The Addiction Recovery Information Distribution (ARID) Site

About ARID
ARID Media


Old News

PGP Public Key
E-mail The ARID Site

Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Get Firefox!

Get Thunderbird!

There Is No Gene

Sunday, March 11, 2007 - dr.bomb

Oooh! Pretty colors!As I was visiting some old web sites that I used to visit regularly I've noticed that HBO is going full swing into its promotion of its "Addiction" series (produced with the help of NIAAA and NIDA) via the banner advertising networks. A prominent feature of one of these ads is a graphic depicting a PET scan of a "diseased" addict's brain. As you'll find it is nothing but yet more deceptive subterfuge underneath the mantle of "Science". Simple common sense renders than nonsense into the pretty yet worthless lightshow that it is.

For one thing, there never was a disease. The primary thing that recreational drugs provide is pleasure. And, because people in general enjoy remembering good things rather than bad things, they of course remember that sweet little buzz from that precious.

Some people actually value that pleasure in lieu of other choices either not readily available, acknowledged or ignored. And, when deprived of that pleasure, the person goes through deprivation until the time is right to sate that desire.

In other words, if you hook up a addict's brain to a PET scan and show them pictures of their favorite goodies, OF COURSE the PET scan will light up in a dazzling array of colors. And, gee, set up the same PET scan with a drunk as the subject and show them pictures of liquor and wow! It's amazing! It's a test that misuses medical technology to prove only what the snake oil charlatans of the RGM/ATI want to prove!

At of the time of this writing, I'm interested in buying Boston CDs. Suppose these "scientists" hooked up a PET scan to my brain and show pictures of the aforementioned merchandise. Or even played some of their music. I'm 100% certain that the PET scan will light up the same way not because I'm addicted to Boston. It's just because I find that band's music pleasurable and wish to procure it. Does that mean that my brain is diseased?

Or how about someone who really enjoys potatoes? Or carrots? Or soymilk? Or tofu? What if someone was hungry and was shown highly-stylized delicious-looking pictures of food? I can certainly go on down the list and adjusting the PET scan accordingly. If I controlled the "miracle of Science" known as the PET scan I could literally pathologize entire demographics of people.

What about homosexuals? Just think: A society can weed through its own population looking for "deviants", strap them into chairs and PET scan devices, display images of graphic homoerotic scenes and then proving definitively that homosexuality is a brain disease. Unfortunately, there was a point in America's history where homosexuals were discriminated against and persecuted just because they enjoyed same-sex sex. And yes, homosexuals knew the score and realized that it were a bunch of highly-closeted Christian fundamentalists who, with the backing of their bible and the DSM (psychiatry's bible, under the false aegis of medicine) who were oppressing them.

Only through organizing and raising a ruckus did the DSM diagnosis get downgraded into "Sexual Orientation Disturbance". That's not much of a victory since now homosexuality is now regarded as being a disturbance in the eyes of those "experts". And, as shown in context with the DSM's debunked nonsense concerning substance addiction, it appears that the committees involved in its publication have an aversion in coming forth in claiming that pleasure, in and of itself, is perfectly normal. It would be far more humane to adopt a common sense position that only when the pursuit, procurement and consummation of that pleasure directly harms another nonconsenting human being's person or property should the hedonist be punished accordingly.

The truth is that homosexuals and addicts are not sick! Nor is there any pathological reason why people become gay or addicted outside of the enjoyment of that activity. None of the above constitutes evidence of any pathology that proves the existence of such a genetic disorder or disease.

- - -

About more than a year ago, when I was once a poster on the SCAAAM's so-called "Escaping From The Cult Of A.A." E-mail list, the subject of a so-called "gene" for substance addiction came up. Naturally, it was one of the apologists who posted a link from a news page originating from the Alcoholism site, a notoriously pro-Buchmanism site.

As HBO went about its banner-marketing campaign I revisited my orphaned web pages (rough drafts, unpublished responses, etc.) where one contained a partial response. In light of the propaganda occurring now I feel the time is right for a response to the fallacies present within it:

> Postulating a genetic predispostion is not the same as
> saying there is a "disease" called "alcoholism." Genes
> control eye color, for example. Eye color isn't a disease.

To claim that there's a "genetic predisposition" assumes that there are genes involved when someone decides to go out and have a few. Never is it stated outright that one simply desires to feel good or better and, remembering that a beer or shot provided pleasure, goes out and has a couple.

The whole idea of "genetic disposition" is a smokescreen for the sake of instilling F-SID (First-Step Indoctrination Disorder) in the problem drunk/druggie targeted by the RGM/ATI. A nonproven "genetic" cause, where one buys into the false tautology that just because they are powerless over their genes they are powerless over their drinking and drugging, turns into a brutal piece of bait-and-switch into accepting the First Step of the Twelve-Step ideology of A.A.

> You say with such absolute flat-footed certainly that
> "there is no such gene." It seems that you NEED TO BELIEVE
> there is no such gene.\

This is where the RGM/ATI and SCAAAM gets another one disastrously wrong yet again. Because it hasn't been empirically proven that there is such a gene then there's no reason to believe that there is. Likewise, if such a gene were to be discovered, would that render all quitters automatically diseased in need of treatment and further "aftercare" (as in mandatory meetings within a pro-addiction cult)?

