Marc Lewis - This Neuroscientist Argues That Addiction Is Not a Disease and Rehab Is Bullshit

[RenoChazz]

Your personal decision to label yourself is something I would never attempt to talk you out of.

But my own experience as a former alcoholic and chronic abuser of cocaine and amphetamines - combined with a subsequent 10 years working with recovering substance abusers demonstrates that in fact, countless numbers of people w such behavior issues put such actions behind them permanently.

Since the beginning of humankind, people have created reasons (excuses) to explain their free-will behavior choices. In the metaphorical myth of Adam & Eve, he blamed her and she blamed "the serpent".

Laying off your personal free will choices to an ancestor or to a supposed 'genetic code' is certainly quite popular in recent history, so you are absolutely not unusual in your personal belief.

Literally millions of others have come to learn a different experience founded in accepting 100% responsibility for each and every personal thought or action. Such an acknowledgement was the driving impetus to help us then realize that we could exercise that very same personal responsibility and create any fresh pattern of thinking and behavior we might wish for.

If blaming something or someone outside yourself for your personal thoughts & actions provides you relief from painful outcomes, bravo! Just understand there is a shorter and much more empowering path that many take in their quest for a better life.

About 5% of alcoholics are able to beat it and get to drinking in moderation, which is the same success rate as AA who claim the bullshit incurable disease theory. The disease theory and it's mid-evil treatment is bull shit IMO and it's amazing how this junk science has been accepted in the mainstream.

 

[pocketrockets]

I find this subject very interesting being an addict myself... and after what happened to Weiland... it certainly is more complicated than saying its a disease or finishing a 12 step program

 

[Enfuego]

Speaking of diseases, have you guys seen this fatty on TV lately saying overeating is a disease and how upset she is from binge eating etc.?

Disease my ass. Just put the plate of deep fried cheese down and go to the gym once in awhile lady.

 

[Illini]

I still think genetics has a lot to do with it. When I drink too much, I have no desire to do it for a long time. Alcoholics get up and do it again the next day. I'm not tough enough to be an alcoholic, that sounds awful to me. Addicts have different brain chemistry that can be seen on a brain map.

We're all fucked up, some people struggle where others don't and vice versa. Everyone has a different genetic makeup with different predispositions. Christians call it sin, and we all have a lot of it.

 

[festeringZit]

I have to laugh at people that get caught cheating on their spouse, and claim they have the disease of "sex addiction."

Yeah right.

 

[JustinCruise]

Big difference between addiction and disease imo

 

[silver7]

Your personal decision to label yourself is something I would never attempt to talk you out of.

But my own experience as a former alcoholic and chronic abuser of cocaine and amphetamines - combined with a subsequent 10 years working with recovering substance abusers demonstrates that in fact, countless numbers of people w such behavior issues put such actions behind them permanently.

Since the beginning of humankind, people have created reasons (excuses) to explain their free-will behavior choices. In the metaphorical myth of Adam & Eve, he blamed her and she blamed "the serpent".

Laying off your personal free will choices to an ancestor or to a supposed 'genetic code' is certainly quite popular in recent history, so you are absolutely not unusual in your personal belief.

Literally millions of others have come to learn a different experience founded in accepting 100% responsibility for each and every personal thought or action. Such an acknowledgement was the driving impetus to help us then realize that we could exercise that very same personal responsibility and create any fresh pattern of thinking and behavior we might wish for.

If blaming something or someone outside yourself for your personal thoughts & actions provides you relief from painful outcomes, bravo! Just understand there is a shorter and much more empowering path that many take in their quest for a better life.

There ia no such thing as a "former alcoholic" it owns you for life.

 

[RenoChazz]

There ia no such thing as a "former alcoholic" it owns you for life.

Not true. There have been scientific studies that have shown that some alcoholics have gone on to consume alcohol in moderation. Of course since there's no blood test or brain scan that can be done to say one has the disease, it's very easy for the AA people to move the goal post and say those people that have done that never really had the disease, though they were treated as having it at the time.

