 90 million Americans are dying daily because of it.

The FDA has tried to address the abuse and misuse of opioids by implementing the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) to immediate-release (IR) opioids. Scott Gottlieb, commissioner of the FDA, wrote in a blog post in September that the IR opioids produced by 74 manufacturers will be subjected to a stricter set of requirements under a REMS. The REMS will require training to available health care providers who prescribe IR opioids, which includes discussing non-opioid alternatives.

“Our hope is that we can help prevent new patients from becoming addicted, and keep some individuals from experiencing the serious adverse effects associated with these medications,” writes Gottlieb.

Sources include:

DailyMail.co.uk

Blogs.FDA.gov

DrugAbuse.gov

CONSIDER THE COST

worried 2

Just a quick message for all of you today who are enslaved by addiction.  In light of the fact that Jesus will be coming very soon to take His church (His true believers),  it’s time to end your addiction.  I’m speaking frankly now.  Addiction is sin that is a combination of drunkenness and idolatry.  Sin stands between you and God.  When anything is more important to you than Jesus is, it’s time to get rid of it.  Please contact an addictions specialist today or check yourself into detox immediately – directly or through a hospital ER.  There’s no more time to wait or you will be left behind and subject to the tribulation when you will have to lose your life in the most horrific way in order to save your soul. If you want to get into the arc, you must do this and do it now.  When you’ve completed detox and are ready to completely recover, contact us below.

 

Ingredients for a 7 Layer Slice of Hope

The Problem:  Addiction

The Solution:  Jesus Christ and His Word

The Process:  Our program is composed of 7 perfected layers with the carefully chosen ingredients that offer an indescribably delicious and nutrient rich slice of hope

seven layer 1

Our 7 Layer Recipe for Recovery is:

  1. Salvation through receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior
  2. The Finest Discipleship Available on earth
  3. Specialized Christian Life Coaching with a touch of Mentoring
  4. Biblical Counseling
  5. Paying it Forward
  6. Godly Peer Relationships with Life Transforming Peer Activities
  7. Praise & Worship

Who does this?  We do at Victory Retreat Montana.  We know that people want choices in their addiction recovery and we provide a special type of Bible based recovery that works – simply because God works!  We have put all of the 7 delicious layers together in an uplifting and dynamic program that everyone can enjoy, learn from, grow, and heal.

Questions?  Give us a call or send us an email on how our program can work for you or your loved one!

 

One Of The Many Victims Of America’s Psychiatric And Psychopharmaceutical Industries

psychiatric victims

By Gary G. Kohls, MD, guest to Natural Blaze

I recently had a dialogue with a person who had emailed me about a friend of hers who had been mis-treated for years by drug-prescribing psychiatrists. The psychiatrists – and their alarming and illogical drugging – had made him worse and worse and eventually totally disabled over the years. Because of the high probability that the drugs he had taken over the years – known to be both neurotoxic and addictive – were also brain-damaging and dementia-inducing, we discussed some things that perhaps could be helpful (see the information below).

The obvious major problem, according to the person who contacted me, was the fact that the patient had been continuously over-dosed with irrational cocktails of a multitude of dangerous psychiatric drugs. Since there were a number of lessons that I thought my readers could benefit from learning, I decided to make the letter into a Duty to Warn column.

Below is the essence of my last communication with the friend of the over-drugged patient.


“What a mess your friend’s so-called healers have made of his brain!! They are guilty, guilty, guilty of “first doing harm” rather than first doing NO harm (per the Hippocratic Oath). You tell me that he has been on SSRI antidepressants, psychostimulants, anti-psychotics, tranquilizers and mood stabilizers, which are the five categories of psychotropic drugs. A psychiatrist who has been using such a variety of drugs doesn’t know what he is doing , but what is worse is that he trusts the totally untrustworthy, amoral psychiatric drug companies way too much!

“No human being on earth would have responded any other way than how your friend has responded, what with being prescribed unknown combinations of brain-altering, brain-damaging synthetic drugs. Note that Big Pharma never does research involving more than one drug at a time even in the rat labs! What must come out of such corporate pseudo-research is bad science and therefore bad medicine!

“Below is the partial list of medications that you mentioned in your letter that your friend had taken at one time or another, usually, of course, in a cocktail of other drugs, any combination of which – as I mentioned above – has never been tested in either pre-clinical (animal lab) or clinical (human) trials for either safety or efficacy, either short-term or long-term.

“Zoloft, Effexor, Wellbutrin, Xanax, Concerta (36mg), Lamictal (as high as 900 mg), Lithium (only about a week as his psoriasis acted up), Depakote, modafinil, Ambien, Abilify, Zyprexa, Valium.”

