View Full Version : Gabor Mate's Theories of Addiction Flawed


Abi
04-07-14, 03:27 PM
By Stanton Peele, PhD, JD:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201112/the-seductive-dangerous-allure-gabor-mat

mildadhd
04-07-14, 04:25 PM
By Stanton Peele, PhD, JD:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201112/the-seductive-dangerous-allure-gabor-mat

*Is "allur" a tertiary scientific term?


Peripheral

mildadhd
04-07-14, 04:32 PM
"prozac"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exKpcOyPerk

Lunacie
04-07-14, 05:19 PM
It would be nice if you guys would include a thumbnail description of the link or video,

just a small blurb would refresh the main point being made.

Please, for the posters who have memory problems?

mildadhd
04-07-14, 05:54 PM
(Approx 1:40) Temple Grandin discusses how prozac works.

Also introduces the affective 4 blue-ribbon core emotions.

SEEKING System, ANGER System, FEAR System, PANIC/GRIEF System to the discussion.


*What is everyone's interpretation of the OP link?





Peripheral

daveddd
04-07-14, 06:02 PM
addiction is a simple concept

emotional avoidance , easy

mildadhd
04-07-14, 06:26 PM
Consider and compare the affective 4 blue-ribbon core emotions.

SEEKING System, ANGER System, FEAR System, PANIC/GRIEF System,

introduce in the Temple Grandin video,

and some of the natural physiology involved in the "affective states", in the quotes below:


Biogenic amines as neurotransmitters in CNS-Norepinephrine (NE), dopamine (DA) and serotonin (ST) belong to the group of

biogenic monoamine neurotransmitters that serve in the central neural pathways regulating affective states (moods, motivation, feelings) and in self-awareness,

consciousness, and personality.

Drug effects on CNS established roles for NE, ST, & DA in affective behavior and mental disorders--Reserpine, a plant alkaloid known to reduce

hypertension, acts by decreasing storage of synaptic vesicles and availability of NE in peripheral synapses.

Reserpine treatment for blood pressure also causes central "affective disorders" such as depression and loss of appetite and interest.

Reserpine has been used for centuries in India to relieve mania (abnormally elevated moods) in patients.

These observations implicate NE, ST, and DA in regulating mood and feelings (affective states).


Kapit/Macey/Meisami,"The PHYSIOLOGY COLORING BOOK", (Biogenic Amines, Behavioral Functions & Mental Disorders) Nervous System, P 110


i!i

Lunacie
04-07-14, 08:13 PM
Hm, Gabor Mate addresses drug addiction, saying it's like ADHD and shopping addiction.

He says they are all "brain diseases."

He blames these "brain diseases" on childhood abuse which he thinks influences brain chemicals during the formative years.

Whether that may be true or not, I don't quite see the link to medicating with Prozac?

Or to medication that treats blood pressure?

Abi
04-07-14, 08:27 PM
I suppose if he posits that's stress/anxiety are the root cause of these things then the use of meds which have anxiolytic effects like Prozac and Alpha and Beta blockers would follow from there.

Lunacie
04-07-14, 08:31 PM
I suppose if he posits that's stress/anxiety are the root cause of these things then the use of meds which have anxiolytic effects like Prozac and Alpha and Beta blockers would follow from there.

I'm trying to follow here ... because those meds balance the brain chemicals?

ana futura
04-07-14, 08:56 PM
Relevant, although not sure exactly how-

http://boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/19/your_brain_on_gambling/?page=full

When Ann Klinestiver, a high school English teacher in Milton, W.Va., was first diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, she was desperate for anything that might calm the tremors caused by the disease. She found relief in a new drug called Requip.

"At first, the drug was like a miracle," Klinestiver says. "All my movement problems just disappeared."

Over time, however, Klinestiver needed higher and higher doses of the drug in order to ease her symptoms. That's when she became a gambling addict. Although she'd never been interested in gambling before, Klinestiver was suddenly obsessed with slot machines. Every day, she would drive to the local dog racing track and play slots until 3:30 in the morning. After a year of addictive gambling, Klinestiver lost more than $200,000.