 

[camy]

I have been getting stiffed my whole life as a bookie. Loved it when the younger generation bitches would call me with "I can't pay! I have a disease!" These little slits now have a legitimate built in excuse for being a stiff! Haha I finally figured out that these idiots were serious! They actually believe they have a fuggin disease! No more manning up and paying your debts just "I have a disease"!Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

 

[barman]

There ia no such thing as a "former alcoholic" it owns you for life.

If you believe that, then it is most certainly true for you.

I became an expert on what behavior denotes an alcoholic during the time I stopped drinking from 1993-2004.

In that year I returned to occasional use of alcohol and have never once in these past 12 years demonstrated behaviors of alcoholism. I probably have had a total of a dozen drinks in the past 12 months, all of my own free will.

There are millions of Americans just like me who previously demonstrated alcoholic behavior and who today drink without adverse effects.

Nothing "owns me". I am 100% responsible for my thoughts and behaviors.

If you personally believe that one drink would inspire you to return to unwanted behaviors, then it is wise you choose to abstainm

 

[barman]

When Bill W introduced Americans (and subsequently the rest of the world) to his program of AA, it was a legitimate panacea to a population that had few workable alternatives for addressing the very real problems associated with problem drinking.

Along the way a host of horribly flawed premises were presented as "Facts" and the notion that problem drinking is an incurable disease is only the most obvious.

The two next most flawed premises are that the alcoholic (and/or) the addict is presented with a lengthy list of drugs and intoxicants and advised that even a single use of anything on the list will send one into an unstoppable descent into the unwanted cycle of general substance abuse.

Meanwhile, go to any AA or NA meeting in the world and you will observe at least 50% or more of attendees smoking tobacco non-stop and it is deemed as wholly acceptable. Members who use pharmaceutical drugs with a prescription are viewed as "clean & sober", while others who might occasionally use random unprescribed drugs (painkillers, muscle relaxants, tranquilizers) are considered to be "in relapse".

There are numerous other almost absurd contradictions presented by AA and general 12step programs, but it nonetheless remains a truly helpful program for people who believe they have no other viable means to modify unwanted behaviors.

Just having the opportunity to spend time with people who share your problem behaviors but have found a healthy way to change those behaviors is a huge benefit...in fact it's likely the greatest benefit of 12step systems.

Many people with substance abuse issues have really, truly never lived in healthy environments or actively associated with non-abusers. Being exposed to friendly, loving help from peers is a vital part of changing unwanted behaviors.

To that end, 12step programs and 'rehab' are NOT bullshit. But It is certainly useful to recognize and acknowledge there are a lot of ways to effect change and if something works for you, use it.

 

[Ricboff]

http://www.vice.com/read/this-neuro...-a-disease-and-the-rehab-industry-is-bullshit


Your new book, The Biology of Desire: Why Addiction Is Not a Disease, eponymously puts forward that addiction is not a disease, and calling it such gets in the way of proper treatment.
Firstly, defining addicts as patients makes them passive. It makes them fatalistic and it makes them pessimistic. If you're told you have a chronic brain disease that causes you to do all this nasty shit, you don't think you'll ever get free of it. But, in fact, most addicts do recover and the statistics are very clear on that, whether they're soft drugs or harder drugs like heroin. So, it's a chronic disease? Really?

While opiate and alcohol withdrawal can wreak physical havoc on addicts, you argue that addiction is purely behavioral rather than physiological, like, say cancer is?