See: The Secret Lives Of Ambien Zombies

1) Pfizer’s Zoloft, GlaxoSmithKline’s Wellbutrin and Pfizer’s Effexor are powerful and addictive so-called “antidepressant” drugs (which should more accurately have been called “agitation-inducing” drugs (but that wouldn’t have been good for Big Pharma’s business model). Most of them have been classed by the pharmaceutical industry as “selective serotonin reuptake pump inhibitors (SSRIs) – a very deceptive term because they are NOT selective to serotonin and they mess around with more organelles in the synapses of the brain than the reuptake pumps).

(Other examples of such drugs include Forest Lab’s Celexa, Lilly’s Cymbalta,Forest’s Lexapro, GlaxoSmithKline’s Paxil, Pfizer’s Pristiq, Lilly’s Prozac, Jazz’s Luvox, Merck’s Remeron, Lilly’s Symbyax, Bayer’s Yaz, and Lilly’s Sarafem.)

2) McNeil’s Concerta is a psychostimulant drug identical to Novartis’s Ritalin. They are in the class of drugs (FDA-approved for so-called ADHD or somnolence, including – irrationally – sleepiness caused by sleep deprivation!). These drugs are powerful and highly addictive dopamine and/or nor-epinephrine reuptake pump inhibitors that temporarily boost the level of those two transmitters in the synapse but at the same time dysregulate dopamine receptors as well as dopamine reuptake pumps.

(Other examples of such drugs include  Shire’s Adderall, Shire’s Daytrana, Novartis’s Focalin, Shire’s Intuniv, UCB’s Metadate, Mallinckrodt’s Methylin, Cephalon’s Nuvigil, Lilly’s Strattera, Shire’s Vyvanse, Cephalon’s Provigil (modafinil), caffeine, nicotine, dexedrine, “uppers”, etc, that commonly cause mania, psychosis and sleep deprivation in addition to many other dangerous symptoms that can make ignorant or too-busy physicians think that the patient is mentally ill; rather than psychiatric drug-intoxicated.)

3) Eli Lilly’s Zyprexa, Janssen’s Abilify and Glaxo’s Lamictal, all so-called “anti-psychotic” drugs (which should more accurately have been called heavily-sedating major tranquilizers, which are seriously brain-altering drugs). These drugs are dopamine, norepinephrine and often serotonin blocking drugs that make victims feel dead inside. These drugs are also brain-damaging and highly dependency-inducing drugs that are difficult to stop taking, partly because one of the serious withdrawal symptoms is psychosis. Patients who have been given such drugs for off-label reasons such as for sleeping (never having been psychotic before taking the drug) have been known to have hallucinations and acute psychotic attacks during the withdrawal period!

(Other examples of such drugs include the now-generic Haldol, Prolixin, Mellaril, fluphenazine, perphenazine, prochlorperazine, thioridazine, GlaxoSmithKline’s Thorazine, Lilly’s Zyprexa, Astra-Zeneca’s Seroquel, Janssen’s Risperdal, Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Abilify, Pfizer’s Geodon, Novartis’s Clozaril, Novartis’s Fanapt, Janssen’s Invega and Merck’s Saphris).

4) Roche’s Valium, Pfizer’s Xanax and Sanofi Aventis’s Ambien are benzodiazepine-type drugs, which are powerful and highly addicting. They are the so-called “minor” tranquilizers and sleeping pills.

(Other examples include Valeant’s Librium, Valeant’s Dalmane, Biovail’s Ativan, Lundbeck’s Tranxene, Pfizer’s Halcion, Roche’s Klonopin, Sepacor’s Lunesta, Mallinckrodt’s Restoril, Takeda’s Rozerem and King’s Sonata, any of which can cause somnolence, depression, lowered IQ and long-term brain damage and, when the dose is cut down, can cause serious withdrawal symptoms, including serious insomnia, agitation, psychosis and mania.)

5) Abbott’s Depakote and the generic lithium are so-called “mood stabilizer” drugs. Depakote could have caused your friend’s liver failure. Most “mood stabilizers” (except for lithium) are drugs that were designed and marketed as anti-epilepsy drugs, for which they were approved by the FDA. However, they have been heavily marketed (often illegally) as “mood stabilizers” or drugs that might help pain perception or anxiety but they have also been found, upon withdrawal, to cause agitation, insomnia and even grand mal seizures, even if the patient had never had a seizure before. (Other examples include Pfizer’s Neurontin, Pfizer’s Dilantin, Ortho-McNeil’s Topamax, Pfizer’s Lyrica and UCB’s Keppra).

6) Of course your friend was probably also using the over-the-counter (OTC) psychoactive substances caffeine and nicotine. The heavy use of such addictive “food substances” such as coffee, caffeinated soda pop, NutraSweet-laden “diet” pop and tobacco by patients on “anti-psychotics” is legendary.