Klinestiver's medication worked by imitating the effects of dopamine, a neurotransmitter in the brain. Parkinson's is caused by the death of dopamine neurons in brain areas that control bodily movement. But dopamine also plays a central role in the pleasure centers of the brain, influencing how we see the world and respond to it. Recent medical studies have found that anywhere from 3 to 13 percent of patients on the kind of medication Klinestiver was taking develop severe gambling addictions or related compulsions. In early 2006, Klinestiver was taken off Requip. Her tremors worsened, but her gambling addiction vanished. "I haven't gambled in 18 months," she says. "I still think about the slots, but the obsession isn't there."

Wolfram Schultz, a neuroscientist at Cambridge University, has exposed how this system operates on a molecular level. He has spent the last two decades measuring the activity of dopamine neurons in the brains of monkeys as they receive rewards of fruit juice. His experiments observe a simple protocol: Schultz flashes a light, waits a few seconds, and then squirts a few drops of apple juice into the monkey's mouth. While the monkeys are waiting for the sweet liquid, Schultz painstakingly monitors the response of individual cells.

At first, the neurons don't get excited until the juice is delivered. The cells are reacting to the actual reward. However, once the animal learns that the light always precedes the arrival of juice, the same neurons begin firing at the sight of the light instead of the reward. Schultz calls these cells "prediction neurons," since they are more interested in predicting rewards than in the rewards themselves.

These predictions are a crucial source of learning, since the monkey constantly compares its expectations of juice with what actually happens. For example, if the light is flashed but the juice never arrives, then the monkey's dopamine neurons stop firing. This is known as the "error signal." The monkey is disappointed, and begins to change its future predictions. However, if the monkey receives an unexpected reward -- the juice arrives without warning -- then the dopamine neurons get extremely excited. A surprising treat registers much larger than an expected one.

Abi
04-07-14, 08:59 PM
I'm trying to follow here ... because those meds balance the brain chemicals?

Yes. If you accept the hypothesis that the cause of these issues is stress / anxiety (and I'm not saying I accept that, but of the sake of argument....) then meds with anxiolytic effects likes SSRIs and anti-hypotensives should help.

ana futura
04-07-14, 09:09 PM
The author's main point is this-

In fact, at the deepest level, Maté's views limit our approaches to, our understanding of, and even our respect for people living with addiction. Rather than expand our understanding of addiction, his views harm our ability to respond to it...

In fact, Maté's reliance on this treatment further confuses levels of analysis -- does introspection really remedy the absence of neuro-receptors in some straightforward manner?

In this context, that harm reductionists embrace Maté is extremely troubling. For, contrary to popular beliefs in these circles, Maté is actually diverting the addiction field from a more comprehensive and practicable view of addiction.

Maté's embrace of Ayahuasca does not support the broad harm reduction goals of expanding the resources available to people with addictions like those in Vancouver, of developing their skills for functioning in their worlds, and of holding up the hope that they can improve their lives. Instead, this approach is reductive, monosyllabic, and really no different than the disease camp's fool's gold quest for an addiction vaccine in the forlorn hope that we can remedy addiction without improving human lives.

A true harm reductionist should accept a wide range of contributors in the development of addiction, but particularly those that human agency -- and particularly the person who is addicted him or herself -- can address and improve. Without this sense, we are lost.

Can't argue with that.

Lunacie
04-07-14, 09:51 PM
Yes. If you accept the hypothesis that the cause of these issues is stress / anxiety (and I'm not saying I accept that, but of the sake of argument....) then meds with anxiolytic effects likes SSRIs and anti-hypotensives should help.

Thanks. I've been taking an Ace Inhibitor for nearly a decade and a SSRI for over two years.

They control my blood pressure and my anxiety very well.

Wish I could say they've been helpful for my ADHD or my addiction to sweets.