That's another discrepancy. You have substance addiction on one hand, and behavioral on the other: gambling, sex addiction, porn addiction, a number of eating disorders, internet gaming. The cool thing is when you do brain scans, you get the same neural activation patterns in behavioral addictions as you do in substance addictions. That should be enough to knock out the disease model. If addiction is a disease, then people who spend 12 hours a day playing video games are suffering the same way people who are addicted to heroin do.What all these patterns have in common is they involve deep learning—a set of assumptions of what you need to get through the day; that learning gets entrenched through repetition and you're addicted, but there's nothing disease-like about it. People recover from all addictions, which means it's all about neural plasticity. It's not that you go back to where you were, because development never goes in reverse, it's that you learn skills that help you overcome your impulses and you learn new cognitive habits. All learning involves changes in synapses, which means creation and strengthening of certain synapses, and the weakening or disappearance of synapses that aren't being used.

i agree with this. There's the danger in labeling an addiction as a 'disease'. To the unscientific mind it CAN be counter productive. That said, addiction can most definitely lead to a disease state. Exmaple ; alcoholism - the term used to describe the harmful PHYSIOLOGIC changes in the body as a result of long standing alcohol use. Ex, liver cirrhosis


note he elaborates further on said point;

' If you have a disease and it's not your fault, you're not a lazy, decadent, self-centered, weak-willed whatever... it's that you have a disease, so you shouldn't feel so ashamed or guilty. That's a convenient way for us to forgive addicts and for addicts to forgive themselves, and that is a form of political correctness'






the article concludes with this;


In layman's terms, what is addiction if it isn't a disease?Addiction is learning, very simply. It's learning a habit of thinking. It's deeply entrenched learning. So are relationships when you're in love with someone. If that person happens to be abusive, you might still be in love with them for 12 years or the rest of your life. That's through learning. So is being a sports fan or a Jihadist. Religion is another deep substantiation of deep learning. That's what I think it is. The fact that it could be gambling, or eating, or heroin, or meth, it shows there are certain addictions that involve substances that create physical dependency. Physical dependency is a whole other layer of shittiness on top of addiction.
Psychological and interpersonal tools are very important. Addiction has to do with isolation and feeling alone, not having a support network and not being able to deeply connect with other people. You can superficially connect and have a nice circle of addicts, but not connecting with people in a way that's harmonious and fulfilling, those are the people that are really vulnerable to addiction. They're lonely, depressed, anxious, and traumatized. It's just like the Rat Park [Canadian study into drug addiction]. What I said doesn't just apply to humans, it applies to other animals, too. Isolation is really bad for you and it's the underlining factor of addiction.





.........

as he notes chemical dependency adds 'another layer' than does non-chemical addiction. Ex., alcohol affects the GABA receptors in the brain causing CNS depression. Significant use of alcohol adversely affects these recptors leadign to tolerance, physical dependence. Acute removal of alcohol , as seen in Acute Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome can lead to tremors, anxiety, seizures, shakes, etc. Your body has adapted to live on alcohol and wonders why it isn't available anymore.

 

[pocketrockets]

Nice post ricboff

 

[ML Dog]

Guys smart enough to know that betting a Side without knowing what the capabilities of the players on the team are would be a reckless & stupid thing to do willingly accept this Lewis guy's take on addiction when to do so is identical, in essence, to betting that Side without knowing the capabilities of those playing.

We do not know enough about the Human Brain to conclusively say that addiction is due to what Lewis suggests.

You accept Lewis' Take because it echoes what you personally think to be the truth, it validates your beliefs and it places responsibility for one's action onto a person themselves which you'd like to see and I don't blame you.

I believe this to be a positive thing to pursue, encouraging people to make better decisions and own their bad ones but Lewis proposes that you accept his Take, his Opinion on the matter and uses fancy words and phrases that make you think he knows some stuff to sell you a total "Bill Of Goods" here.

Lewis does this while fully understanding (as do you if you have any common sense at all) that knowing as little as we really do about the exact workings of the Human Brain we cannot say conclusively what causes addiction.

Damage to that specific area of the brain responsible for decision making might cause addictive behavior, could be an underdeveloped state of that region of the brain thats responsible, could be Genetic...i.e. how that region of a brain operates (or fails to) could be Disease..

...that exists within that region of a brain. If thats what it is that leads to addiction is then Voila addiction stems from a diseased state.

Maybe addictive behavior does come to be as result of what Lewis asks you to believe but there is no way that he can know because he does not have enough understanding of how the human brain works and thus what impairments within a brain can cause to be....to know this. He is just guessing...with what he writes.

