How Freud, Jung, and Wilson Cured Addiction And The Treatment Industry Closed Its Ears (eBook)

A Peer Reviewed Analysis Of The Brain

Michael Tucker M.S. (Autor)

eBook Download: EPUB

2020 | 1. Auflage
124 Seiten
Bookbaby (Verlag)
978-1-0983-2134-5 (ISBN)

Infos

'How Freud, Jung, and Wilson Cured Addiction and the Treatment Industry Closed Its Ears: A Peer Reviewed Analysis of the Brain,' lays out in critical detail how the theoretical foundation for the cure of addictions was in place a century before technological advances would support those findings. This volume presents to the world the only neuro-chemical diagnostic model for addictions based upon personality, as well as the first emotion regulation system developed exclusively for treating chemical dependencies. The reader of this book will find the most accurate detailed description of the origin of addictions ever presented to the world. And, the truths that are exposed make treatment strategies and protocols based upon behavioral diagnostic models, as well as the theory of chronic addiction disease, obsolete.

---

"e;How Freud, Jung, and Wilson Cured Addiction and the Treatment Industry Closed Its Ears: A Peer Reviewed Analysis of the Brain,"e; lays out in critical detail how the theoretical foundation for the cure of addictions was in place a century before technological advances would support those findings. This volume presents to the world the only neuro-chemical diagnostic model for addictions based upon personality, as well as the first emotion regulation system developed exclusively for treating chemical dependencies. The reader of this book will find the most accurate detailed description of the origin of addictions ever presented to the world. And, the truths that are exposed make treatment strategies and protocols based upon behavioral diagnostic models, as well as the theory of chronic addiction disease, obsolete. The culmination of research which began in 2014, Michael Tucker, MS, presents to the world undeniable facts supported by peer reviewed research findings which cannot be contradicted. This is groundbreaking; and it changes the entire focus and trajectory of chemical dependency treatment forevermore.

Textauszug

Chapter 1

When Addiction Begins

First of all, addiction is NOT a disease. And the compulsion underlying the disorder is fueled by two dynamics: (1) a hypersensitivity to stress, and (2) a respondent overstimulation of the pleasure center in the brain. In that order. The hypersensitivity to stress is primary, and the respondent overstimulation of the meso-corticolimbic dopamine pathway is secondary. Consequently, the information in this book will explain, in detail, how the dysregulation of cortisol in the brain actually causes chemical dependency. And, the peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting that conclusion is irrefutable.

However, what has complicated the issue and impeded the discovery of a cure for addiction is the life span of the fallacy that alcoholism/addiction is a chronic disease. That incorrect diagnosis began with Alcoholics Anonymous in the 1930’s when it was proposed that alcoholism was the result of a “physical allergy” to alcohol (Wilson, 1939, p. xxviii). Eventually, the lack of scientific advancement advocated for the publication of “The Disease Concept of Alcoholism” by E. M. Jellinek in 1960. Today, we know for a fact that alcoholics are not suffering with a physical allergy to alcohol. So, why do treatment officials still recommend attendance at AA meetings? Good question.

And here’s one answer: Because attendance at AA meetings offer alcoholics an opportunity to open up an emotional catharsis through a derivative of Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic therapy called “Free Association” (Corey, 2009, p.75). The alcoholic is directed to participate in a process where he or she can freely associate themselves with others who will listen to the emotional issues which trouble them. So ironically, while insisting that chemical dependency is a chronic illness imposed by a compulsion to use chemicals, the treatment industry still recommends treatment for stress as a primary solution. They just never explain that rationale to you.

Another serious impediment to curing substance use disorders is that the treatment industry continues to regard chemical use as a primary determinant of addiction; which suggests that overcoming the disorder is influenced by moral attributes. That philosophical error is then underscored by research findings which identify the meso-cortico-limbic dopamine pathway (pleasure center) as the primary area of support for the reinforcing effects of opiates, psycho-stimulants, ethanol, nicotine, and cannabinoids; based upon the results of animal laboratory studies (Nestler & Self, 2004; Dworkin & Smith, 1993; Ikemoto & Wise, 2004; Koob et al., 1998; Kuhar et al. 1991; Olds, 1982). The meso-cortico-limbic dopamine pathway exists within the mesencephalon (midbrain), extending throughout the areas and functions of the substantia nigra (the source of most dopamine neuronal projections to the striatum of the basal ganglia), the ventral tegmentum, the nucleus accumbens, and the pre-frontal cortex (Pinel, 2011). These areas are also believed to be fundamental to the development of tolerance, sensitization, and dependence, relative to the etiology of chemical dependency (Nestler & Self, 2004).

However, although chemical dependency treatments have evolved and expanded over the years by incorporating new ideas and methods (Carroll, De Leon, Joseph, & Winick, 2013), the earlier and subsequent treatment models have unfortunately proven themselves to be “inadequately effective for most people” (Nestler & Self, 2004). And lacking the proper philosophical basis to produce a permanent solution to the problem of chemical dependency, the disorder has been labeled an “incurable disease.” And we know that chronic illnesses generate greater profits for medical institutions than cures.