    Read: Taking Apart Psychiatry – Fraud Kings Of The Mind

“Those unfortunates that have been labeled with a psychosis and then forced to take “anti-psychotics” are almost always addicted to these OTC psychostimulants as well. Drugs that block dopamine and nor-epinephrine will make patients feel so numb and dead inside that they will do anything to overcome the dopamine and nor-epinephrine under-stimulation. And so, not only will they be dependent on the toxic prescription drug, they will also be addicted to the toxic stimulant substance. De-ciphering what drug is doing what is very difficult and time-consuming to figure out, and so most ignorant and too-busy doctors never try. They just keep prescribing the drugs and keep their fingers crossed, hoping that they will never have to face the inevitable withdrawal syndromes.

“Of course when the inevitable happens and such unlucky patients can’t afford the prescriptions anymore, can’t afford health insurance premiums, can’t afford the deductible fees, can’t afford the co-pays, loses health care for any other reason or somehow just quits or cuts down on the drugs (because they know they are being sickened by them), the patient will probably wind up in a mental hospital where another new mental illness label will be falsely applied and a new cocktail of brain-damaging and addictive drugs will be forced upon the patient again.

“Most physicians (and all physician assistants) do not understand the exact mechanism of action of the above drugs nor do they know how to help get their patients off the drugs when they start to understand the adverse effects that occur with ALL of these medications.

“It is important to remind ourselves that none of these psychiatric drugs were ever tested in the animal labs in any combination of two or more drugs, which is also true for the human trials!

“And there are hardly any long-term trials done either (most animal lab experiments last fewer than a week in length and most human anti-depressant trials lasted – on average – 6 weeks in duration, even though most humans are told to take them the rest of their lives!)

“Also none of these drugs were ever tested in sequential trials (one drug following another) for safety or efficacy!

“So your friend has been experimented upon by a system that knows next to nothing about what happens at the synapse level of the human brain, especially long-term. His psychiatrists have been cavalierly drugging him – on a trial and error basis, no less – with a multitude of dangerous and addictive chemical substances and combinations of substances that never came anywhere close to curing him.

“Indeed, these neurotoxic substances have instead made him worse with every cumulative dose. As we discussed, I believe that there is a good chance that his initial diagnoses were likely to have been in error.

“In other words, he might have only been experiencing a temporary, albeit perhaps overwhelming, emotional issue that could have been cured with non-pharmaceutical means such as good psychotherapy. But instead, he was probably quickly mis-diagnosed (because, unfortunately, he saw psychiatrists who have immense power and authority over their patients) with a “permanent”, “life-long”, “incurable”, “probably inherited” “mental illness” that would make him a permanent patient of the psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries, who would be the ones to profit by prescribing and supplying the “necessary” drugs (that would be endlessly dealt out to him on a trial and error basis).

“Of course, if that scenario of erroneous diagnosis is true, your friend has been also been mis-treated. To de-cipher the situation in retrospect would require a series of thorough history-taking clinic visits and a slow tapering off of the brain-damaging drugs (along with close attention to his mal-nourished and drug-sickened brain and body plus good psychotherapy for whatever was the original emotional issue – as well as for the current psychological trauma from the mis-treatment he has received).

“I’m sorry to be so pessimistic, but honesty is the best policy. Your friend’s brain may be so messed up that he will never totally recover. His brain has already suffered enough damage to make him totally brain-disabled. But the fact that he had a good career prior to swallowing all those drugs, perhaps his prognosis is better than I fear. If he and his loved ones can educate themselves adequately, that will improve his chances. Please be aware that he might only be able to lower his medications to a minimum level to avoid serious withdrawal symptoms, or at least be willing to take many months or years to do the tapering.

“Also, because he has been on such a large number of drugs, he is at high risk of developing a psychiatric drug-induced dementia (an iatrogenic disease [doctor-caused] that his “doctors” will surely try hard to dismiss and mis-diagnose as Alzheimer’s Disease [of unknown origin] rather than implicate themselves as responsible for the dementia).

“I have had extensive experience with hundreds of similarly mal-treated “psychiatric” patients during my career, and I have been repeatedly angered over the injustices that had been done to them by well-meaning but poorly-informed physicians or physician assistants. A really good, committed lawyer that has no ties to Big Pharma or Big Medicine could have sued any of those mal-practicing doctors and drug companies – if there was any justice in this world and if the Big Pharma defense lawyers weren’t so well-paid and so cunning at making sure that justice is never done applied to the drug company’s victims.

“First of all very few lawyers want to go up against the raft of Big Pharma lawyers that every corporation has on retainer, and very few independent lawyers are eager to go up against the doctors in their own communities because it would be bad for their lawyer business.

“So what to do? It is important, first of all, to find a sympathetic, understanding, knowledgeable physician who is able and willing to write prescriptions for smaller and smaller doses of the offending drugs and will help in the slow tapering process.