Overall I consider it a very positive thing to get people encouraged to take responsibility for their actions but for you guys to behave as though Lewis has some special "insight" into the causes of addiction is ridiculously stupid. He's the same a a "Tout" basically with this speculation of his dressed up in fancy words, cloaked for deception to lull you into believing that he knows some stuff.

It should be obvious to you that one could no more diagnose the causes of addiction without a full understanding of the Human Brain than they could accomplish making an intelligent bet on a Side without knowing what the capabilities of those on a given team are.

If Lewis really wants to get some attention, sell some books get some appearance fees he should experiment with suggesting that addictive behavior (in some cases) is the product of a brain that is damaged's ingrained desire to Self-Terminate. So as to avoid the inevitable and unavoidable despair which that brain knows, inherently, lies on the horizon.

If he'd mess with that Lewis would get a bunch of attention because much of the "Scientific Community" asserts the human brain is not capable of Self-Termination.

Addictive behavior can have, at it's root, "Ego".....at first at least then one advances onto the actual physical addiction itself, the body's "need" for a substance to stave off discomfort...

There are many possible different causes for addictive behavior, don't get too distracted from the pursuit of truth where regards this question by Snake Oil Salesmen who'd have you believe they know conclusively what causes it.

 

[wilbur]

Guys smart enough to know that betting a Side without knowing what the capabilities of the players on the team are would be a reckless & stupid thing to do willingly accept this Lewis guy's take on addiction when to do so is identical, in essence, to betting that Side without knowing the capabilities of those playing.

We do not know enough about the Human Brain to conclusively say that addiction is due to what Lewis suggests.

You accept Lewis' Take because it echoes what you personally think to be the truth, it validates your beliefs and it places responsibility for one's action onto a person themselves which you'd like to see and I don't blame you.

I believe this to be a positive thing to pursue, encouraging people to make better decisions and own their bad ones but Lewis proposes that you accept his Take, his Opinion on the matter and uses fancy words and phrases that make you think he knows some stuff to sell you a total "Bill Of Goods" here.

Lewis does this while fully understanding (as do you if you have any common sense at all) that knowing as little as we really do about the exact workings of the Human Brain we cannot say conclusively what causes addiction.

Damage to that specific area of the brain responsible for decision making might cause addictive behavior, could be an underdeveloped state of that region of the brain thats responsible, could be Genetic...i.e. how that region of a brain operates (or fails to) could be Disease..

...that exists within that region of a brain. If thats what it is that leads to addiction is then Voila addiction stems from a diseased state.

Maybe addictive behavior does come to be as result of what Lewis asks you to believe but there is no way that he can know because he does not have enough understanding of how the human brain works and thus what impairments within a brain can cause to be....to know this. He is just guessing...with what he writes.

Overall I consider it a very positive thing to get people encouraged to take responsibility for their actions but for you guys to behave as though Lewis has some special "insight" into the causes of addiction is ridiculously stupid. He's the same a a "Tout" basically with this speculation of his dressed up in fancy words, cloaked for deception to lull you into believing that he knows some stuff.

It should be obvious to you that one could no more diagnose the causes of addiction without a full understanding of the Human Brain than they could accomplish making an intelligent bet on a Side without knowing what the capabilities of those on a given team are.

If Lewis really wants to get some attention, sell some books get some appearance fees he should experiment with suggesting that addictive behavior (in some cases) is the product of a brain that is damaged's ingrained desire to Self-Terminate. So as to avoid the inevitable and unavoidable despair which that brain knows, inherently, lies on the horizon.

If he'd mess with that Lewis would get a bunch of attention because much of the "Scientific Community" asserts the human brain is not capable of Self-Termination.

Addictive behavior can have, at it's root, "Ego".....at first at least then one advances onto the actual physical addiction itself, the body's "need" for a substance to stave off discomfort...

There are many possible different causes for addictive behavior, don't get too distracted from the pursuit of truth where regards this question by Snake Oil Salesmen who'd have you believe they know conclusively what causes it.