Now, it stands in broad contrast to the brain imaging advances of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), and Positive Emission Tomography (PET), that describing chemical dependency as a chronic disease is a relic held over from a period of scientific infancy. This could not be more evident than the views expressed by George E. Vaillant, M.D., of the Department of Psychiatry, Dartmouth Medical School. Vaillant’s research into the cause and nature of alcoholism, was considered a confirmation and amplification of the disease concept of alcoholism (Kinney, 2010).

Jellinek, whose pioneering work with alcoholism began in the 1940’s, eventually outlined the disease concept of alcoholism as a group of progressive behavioral phases: pre-alcoholic, prodromal, crucial, and chronic; and a group of species: alpha, beta, gamma, and epsilon (Jellinek, 1994). So, it must have been Vaillant’s unquestioned dedication to the disease concept which compelled him to report that alcoholic psychopathology was a “result” of chemical use, rather than the cause (Vaillant, 1983). And present-day treatment concepts continue to be developed based upon that theory while contemporary research evidence contradicts the assessment.

Furthermore, the studies conducted by Vernon Johnson, which represented a “paradigm shift” in alcoholic research, outlined a behavioral model of alcoholism; a one-dimensional perspective of chemical dependency occurring as a result of the reinforcing effects of repeated chemical use (Kinney, 2010; Johnson, 1973). Johnson however, just as the other theorists, never spoke of cure as a viable option.

It is my contention, that the disease concept of alcoholism has demonstrated its ineffectiveness as a diagnostic model because it is based upon an intuitive theory of behavior. Its weakness lies in the fact that it does not reveal any connection between the mental/emotional state of a substance use disorder with organic brain chemistry.

Therefore, in order to lay the foundation for cure, we must throw out the subjective conclusions that addiction is a chronic disease, and that chemical use is the primary determinant of addictive processes. Then we can put everything in proper perspective in accordance with contemporary scientific and medical research findings advanced by modern technology. And when we consider contemporary research findings produced by new technologies, we find that the correct definition of chemical dependency is this: “Chemical dependency is a curable comorbid personality disorder; based upon a bio-psychosocial continuum, which manifests as contaminated cognitive processes. And the origin of addictive cycles within the chemically dependent arise independent of, and disconnected from, any chemical element or dynamic existing outside of the brain.”

Now, that will seem a bizarre statement to those who view chemical dependency exclusively from subjective clinical observation. However, an introspective observation will confirm its accuracy. On page 26 and 27 of what is known as the “Big Book” of Alcoholics Anonymous, Dr. Carl Jung is quoted as saying that the phenomenon of cure came in the form of “emotional displacements and rearrangements” experienced by those that had previously been severely alcoholic. But what exactly does that mean with regard to being cured of chemical dependency?

Does it mean that a person who has been addicted to heroin or cocaine can return to active use of those substances without suffering any consequences? Absolutely not! The question is: why did the individual make the decision to use such a dangerous drug in the first place? The devastating effects which impact the use of such dangerous chemicals is not a cultural secret. So, why do people indulge despite the risk of catastrophe?

Consider this: prohibition was defeated in spite of a public that had been devastated by the convivial use of alcoholic beverages (Kinney, 2012, pp.7-11). Today, one need only consult statistics in possession of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to see shocking evidence of the devastating effects of unregulated alcoholic beverage consumption (BJS, 1998; CDC, 2015). So again, the question is, with such overwhelming evidence of the negative consequences guaranteed to come, why do people insist on drinking alcoholic beverages?

One answer to that question is that liquor producers are unrestricted in their rights to portray ethyl alcohol consumption as safe while diminishing the importance of evidence to the contrary (Boggs & Durgampudi, 2017; Kinney, 2012; Anderson, 2009; MacKinnon & Lapin, 1998). Beer, wine, and liquor distributors are able to advertise their products without reminding anyone that 10, 497 people were killed in drunk driving accidents in 2016; and over 30,000 more died from cirrhosis of the liver. And those two statistics alone do not, by any stretch, indicate the full measure of death and destruction experienced by the public, year after year, in direct relation to alcoholic beverage consumption. Yet arguably, a far worse consequence is that the unremitting representation of alcoholic beverage use as safe, deceives the public into believing that the horrific consequences attached to its use are moral issues. And that persistent and deceptive public narrative is given place by misleading alcoholic beverage advertisements when research evidence unequivocally shows it not to be true!

In all actuality, it is inherently immoral to depict ethyl alcohol use as safe, or that the negative consequences tied to its use are moral issues. The decision of when and where to consume alcoholic beverages is not about what is right or wrong. And attempts to reduce the mayhem associated with alcoholic beverage consumption, based upon that premise, have...

Produkt-Details

• Erscheint lt. Verlag: 12.8.2020
• Sprache: englisch
• Themenwelt: Geisteswissenschaften ► Psychologie
• ISBN-10: 1-0983-2134-0 / 1098321340
• ISBN-13: 978-1-0983-2134-5 / 9781098321345