“One caveat: the mechanics and neuroscience of tapering off psych drugs is NOT taught in medical schools, because Big Pharma has acquired too much influence on the medical education of our med students and the post-graduation education of licensed physicians. Big Pharma has also been very successful in indoctrinating (and in many cases bribe) academic researchers, authors of medical textbooks, medical school professors, politicians (especially the liberal ones) and the thousands of health journalists into believing the totally false notion of psych drug efficacy and safety, so that now the public also believes the dangerous myth (with lots of help from TV commercials).

“Therefore it is the rare physician who has the knowledge that there is such a thing as psychiatric drug-induced brain damage or psychiatric drug-induced dementia. And it also the rare physician that will have the inclination or the time to do what needs to be done.

“I would suggest that your friend’s caretakers to go to http://www.cchrint.org and view some of the videos there. Also, I would suggest reading some of the many of columns on the topic of mental ill health that I have written over the years. Many of them are archived at Duty to Warn and at Transcend.org.

“Good luck. Don’t give up. There is much justice-seeking to do. What you can learn will help increase the awareness of your friend’s tragic story. Perhaps future victimization from the psychiatric and psychopharmaceutical industries can be halted, so that others won’t have to go through the same things your friend has had to go through.

“Try to find some other folks with similar concerns that might want to get together with you to share information and learn more about you can do together, but don’t trust the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI is a Big Pharma front group whose entire existence has been funded by the drug company’s hundreds of millions of dollars and never mentions the immense dangers of their drugs, nor the fact that those chemicals can cause dementia or addictions).

“Do trust, however, what you read on the website of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (www.cchrint.org).”


Read more from Dr. Gary Kohls

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. He writes a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, the area’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s psychiatric drugging and over-vaccination regimens, and other movements that threaten the environment, health, democracy, civility and longevity of the populace. Many of his columns are archived HERE, HERE  or HERE


DISCLAIMER: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Article Source: http://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/04/letter-victims-americas-psychiatric-psychopharmaceutical-industries.html?utm_source=Natural+Blaze+Subscribers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=f6a54c1ec9-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_b73c66b129-f6a54c1ec9-388098541


Read more about doctor caused addictions and illness and what I’m trying to do to bring awareness.  Please join me. Go to IatrogenicAddiction.com or IatrogenicDeath.com for more info.

I’m here to protect you from someone you never thought would try to harm you!

If you ever go to a doctor or hospital, YOU need to read every word I have to say. I have to tell you that my message hasn’t made me popular because people don’t want to hear bad things about those in whom they have placed their trust.  There’s a flippant word out these days that people trash you with if they don’t want to hear the cold hard facts of life. That word is ‘negativity’.  They take healthy and necessary ‘warnings’ as though those warnings were bullets to their hearts.  Typically, one of the anti-negativity cultists would say, “if you’re going to tell me something negative, please don’t”.  HUH?  If I know something that will harm and kill you, a loved one or a friend, you had better believe I’m not going to keep it a secret!  If you have a problem hearing the truth, then maybe you need some talk therapy to find out why.  Truth saves lives.  What I have to tell you isn’t pretty, but it’s necessary for you to know. So, if you don’t like me, it’s okay.  I only ask that you tuck away what I’m going to tell you until the day when you need the information… and you will need the information.  I am 100% certain that every human being that reads this, will need the advice I bring.  All I ask of you is that you take a couple of minutes to read what I’ve written below. Some things in life need to be discovered by going through trauma and tragedy.  I’ve been there, done that, so I know.

There are legal and medical terms that I would like to define for you right now.  The first is Iatrogenic Addiction.  This is defined as an addiction caused by a doctor.  Then, we have Iatrogenic Death. Iatrogenic death is death caused by your doctor.  So, we have addiction and death directly caused by doctors.  You say, so what?  My reply to that is that in the US, Iatrogenic Death has become the #1 cause of preventable accidental death today! Iatrogenesis is known as the “inadvertent and preventable induction of disease or complications by the medical treatment or procedures of a physician or surgeon.”  Feeling shocked?  The truth is shocking, isn’t it? We know it’s there but we refuse to accept it.  Yes… conventional medicine is actually the leading cause of death. So, going to your doctor could very likely end up with you getting sicker and sicker until that doctor causes your death. Is every doctor set up to kill you? No; however, there are enough of them out there for them to be the #1 cause of death!!! 

  • If your doctor wants to give you Opiates, Benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, antidepressants, stimulants, or hypnotics for more than 3 days, RUN!
  • If your doctor is test happy, RUN!
  • If your doctor spends no time outside of the exam room discussing his/her findings, RUN!
  • If your doctor goes on frequent vacations, RUN!
  • If your doctor refuses to offer you natural healing solutions FIRST, then RUN!
  • If a doctor doesn’t tell you that GMO’s, vaccines and foods that are not organic will give you diseases, sickness and cause an early death, RUN!