I agree 100%

 

[Ricboff]

There are many possible different causes for addictive behavior, don't get too distracted from the pursuit of truth where regards this question by Snake Oil Salesmen who'd have you believe they know conclusively what causes it.

wtf


he's giving HIS OPINION. In fact he says as such in his conclusion.

'.........That's what I think it is................................'

 

[pocketrockets]

Guys smart enough to know that betting a Side without knowing what the capabilities of the players on the team are would be a reckless & stupid thing to do willingly accept this Lewis guy's take on addiction when to do so is identical, in essence, to betting that Side without knowing the capabilities of those playing.

We do not know enough about the Human Brain to conclusively say that addiction is due to what Lewis suggests.

You accept Lewis' Take because it echoes what you personally think to be the truth, it validates your beliefs and it places responsibility for one's action onto a person themselves which you'd like to see and I don't blame you.

I believe this to be a positive thing to pursue, encouraging people to make better decisions and own their bad ones but Lewis proposes that you accept his Take, his Opinion on the matter and uses fancy words and phrases that make you think he knows some stuff to sell you a total "Bill Of Goods" here.

Lewis does this while fully understanding (as do you if you have any common sense at all) that knowing as little as we really do about the exact workings of the Human Brain we cannot say conclusively what causes addiction.

Damage to that specific area of the brain responsible for decision making might cause addictive behavior, could be an underdeveloped state of that region of the brain thats responsible, could be Genetic...i.e. how that region of a brain operates (or fails to) could be Disease..

...that exists within that region of a brain. If thats what it is that leads to addiction is then Voila addiction stems from a diseased state.

Maybe addictive behavior does come to be as result of what Lewis asks you to believe but there is no way that he can know because he does not have enough understanding of how the human brain works and thus what impairments within a brain can cause to be....to know this. He is just guessing...with what he writes.

Overall I consider it a very positive thing to get people encouraged to take responsibility for their actions but for you guys to behave as though Lewis has some special "insight" into the causes of addiction is ridiculously stupid. He's the same a a "Tout" basically with this speculation of his dressed up in fancy words, cloaked for deception to lull you into believing that he knows some stuff.

It should be obvious to you that one could no more diagnose the causes of addiction without a full understanding of the Human Brain than they could accomplish making an intelligent bet on a Side without knowing what the capabilities of those on a given team are.

If Lewis really wants to get some attention, sell some books get some appearance fees he should experiment with suggesting that addictive behavior (in some cases) is the product of a brain that is damaged's ingrained desire to Self-Terminate. So as to avoid the inevitable and unavoidable despair which that brain knows, inherently, lies on the horizon.

If he'd mess with that Lewis would get a bunch of attention because much of the "Scientific Community" asserts the human brain is not capable of Self-Termination.

Addictive behavior can have, at it's root, "Ego".....at first at least then one advances onto the actual physical addiction itself, the body's "need" for a substance to stave off discomfort...

There are many possible different causes for addictive behavior, don't get too distracted from the pursuit of truth where regards this question by Snake Oil Salesmen who'd have you believe they know conclusively what causes it.

Agree 100%, bud.

I mean, I like to take responsability for my actions REGARDLESS of a possible addict gene or frontal lobe malfunction. Truth is, you gotta make shit happen... You can't just stand there and say "doc, boo-hoo, I'm an ddict, gimme pills, gimme another crutch"... Start dating the girl you love, re start hobbies you once buried, excersise constantly, eat healthy and let shit go.

I think recovering from addiction can be done by yourself or with help... but no one can save you if you really dont wanna quit. 12 step programs consist for the most part of a spiritual collective dependency with the group and the support base that creates in your mind, mob mentality, cult, call it what you will. When thats gone, when yous top going to the meetings cause you have much work... stress rises what happens? you get hooked again. Idk... Im just happy I am now really decided to quit.

 

[barman]

wtf


he's giving HIS OPINION. In fact he says as such in his conclusion.

'.........That's what I think it is................................'

Dr Lanquel texted me with that same WTF response....Of course it's Opinion.