But nope. :umm1:

mildadhd
04-07-14, 10:29 PM
Thank God there is such a service; bless Maté for his work there. (Disclosure: I visited and conducted workshops at Insite and PHS in January.)

*can anybody explain mixed messages?

*Anyone know anything about the authors and if they promote or demote the use of ADHD medication to treat ADHD and addicton commorbidity?

Sounds like the author thinks Dr.Mate helps people, but don't tell the middle and upper class or something like that?

I'm confused.



*What is this thread about?









Peripheral

mildadhd
04-07-14, 11:18 PM
Abi,

*Have you ever read In the Realm Of Hungry ghosts?

I mean I am not making the connections?

*Any linked biological information that could help me understand your opinion?

*Sound like the author thinks Dr.Mate does a lot of good things, do you think Dr.Mate should be blessed for his work as well?

I don't have a confident opinion on this article because I don't have any solid quotes by Dr.Mate to go on.








Peripheral

ana futura
04-07-14, 11:48 PM
It seems to me that the authors find Dr. Mate to be too much of a biological reductionist.

Oh the irony...

mildadhd
04-08-14, 12:14 AM
It seems to me that the authors find Dr. Mate to be too much of a biological reductionist.

Oh the irony...


Is biologically accurate Medical Doctor, a good thing or a bad thing in your opinion?





i!i

ana futura
04-08-14, 12:49 AM
Not the right question.

daveddd
04-08-14, 05:57 AM
It seems to me that the authors find Dr. Mate to be too much of a biological reductionist.

Oh the irony...

now thats funny, the authors are confusing themselves

Abi
04-08-14, 10:13 AM
I have not read that text.

TygerSan
04-08-14, 01:32 PM
***Full Disclaimer*** I have not read Mate's books, so I can't comment directly on them.

The original article refers to Mate as being embraced by the "harm reductionists". Quoted from the article, the author defines harm reductionists as being people who "...accept people as they are, and seek to help those in need".

This concept is very different from that of a reductionist in the scientific sense of someone who studies small parts of a complex system in order to eventually be able to put together the pieces into a coherent whole.

It seems as though (understandably) people might be getting those two terms confused, as the author switches from discussing "harm reduction" to reductionist within the same paragraph.

I do think that what has been said time and time again is still relevant here: Mate is *overstating* the involvement of childhood trauma in the etiology of addiction and ADHD.

The author of this article lays that argument out out quite clearly.

Quoted from the article: "Vincent Felitti conducted a huge epidemiological study (http://www.acestudy.org/files/OriginsofAddiction.pdf) on early childhood experiences. He found that only a tiny group (3.5%) of people with 4 or more adverse childhood experiences became involved in injection drug use. So Maté's model is highly undiscriminating."

In other words, *loads* of children have been exposed to trauma. Of those with the most severe trauma history, only 3.5% of them abuse injectible drugs. If you widen the net and look at children with severe trauma history who have trouble with alcohol, the percentage jumps to 16%. Higher, but still not a majority.

The author uses the word undiscriminating: that means that Mate's theory doesn't account for the data in a meaningful way. If trauma were a major contributor to addiction, knowing that someone had suffered a trauma would allow you to conclude that the person was at a much higher risk of developing addiction than the general population. The author of the article asserts that the present data do *not* make such a distinction (I would have to look at the evidence myself in order to make that assertion, rather than relying on someone else's interpretation of the data).

Note, these even if these statistics *are* accurate, it doesn't mean that there isn't a relationship at all, just that for the majority of us out there, childhood trauma is not the primary cause of addiction, regardless of what Mate says.

namazu
04-08-14, 01:42 PM
This concept is very different from that of a reductionist in the scientific sense of someone who studies small parts of a complex system in order to eventually be able to put together the pieces into a coherent whole.

It seems as though (understandably) people might be getting those two terms confused, as the author switches from discussing "harm reduction" to reductionist within the same paragraph.