 


Here’s an article by a recognized physician, Dr Josh Axe, that you may find frightfully awakening to the crisis with doctors today and iatrogenic addiction and death…

Prescription Death
You may have thought cancer or heart disease takes the lives of more Americans than any other illness or event. But conventional medicine is actually the leading cause of death today!

Iatrogenesis is known as the “inadvertent and preventable induction of disease or complications by the medical treatment or procedures of a physician or surgeon.”

Health Care in America Today

The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was created by Congress to analyze scientific and technical issues in America. From 1972 to 1995, the OTA conducted studies on health care, pollution and other such topics.

  • After producing an unfavorable report of US health care, the agency was disbanded by Congress.
  • The OTA’s 1995 report on health care found that:
  • Life expectancy in the US was among the lowest in developed countries
  • Infant mortality rates in the US are poor
  • Technology in US medicine is expensive and unrestrained
  • 67% of physicians in the US in 1990 were specialists
  • The drug industry exacerbates health care costs while new drugs rarely provide more benefit than old
  • The FDA doesn’t consider the effectiveness of new treatments or compare new products to old
  • The FDA does not consider non-drug alternatives
  • The pre- and post-approval processes for drugs is lacking

The report concluded with these statements:

“Only 10-20% of all procedures used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial,” and “There are no mechanisms in place to limit dissemination of technologies regardless of their clinical value.”

The Nutrition Institute of America funded an independent review of “government-approved” medicine that was published in 2006. Professors Gary Null and Dorothy Smith, along with doctors Carolyn Dean, Martin Feldman and Debora Rasio titled the report “Death by Medicine.”

The researchers found that America’s leading cause of death isn’t heart disease or cancer: its conventional medicine. They found that the iatrogenic death rate in the US (death caused by doctors and/or medical treatments) is 783,936 a year. That’s 84,059 more deaths than those caused by heart disease in 2001 and 230,865 more deaths than those caused by cancer.

Over a decade, the scientists predict that iatrogenic deaths will total about 7.8 million, “more than all the casualties from all the wars fought by the US throughout its entire history,” a death rate equivalent to that caused by six jumbo jets falling out of the sky every day.

They also believe the numbers are actually much higher because most iatrogenic deaths aren’t reported as such: only 5 to 20% of iatrogenic deaths are reported for fear of lawsuits and because codes for reporting deaths due to drug side effects and other medical errors don’t even exist in many cases. The number of deaths due to conventional medicine may be 20 times higher than the numbers depicted here.

The study authors, using the most conservative statistics they could find, broke down iatrogenic deaths over ten years as following:

  • Adverse Drug Reactions 1.06 million
  • Medical Error 0.98 million
  • Bedsores 1.15 million
  • Hospital Infections 0.88 million
  • Malnutrition in Health Care 1.09 million
  • Outpatients 1.99 million
  • Unnecessary Procedures 371,360
  • Surgery-related 320,000

The “Death by Medicine” doctors also took a look at unnecessary medical care over the course of a decade. They found that 89 million people are hospitalized unnecessarily each year and that 17 million iatrogenic events will occur among this number. 75 million Americans receive unnecessary medical procedures over a decade, 15 million of which result in an iatrogenic event. 164 million people will receive unneeded medical treatment within a decade.

So what’s behind these death rates and adverse events? Profit, politics, defensive medicine, lack of research on treatments, one-size-fits-all drugs, lack of doctor-patient time and the abuse and overmedication of our elderly are all culprits.

Conflicts of Interest

Former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine Dr. Marcia Angell has written that pharmaceutical stock and other financial incentives for scientists are twisting medical research and science altogether to suit business goals.

Not only do such credible journals accept studies from researchers with conflicts of interest, when a drug company funds a study, ABC News found that there is a 90% chance that the drug will be deemed effective compared to the 50% rate of this conclusion when a study isn’t funded by a pharmaceutical company.

The US General Accounting Office found that “of the 198 drugs approved by the FDA between 1976 and 1985…102 (or 51.5%) has serious post-approval risks,” including “heart failure, myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, respiratory depression and arrest, seizures, kidney and liver failure, severe blood disorders, birth defects and fetal toxicity, and blindness.”

Antibiotics

Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that 90% of upper respiratory infections are viral; more than 40% of the 50 million prescriptions written each year for antibiotics are prescribed for such infections. Antibiotics have no effect on viruses and the overuse of antibiotics has likely led to the drug-resistant superbugs and the 88,000 deaths due to hospital infections every year.

The CDC does not report on the research that supports nutraceuticals for viral infections and immune system strengthening that could lessen antibiotic abuse, the study authors lament.

Hospitals receive funding based on how many beds they fill. This fact, and the fact that doctors practice defensive medicine to protect themselves from lawsuits, results in unnecessary hospitalizations and many unnecessary screenings and treatments.