It is reasonable to state that Western medicine explanations of cause/effect for 90% or more of illness is opinion based. We can safely conclude that due to the high number of 'exceptions to the rule' for even the most prevalent health issues of the day.

 

[Ricboff]

Dr Lanquel texted me with that same WTF response....Of course it's Opinion.

It is reasonable to state that Western medicine explanations of cause/effect for 90% or more of illness is opinion based. We can safely conclude that due to the high number of 'exceptions to the rule' for even the most prevalent health issues of the day.

hmm, interesting point and a good one. Disease expression is often multi-factorial. Greatest stone cold evidence for such is seen in identical twin studies.


many folks like to adhere to what doctors say as gospel. The medical profession is largely ultra-sensitive. She doesn't like to be challenged. I'm certainly a proponent of evidence-based medicine. However, to progress we need mavericks. Those that will challenge traditional medicine, to challenge 'peer-review' evidence.


Great recent example was in the early 2000's. Medicine's longtime causation for peptic ulcers/chronic gastritis was too much acidity in the diet/too much acid production by the stomach.Treatment was ; bland diet, loads of antacids and later histamine H2 antagonists . Then some doc from Australia suggests its a disease of infection, and NOT by over production of gastric acids. And specifically by one organism H. Pylori. Could this be true? How could medicine be SO WAY OFF? His claim was flat out rejected by his colleagues, the medical community. As it turns out he was right; treatment with an antibiotic that targets H Pylori and you are cured, chronic gastritis gone (untreated could lead to ulceration, peptic ulcer). It's the standard of care today


how did he convince his collegues?-- he INFECTED himself, ingested H Pylori. I'll let him tell the tremendous story, here's Dr Marshall;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661189/
PA: Can you remind us of the details of the famous story of you ingesting H pylori? Did it occur to you that there is a legacy of self-experimentation in medical history such as Marie Curie?
Dr Marshall: I was aware of famous self-experiments because I read the history of John Hunter’s self-infection with gonorrhea and syphilis (which may have caused his death years later). However, I had been arguing with the skeptics for two years and had no animal model that could prove H pylori was a pathogen. If I was right, then anyone was susceptible to the bug and would develop gastritis and maybe an ulcer years later. So I expected to develop an asymptomatic infection. The experiment was planned with a culture from a patient with dyspepsia and confirmation that it was sensitive to metronidazole. Then I underwent endoscopy in early July 1984 to confirm that I was negative for H pylori. Three weeks later, I drank the ‘brew’ which was a suspension of two culture plates of the organism. If only I knew that people would be so interested, I would have taken a photograph! After five days, I started to have bloating and fullness after the evening meal, and my appetite decreased. My breath was bad and I vomited clear watery liquid, without acid, each morning at approximately 06:00. Then, a follow-up endoscopy showed severe active gastritis with polymorphonuclear infiltrate and epithelial damage. Evidently, H pylori was a pathogen for normal people. The ulcer did not merely set you up for catching the infection. People with asymptomatic H pylori were ‘carriers’ and most people did not have ulcers from the bacterium. Gastritis was explained.
After 14 days, I repeated the endoscopy and then, before the results were known, began taking antibiotics (on my wife’s orders!). However H pylori were not seen on that biopsy so I might have already had a spontaneous cure. Robin Warren believes that the bacteria were still lurking and would have been detected on culture, but by then I was already treated. The paper was published in the third person, but it gradually became known that the ‘male volunteer’ was me.




he won the Nobel Peace Prize in physiology in 2005






...btw, hope Dr Lanquel is well. Kindly pass my best wishes.

 

[barman]

certainly, Richoff

Western medicine gives a mostly impatient nod to the effects of the mind over body. While they will in most cases encourage patients to "stay positive", giving credence to a notion that all disease is first inspired by unhealthy thinking causes great dismay.

They instead want to quantify only the physical similarities (or lack thereof) between cases with related symptoms which is instantly faulty because every human body is literally unique - as you note in your reference to 'identical' twins.