I do think that what has been said time and time again is still relevant here: Mate is *overstating* the involvement of childhood trauma in the etiology of addiction and ADHD.

The author of this article lays that argument out out quite clearly.
If I'm understanding the article and Ana Futura's comment, though, I think her observation is right-on:

The author of the Psychology Today article, Stanton Peele, takes issue with Mate for claiming that childhood trauma affects the developing brain in immutable ways that may make addiction more likely later in life.

Peele, meanwhile, apparently doesn't view addiction as having much of a biological basis at all.

So, for once, Mate finds himself being criticized for (according to Stanton Peele) giving undue weight to biological factors -- whereas the usual criticism of Mate is that he gives too much weight to social factors and traumatic life experiences and undervalues the contribution of (inherited) biological factors.

Still, a useful distinction to make between "harm reductionist" and "biological reductionist".

TygerSan
04-08-14, 01:45 PM
Hmm. . .

So if Mate puts too much emphasis on biology causing, according to the author, but childhood trauma doesn't cause addiction, then what *does* cause addiction :scratch:

Or is the author's point that when it comes to treatment of addiction, biological cause is irrelevant?

namazu
04-08-14, 01:47 PM
Or is the author's point that when it comes to treatment of addiction, biological cause is irrelevant?
I think that's it -- or, rather, that he feels attributing addiction to biology is actually counterproductive.

Peele seems to feel that describing addiction as a disease disempowers those who suffer from ("experience"? "have chosen"?) it and impedes recovery.

He's more of a "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" kind of guy, from what I can tell from a cursory web search, though I'll admit to not having read Peele's work in any detail.

I'm not entirely sure what his views on etiology are.

Dizfriz
04-08-14, 02:40 PM
Something to keep in mind in this is that Psychology Today is usually not considered to be a very high quality resource.

That shouldn't have a lot of impact in this discussion and does not impact at all on the validity of the article but it is something to keep in the back of the mind.


Dizfriz

mildadhd
04-08-14, 03:03 PM
***Full Disclaimer*** I have not read Mate's books, so I can't comment directly on them.

The original article refers to Mate as being embraced by the "harm reductionists". Quoted from the article, the author defines harm reductionists as being people who "...accept people as they are, and seek to help those in need".

This concept is very different from that of a reductionist in the scientific sense of someone who studies small parts of a complex system in order to eventually be able to put together the pieces into a coherent whole.

It seems as though (understandably) people might be getting those two terms confused, as the author switches from discussing "harm reduction" to reductionist within the same paragraph.

I do think that what has been said time and time again is still relevant here: Mate is *overstating* the involvement of childhood trauma in the etiology of addiction and ADHD.

The author of this article lays that argument out out quite clearly.

Quoted from the article: "Vincent Felitti conducted a huge epidemiological study (http://www.acestudy.org/files/OriginsofAddiction.pdf) on early childhood experiences. He found that only a tiny group (3.5%) of people with 4 or more adverse childhood experiences became involved in injection drug use. So Maté's model is highly undiscriminating."

In other words, *loads* of children have been exposed to trauma. Of those with the most severe trauma history, only 3.5% of them abuse injectible drugs. If you widen the net and look at children with severe trauma history who have trouble with alcohol, the percentage jumps to 16%. Higher, but still not a majority.

The author uses the word undiscriminating: that means that Mate's theory doesn't account for the data in a meaningful way. If trauma were a major contributor to addiction, knowing that someone had suffered a trauma would allow you to conclude that the person was at a much higher risk of developing addiction than the general population. The author of the article asserts that the present data do *not* make such a distinction (I would have to look at the evidence myself in order to make that assertion, rather than relying on someone else's interpretation of the data).

Note, these even if these statistics *are* accurate, it doesn't mean that there isn't a relationship at all, just that for the majority of us out there, childhood trauma is not the primary cause of addiction, regardless of what Mate says.


So far Dr.Mate has not said, anything, in this thread.

Nobody has even quoted Dr.Mate once?