Unnecessary Treatments

  • The media often drives unnecessary treatments and the prescribing of unneeded drugs. While cosmetic surgeries may number the greatest of these, cesarean sections, cardiac surgeries, endoscopies, back surgeries and pain-relieving surgeries are vastly over-used.
  • Dr. Barbara Starfield reports that the overuse of technology creates a “cascade effect” in treating patients: unnecessary outpatient treatment often leads to more visits, more prescriptions, more hospitalizations and deaths.
  • X-rays, CT scans, mammograms and other such diagnostics are costly and cumulatively dangerous, yet they are given regularly to soothe patient fears and often lead to unnecessary surgeries.
  • Pregnant women used to have x-rays regularly until a study found that they increased death in children from cancer by 40%.
  • Coronary angiography, the use of radiation to look at blood vessels and the heart, is another widely practiced diagnostic whose effects are unknown.
  • Dr. John Goffman believes that x-rays, CT scans, mammography and fluoroscopy contribute to 75% of the new cancers diagnosed every year and increases in heart disease. He believes that ionizing radiation will cause 100 million premature deaths from 2006 to 2016.
  • Orthopedic surgeon Dr. John Sarno says that many back surgeries are based on abnormal x-rays even though multiple studies have found that there is often no connection between abnormalities on x-rays and back pain.

Chemotherapy

Professor Ulrich Abel analyzed the use of chemotherapy for epithelial cancer and published the results in 1989. He found no direct evidence that chemotherapy helps people with advanced carcinoma to survive; only a slight benefit in patients with small-cell lung cancer; and perhaps some slight benefit in those with ovarian cancer.

He said that the belief that chemotherapy can prolong survival is an “opinion based on a fallacy which is not supported by clinical studies.”

High-dose chemotherapy (HDC) is still a treatment of choice, however, for breast cancer unchecked by normal doses, even though a March 2000 study found that HDC held no benefits and even slightly reduced survival rates.

Women and Conventional Medicine

The “Death by Medicine” doctors take special note of the unnecessary procedures practiced on women in America. 19th-century views of women, the idea that women’s reproductive organs were the basis of physical and mental illnesses have leftover influences on medicine today.

Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman has studied this influence on conventional medicine. She reports that:

  • thousands of “preventive” mastectomies are performed every year
  • more women than men are prescribed drugs
  • women are more often given preventive medications that result in side effects than men
    one-third of women are given hysterectomies before they’ve even gone through menopause
  • fetal monitoring is common practice even though the CDC doesn’t recommend it, it’s use isn’t supported by research and it may result in higher rates of cesarean section
    menopause and childbirth are considered medical conditions rather than normal biological practices
  • the one-third of post-menopausal women on synthetic hormones don’t experience heart disease prevention or cognitive benefits but do experience increased risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke
  • Obstetric-gynecologic surgeries represent 23% of all US surgeries performed in 1983, reports the study authors. Cesarean sections take top billing and hysterectomies come in second place.
  • They estimate that 640,000 cesarean sections are performed each year in the US and that these increase mortality rates 3 to 4 times and disease rates by 20 times compared to vaginal deliveries.

Sick Care System

The “Death by Medicine” doctors say that the overuse of medical testing, technology, surgery and drugs does little to prevent disease and results in the most US deaths.

What is more important to consider, they say, is the practice of preventive medicine, changes that would address the root causes of disease: stress and its effects on the immune system, a compromised brain/body connection, lack of physical activity, denatured and processed food intake, and exposure to environmental toxins.

Sources
Life Extension Foundation (2006)
National Institutes of Health (2004)
Journal of American Medical Association (1998)
Center for Science in the Public Interest (2004)


Please visit IatrogenicAddiction.com for more information.

Why Addiction is NOT a Disease, According to Dr. Marc Lewis

A neuroscientist disputes the status quo, calling us all to rethink how we view addiction.

As I looked down at my prepared questions, thinking they were juvenile or topical or pathetic, to ask Dr. Marc Lewis about his new book, The Biology of Desire: Why Addiction is Not a Disease, he stopped me and said, “Before we get started, do you mind if I ask what kind of drugs you did?” Without missing a beat I said, “It began with pharmaceutical opiates.” He paused for a moment and smiled, “Those are some pretty attractive drugs.”

I knew at that moment I was speaking with a neuroscientist who not only understood the brain’s matter—its molecules, membranes, blood, and electricity—but it was clear to me that he also understood the person in which the brain is embodied. Where most neuroscientists dismiss one’s inner-life as fuzzy and immeasurable, Lewis does not. He’s totally interested and fascinated by the lived experience of drug users.

Which is why I found myself enjoying both him and our talk, especially after my nerves quieted and the 8am coffee began to wake me up—or caused my pituitary gland to secrete hormones that in turn caused my adrenal glands to produce a bit more adrenaline, thus honing my attention. See, I can sound neuroscience-y, too.