And, if this gene does exist, where are the mandatory tests at every single treatment center to prove the existence of this gene for an accurate diagnosis? The answer is, IT DOESN'T EXIST EITHER!

Think about it: The only way to test for sure of the existence of this gene would be to take an equal population of drunks/druggies "in recovery" versus people who quit on their own and people with no drinking/drugging problems and test ALL THREE populations for the presence of those telltale genetic markers. Such specific research won't occur because it's more profitable to let mythology under the mantle of "Science" reign supreme.

Thus, there's no gene and there's no test for that mythological gene. If REAL science were applied it would invariably pull the wool off from a Beast, exposing the fraudulent research currently done as nothing more than its rapacious desire for more taxpayer funds to keep itself alive. Thus, an entire industry and its PR apparatus would literally die from exposure.

Anyhow, it's not my job to claim a gene exists. The burden of proof ultimately falls on the person making the claim in the first place. Since the so-called "evidence" lacks anything to be considered empirical (especially considering the context of F-SID) then it's safe for anyone to say "there is no such gene". Likewise, it's not me who needs to believe that a gene exists to remain abstinent for it's not me making the claim (much less believing) that a gene exists.

The above quote is simply psychological projection by the person who is deeply offended at having their sacred cow of genetic fallacy and their own addict identity challenged. Blinded by rage, they write nonsensical blather in lieu of providing any proof to support their argument.

> I don't believe alcoholism is a
> disease, either. But I don't deny there COULD be a gene
> predisposing people toward it which, along with many other
> factors, could increase one's chances of developing a
> chemical dependency.

Alcoholism is NOT a disease. That's not a mere belief but a proven fact. It would be far more honest and humane to call it alcohol-induced stupidity (or, in A.A.'s case, an alcohol-fueled cult religion), for that is what it is.

Never will anyone involved in the RGM/ATI or SCAAAM cop to the truth that the sole purpose for the use of recreational drugs is for the user to feel pure pleasure. Instead of acknowledging that fact and advocating personal responsibility the opposite has occurred: Instilling a false belief that there's something wrong with that person, a hidden cause, that causes that person to desire and pursue pleasure with abandon (for example, the genetic fallacy).

Human beings prefer pleasure over pain. Sometimes human beings are willing to even endure pain in the pursuit of pleasure. That's just human nature. What the RGM/ATI and its SCAAAMy apologists would rather do is pathologize that healthy desire and human nature in general and focus attention away from personal responsibility. Thus, the slippery slope occurs where democratic values are undermined and drowned in the sea of victimocracy.

That's not humane or even dignified. It's not thoughtful at all. It's just plain wrong.

> How one CHOOSES to deal with
> a vulnerability to develoing obesity, or chemical dependency,
> or anything else, is another question entirely.

Oh, there is a choice readily available to every single hedonist out there. It's simply to "KNOCK IT OFF!"

The alleged vulnerability is nothing more than an iatrogenic disorder (F-SID) instilled by the very same industry that claims to offer a "treatment" for it. This disorder is compounded further by the corporate-owned/corporate-subsidised mass media where A.A.'s highly-lucrative front groups can "carry the message" to the non-questioning public.

What results is that the individual who knows that to end their problem means to QUIT becomes a minority of one. All of the RGM/ATI propaganda spewing forth from radio, television, magazines, films, newspapers, treatment centers, and even unaffiliated citizens who don't know any better but parrot the party line anyhow because "everyone believes it", serves to effectively undermine that individual's resolve to quit and stay quit. All of the above causes self-doubt, the REAL reason why people "keep coming back" to A.A. and/or treatment.

And it's all a mockery of justice, no less. When the judicial system holds the person responsible and yet steers the person into "treatment" that brainwashes the person into believeing that they are not responsible in any way shape or form (the lie is that the client is "defective" in some way, thus the adoption of conditional sobriety that reinforces the "rigorously honest" Big Lie) then you have a dangerous contradiction within the system. Can you say "revolving door"?

So: Are people responsible for their own actions or are they not? That's the bottom line from which this "Science" should be judged.

When the individual rises up and realizes the truth that the so-called "open-minded" deny, that it is possible that everyone brainwashed by the nonsense of the RGM/ATI is wrong, they realize that something was deliberately put in their way towards their goal of quitting. That person is naturally going to feel disgusted and/or completely alienated. But they'll also realize that they're totally free. That's ultimately the price of freedom itself as they see that it's the system that instills further dependency for its own survival.

So, it wouldn't be much of a stretch that not only does propaganda such as HBO's "Addiction" pathologize desire in general but also the specific desire for freedom itself. To call one wanting freedom suffering from some sort of genetic malady or having a "brain disease" is purely an un-American action.

And, in regards to the NIAAA, your tax dollars are paying for a system that admits that abstinence is "not gonna happen" within the pro-addiction system.

Back to the Articles page.

Last updated 2007/03/11

(c)2003-2007 dr.bomb & The ARID Site - All Rights Reserved
Quotes are attributed to their appropriate sources.
E-mail policy: If I feel it's outrageous enough in an informative sense I'll publish it at my own discretion.

drunken cultists