I am waiting for some actual quotes by Dr. Mate for accuracy, so I can discuss the topics.

Every person I know with ADHD has experienced some type of unintentional adoption like, distress, during early infancy.

I'm interested to hear what Dr.Mate said.

What information are you basing your opinions on?



Peripheral

Lunacie
04-08-14, 03:27 PM
http://drgabormate.com/topic/addiction/

The source of addictions is not to be found in genes, but in the early childhood environment.

As TygerSan points out, what about all those children who also endured trauma but did not grow up to be injection-addicts?

I think that's a valid question.

TygerSan
04-08-14, 03:56 PM
Me, what I based my opinion on: The original article, and your posts on Mate.

mildadhd
04-08-14, 04:46 PM
Me, what I based my opinion on: The original article, and your posts on Mate.


Can you at least quote what Dr.Mate says, from somewhere, to compare your opinion, of the author's opinion, of Dr.Mate's opinion?


Peripheral

namazu
04-08-14, 04:47 PM
So far Dr.Mate has not said, anything, in this thread.

Nobody has even quoted Dr.Mate once?

I am waiting for some actual quotes by Dr. Mate for accuracy, so I can discuss the topics.

Every person I know with ADHD has experienced some type of unintentional adoption like, distress, during early infancy.

I'm interested to hear what Dr.Mate said.

What information are you basing your opinions on?

The authors of the article, Stanton Peele and Alan Cudmore,
are paraphrasing Mate's arguments
(as they understand them)
and then trying to point out what they feel are problems
in Mate's arguments.

In Peele and Cudmore's article (the one linked in the OP),
they make several claims about what Mate believes or proposes:

"the first five years of life (and even the environment in the womb) dictate the likelihood of addiction"
"addiction results from deficiencies (lack of receptors) in these neurosystems that cause people with addictions to self-medicate to replace their missing neurostimulation"
"Maté is fundamentally proposing a reductionist vision of addiction, where abuse history and posited biochemical changes are now THE essential causes of people's self-destructive action"
"focusing...on one risk factor...has led Maté to posit a potential ‘cure' for addiction -- Ayahuasca -- a brew made from South-American "spirit-vine" that is claimed to open the human conscious for a higher degree of introspection"


These claims can be checked against Dr. Mate's writings to see whether or not they are accurate characterizations of what Dr. Mate has actually written.

Peripheral, this might be a good place for you to start,
since you are very familiar with Mate's work:
Do the basic statements in the list above accurately describe
(not necessarily quote verbatim, but outline)
the ideas Mate has written in his books?

If not, which of these statements do you believe inaccurately characterize(s) Mate's beliefs/writings
(and here's where quotes would be very useful
to show what the article's authors have gotten wrong, and in what ways).

If the authors do an OK job of explaining Mate's position on addiction,
in the first place, then we can agree on that.

If not, let's discuss where the authors of the article are getting Mate's position wrong.

Once we have evaluated whether or not the authors
have characterized Mate's arguments accurately to begin with,
then we can look at these authors' own arguments against Mate's ideas
to see whether or not their arguments are backed up by evidence or not.

mildadhd
04-08-14, 05:00 PM
http://drgabormate.com/topic/addiction/



As TygerSan points out, what about all those children who also endured trauma but did not grow up to be injection-addicts?

I think that's a valid question.




Who said, all children who endure trauma grow up to be injection-addicts?


Peripheral

Lunacie
04-08-14, 05:28 PM
Who said, all children who endure trauma grow up to be injection-addicts?


Peripheral

Gabor Mate did. That's the clear implication of saying this:

The source of addictions is not to be found in genes, but in the early childhood environment.