Though Lewis is busy teaching in the Netherlands, the two of us found time to connect and below we discuss his brilliantly penned Oliver Sacks-like case studies, his argument against the disease theory of addiction, and the importance of goals and time, of humans and their stories.

You write that classifying addiction as a chronic, relapsing brain disease can be harmful. But many argue this takes stigma off the user, whereas the “addiction is a choice” camp may put unnecessary blame on the user. So why is the disease diagnosis also harmful?

There is the assumption, which Dr. Nora Volkow continues to pound in, that we need to label addiction as a disease in order to remove the shame and guilt and self-remorse from it. I don’t think that is necessarily true. We can deal with remorse and shame in other ways. I also think a little bit of shame can be excellent motivation, and getting rid of it entirely is not necessarily a good idea at all.

The disease label often leads to a sense of fatalism: “I’ve got a disease, what can I do? I need to go get help and if I can’t get better it’s because I have a disease…not because of something I’m doing wrong.”

A lot of people who are in the addiction field feel that empowerment, a certain amount of self-discipline, and taking oneself in hand are extremely valuable measures and perhaps the only way to get through it.

I also think that the “disease vs. choice” argument creates a false dichotomy. Choice is not independent of the brain, naturally, so a neuroscience view does not support one or the other. And choice is far from logical in most human affairs. Addiction may not be a disease or a free choice.

You list a number of compulsions, such as overeating, where there are some remarkable similarities to chemical addiction—but you say no one would ever consider those things diseases. Why is it then, that addiction to drugs is given the special title of a brain disease? 

I think that the DSM-V, the latest rendition, no longer uses the term “addiction” for drugs. They have “substance use disorders” instead. OK, well fine, but we all know what they mean by this. Maybe gambling is the only thing still labeled “an addiction.” So there are also eating disorders and they all have compulsive tendencies, and the point at which we call something a disease, where we draw this line in the sand, is pretty arbitrary. It depends a whole lot on societal values and morals, rather than on any kind of logical scientific or other rational criteria.

If drugs are really offensive, if getting high or getting stoned is really offensive to the society, we’re going to call it a disease. For eating, everybody eats and a lot of us are fat, so they’re not going to call that a disease.

Why do you not like the term “recovery”?

It’s derived from medical parlance, right? You have a disease and you need to recover from it, which means going back to the previous equilibrium that your body is at peace in, or stable in. I want to be careful about this, though. I don’t think the term “recovery” is all that helpful in a scientific discourse. But a lot of people use the term and we know what they mean and they talk about being “in recovery.” I don’t want to in any way criticize or denigrate the use of the term for people who are getting value out of it.

Along those lines of returning to “equilibrium,” you cite a 2013 study where cocaine users who were abstinent for 35 to 60 weeks had a regrowth of reduced grey matter volume which continued to develop and grow beyond what is baseline for even non-drug users, meaning, it didn’t just return to “normal” but went past it. I think that’s interesting, because if I think about myself before, during, and post-opiate usage, I’m totally different. I bet my grey matter is, too. So in a sense, aren’t we just always changing? 

Glad you brought that up. It’s a huge factor. You certainly just nailed it and a lot of people feel that way. I communicate with hundreds and hundreds of addicts from my blog and once they have “recovered” they are not the same person—they’re just not. And they’re often very pleased with that.

I’m always thinking about time and my relation to it. When I look back to when I was using I remember the future was an abstraction I couldn’t really grasp or touch, let alone imagine. Now, with some years off opiates, I can cast off a “future Zach” and work toward goals that allow me to meet up with that possibility of me. How important is one’s temporality in addiction? 

That’s really where I come to at the end of the book. The main vortex that sucks us into addiction is this being trapped in the now and the present, which I call “now appeal,” which psychologists call “delay discounting.”

So you’re trapped in this now that just won’t go away because tomorrow is just another now: Where am I going to use? Where am I going to get the money to use? Or where am I going to get the drugs? You cannot extend forward in time, you can’t think about next week—it’s too hard, too far away. You lose the capacity—actually lose it—to think forward in time. And I think that corresponds to the brain changes that are taking place, particularly the functional disconnection between the striatum and the prefrontal cortex.

There is a lot of evidence that this happens in addiction, but it also happens in studies of delay discounting and ego fatigue. So it’s not just addiction that’s “destroying” the brain, rather it’s a way of interacting with one’s world in the present that corresponds with changes in brain function.

If you lose the capacity to think forward then you’re really trapped because you lose the capacity to take care of yourself. To think of yourself in this kind of caring way, to put your arm around your shoulder and say, “It’s going to be okay, we’ll get to next week and things will be better.” You can’t do that anymore. You forget how. It’s a terrible state to be in.

Most of the former drug users you interviewed for the book all seemed to have gone on their own path of cleaning up outside of AA. Do you think 12-step culture propagates a lot of the disease ideas?