So if early childhood trauma resulted in addiction for some people, why doesn't it result in addiction for all people who were abused in early childhood?

daveddd
04-08-14, 06:12 PM
Gabor Mate did. That's the clear implication of saying this:



So if early childhood trauma resulted in addiction for some people, why doesn't it result in addiction for all people who were abused in early childhood?

because its genes and environment , like anyone in the world with any credibility thinks

i haven't read much mate, but even he says genes and environment

and the authors of this article are accusing him of being bioreductionist?:doh:

mildadhd
04-08-14, 06:25 PM
The source of addictions is not to be found in genes, but in the early childhood environment.

Can genes be expressed without an environment?

No.

My understanding is..

The environment is the decisive factor.

Without an environment, the genes won't get expressed.

It takes at least two factors and the environment is decisive.





Peripheral

daveddd
04-08-14, 06:32 PM
biology plus environment dates back 50 years

I'm sure its the most accepted theory

mildadhd
04-08-14, 06:35 PM
The authors of the article, Stanton Peele and Alan Cudmore,
are paraphrasing Mate's arguments
(as they understand them)
and then trying to point out what they feel are problems
in Mate's arguments.

In Peele and Cudmore's article (the one linked in the OP),
they make several claims about what Mate believes or proposes:

"the first five years of life (and even the environment in the womb) dictate the likelihood of addiction"
"addiction results from deficiencies (lack of receptors) in these neurosystems that cause people with addictions to self-medicate to replace their missing neurostimulation"
"Maté is fundamentally proposing a reductionist vision of addiction, where abuse history and posited biochemical changes are now THE essential causes of people's self-destructive action"
"focusing...on one risk factor...has led Maté to posit a potential ‘cure' for addiction -- Ayahuasca -- a brew made from South-American "spirit-vine" that is claimed to open the human conscious for a higher degree of introspection"


These claims can be checked against Dr. Mate's writings to see whether or not they are accurate characterizations of what Dr. Mate has actually written.

Peripheral, this might be a good place for you to start,
since you are very familiar with Mate's work:
Do the basic statements in the list above accurately describe
(not necessarily quote verbatim, but outline)
the ideas Mate has written in his books?

If not, which of these statements do you believe inaccurately characterize(s) Mate's beliefs/writings
(and here's where quotes would be very useful
to show what the article's authors have gotten wrong, and in what ways).

If the authors do an OK job of explaining Mate's position on addiction,
in the first place, then we can agree on that.

If not, let's discuss where the authors of the article are getting Mate's position wrong.

Once we have evaluated whether or not the authors
have characterized Mate's arguments accurately to begin with,
then we can look at these authors' own arguments against Mate's ideas
to see whether or not their arguments are backed up by evidence or not.

Namazu,

Let me work on your questions, the opinions throughout this thread and article, are so subjective.

I find including/understanding the actual the biological mechanisms, helps tremendously.

Might take me a long time, but it would be good for me to reread and learn more.

Thanks



Peripheral

Amtram
04-08-14, 07:02 PM
Genes express exactly as they're programmed to do by the DNA every moment you're alive. They do not require an environmental trigger. It's a normal and necessary biological process. Right now there are thousands of individual cells replacing the ones that have died, and they will do so regardless of whether or not you are eating, sleeping, happy, stressed, or anything else.

mildadhd
04-08-14, 09:38 PM
Genes express exactly as they're programmed to do by the DNA every moment you're alive. They do not require an environmental trigger. It's a normal and necessary biological process. Right now there are thousands of individual cells replacing the ones that have died, and they will do so regardless of whether or not you are eating, sleeping, happy, stressed, or anything else.

So in your opinion everything is genetic, environment is not a factor in brain development?

Babies don't need to be hugged?

Food and shelter and brain development will be fine?

In your opinion, do genes function in a vacuum?

The more I read this thread, the more I love the biology of basic emotion, from the ground up.



Peripheral

ana futura
04-09-14, 12:32 AM
and the authors of this article are accusing him of being bioreductionist?:doh:

According them, it sounds like Mate states that addiction is only possible with a certain genetic background and a certain set of life experiences.

The argument here is not whether or not both parts are contributing. The authors are faulting Mate for being too specific on the "ratios" of those contributions. He's presenting a "formula" for addiction.