There has been this kind of concatenation between the core precepts of AA and the disease model. I think this really took root in the ’50s and ’60s, with Hazelden and all of that. Then there was a gradual medicalization with doctors and medical associations coming on board saying this is a disease and that crossed over into AA parlance. But Bill W. didn’t talk about it that way. He used the word “allergy” and he didn’t really think it was a disease, at least in the way people in the ’90s thought it was a disease, with the whole brain disease thing.

Plenty who either write for or comment on The Fix see AA as a real nuisance. 

I don’t want to bash AA the way some people do. I don’t think there is an evil intention there. I think it does help some. We all know the success rates are not very stellar. None of the five people I interviewed in my book really got better through AA, although some of them used AA en route.

When I did my first drafts of the book, I had an editor who really knew a lot more about AA than I did. She got me thinking about it. She argued that you couldn’t necessarily assume that these ideas came out of AA. They partly were infused into AA by larger systems, like the courts: you have behaved badly, you have a disease, therefore you must go to this program. This program happens to use 12-step methods. So now you have to go to meetings. The whole disease stuff and AA then gets blended and mulched together and that’s just the way concepts evolve. It’s not really AA that’s fucking things up, per se.

So where exactly do you depart from the disease theory people and where do they depart from you? You’re all scientists looking at the same brain imaging studies, yet you come to massively different interpretations. How does that happen? 

It’s a tough one. Kent Berridge (a neuroscientist) is a guy I really respect and like very much. He and I were together at this meeting with the Dalai Lama about a year and a half ago on addiction and craving. Nora Volkow of NIDA was also there. I sat with Berridge in a restaurant in Kolkata for hours and we debated this stuff and I kept asking, “How could you think about this stuff as a disease?”

He still thinks of it as pathology. I buy his theory, I buy his perspective, but we frame it in a different way. I don’t know why. Maybe it’s because he studies rats and I don’t [laughs]. Rats don’t tell stories and we humans, well, we live stories. It’s a less static or more dynamic way of looking at a phenomenon.

Obviously a lot less control in humans than rats. 

Yeah, that’s right. I think one of the key insights comes from Trevor Robbins, who is probably the world expert on compulsive behavior in the brain. In my book, I quote him saying, “There is nothing aberrant or unusual about devolving behavioral control to a dorsal striatal S-R habit mechanism.” Sorry, it’s quite a mouthful. What he is saying, I think, is that the shift into compulsive behavior is not abnormal, and we do this all the time. When we eat, we shove stuff in our mouth in a kind of compulsive way. Think about how you eat a pizza, right? There are so many ways in which well-learned responses become partially compulsive.

And to me, that was the pivot point, in which you can say, “Yes! Behaviors can become compulsive and hard to control but that doesn’t make it a disease.” Rather, it makes it a kind of automatic response tendency that’s been over-learned. I don’t think Berridge would see it that way. He does things with his rats and, just, I don’t know [laughs], doesn’t quite see it the same way.

The participants in many of your case studies were able to think backward into their childhoods, while they were developing, to some kind of thing that colored their disposition or coping. Do you think that is always the case with drug users? Something specific or non-specific happened in the past that shaped their compulsive behavior in the present? 

I think it is common but I don’t think it is always necessary. I’ve talked to people who were in drug-taking environments for long enough and they eventually just got into it. Looking at their past, I couldn’t see anything particularly amiss. So I don’t go as far as Gabor Maté, who argues a sort of extreme version of that idea. I just don’t think it’s quite that simple, but those kinds of events come up again and again when you talk to addicts. It’s a lot more than chance, like 60, 70, maybe 80%. It’s a lot. 

So what are the implications of your ideas for the future? Where do we go from here? 

Where I try to go to at the end of the book is to look to approaches to treatment and quitting, not necessarily treatment because you don’t need treatment to quit, you can do it yourself or with a friend or family member…or lots of ways.

But I think you often do need to revisit the past partly so you can forgive yourself, and see the trajectory as it has progressed through your life. I’m here not because I’m an asshole, I’m here for a reason. And I can see how it happened: how I became needy, how I became insecure and anxious and depressed. I can see how that led to wanting this kind of peace, fulfillment, relief, and that kind of self-forgiveness is tremendously important.

I see that as a bridge to the future we were talking about. That terrible sort of schism in time that’s created by now appeal can be overcome by connecting your past to your future, in a sort of continuity, where you can see yourself in time—as you and I are talking about, I know you know what I mean—seeing your life as a story.

This is not exactly a new treatment protocol, but these are ideas I hope can be useful to help explore new and more effective approaches to treatment.

News Source:  TheFix.com


IatrogenicAddiction.com : The dangers of prescription drugs

VictoryRetreatMontana.com : A Non-12 Step, Non-Clinical, Alternative Rehab, in the format of a relaxing and Transformational Retreat.