So, I see their point, that does seem a bit too simplistic, not nuanced enough.

And I also agree 100% about their views on harm reduction- the "disease model", while possibly helpful for some, is dangerous (by encouraging fatalistic thinking) for others. I feel the same way about ADHD and everything in the DSM.

daveddd
04-09-14, 06:30 AM
Genes express exactly as they're programmed to do by the DNA every moment you're alive. They do not require an environmental trigger. It's a normal and necessary biological process. Right now there are thousands of individual cells replacing the ones that have died, and they will do so regardless of whether or not you are eating, sleeping, happy, stressed, or anything else.

so

someone with ptsd susceptible genes will have ptsd even without a traumatic event?

someone with alcoholic genes will become an alcoholic without ever having a drink?

interesting theory

daveddd
04-09-14, 06:46 AM
According them, it sounds like Mate states that addiction is only possible with a certain genetic background and a certain set of life experiences.

The argument here is not whether or not both parts are contributing. The authors are faulting Mate for being too specific on the "ratios" of those contributions. He's presenting a "formula" for addiction.

So, I see their point, that does seem a bit too simplistic, not nuanced enough.

And I also agree 100% about their views on harm reduction- the "disease model", while possibly helpful for some, is dangerous (by encouraging fatalistic thinking) for others. I feel the same way about ADHD and everything in the DSM.

i do not agree with disease models either

TygerSan
04-09-14, 07:04 AM
With regards to the disease model, I think it is an intensely personal experience that dictates whether one finds comfort in the fact that one has a biological risk factor for addiction, or rages against it.

Like everything else related to disability, I think that you'll find as many responses to the idea of biological causation of addiction as people you ask.

I do think that such a model can unnecessarily pathologize behavior that may not need parhologizing. On the other hand, knowing that you struggle because of something within your genetic makeup/early experience can allow you to be more gentle/forgiving of certain predilections and work on dealing with them as best you can.

Parhologizing can and does lead to certain forms of learned helplessness which is unfortunate. But I think as a whole, more understanding of causation (behavioral or biological) definitely informs research into potential future therapies, even though the cause may not be as imperative in the treatment/therapy of an individual person.

mildadhd
04-09-14, 08:37 AM
If looking at the actual biological mechanisms involved in addiction is considered a flaw. (Which I personally don't think is a flaw)

What would reducing ADHD to "genetic" be considered?

Peripheral

TygerSan
04-09-14, 08:53 AM
To me there is a clear distinction between therapy/treatment and research. The two goals necessarily overlap, and therapists/others engaged in treatment need to keep reading and thinking about the research that backs up their methods, but it's much less important to a therapist to know *the* biological cause of addiction/ADHD. It's more important that they help their individual clients cope with the hand they've been dealt.

A researcher, on the other hand, is trying to pinpoint the biological causes to understand how the brain works, how people end up with traits that make them vulnerable to psychiatric and physical disorders.

At some point, the two goals overlap, yes, but medicine is full of treatments that work despite us having no clue as to why they work.

mildadhd
04-09-14, 09:25 AM
If a person doesn't want to know how the biology of addiction works, I don't recommend reading, In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts.

If people prefer to go to a doctor that doesn't know the biological mechanisms, to each their own.


I still don't get, how do people know what Dr.Mate discusses and doesn't discuss, there is tonnes of information in his books I have never posted here at ADDF?


It is interesting that nobody is claiming that the biology research Dr.Mate presents is wrong, they just don't want to hear it.

And that is their prerogative.

The idea that a Doctors work is flawed, because his work is biologically accurate, doesn't make sense to me.










Peripheral

TygerSan
04-09-14, 09:41 AM
I'm trying to bring this conversation beyond the realm of two competing dogmas. I don't think that there is a right answer or a wrong answer to the question of cause. It's only a matter of degree, not either or. I think a lot of different things come together to make us who we are as people.

As a researcher, I have to look at things at a very detailed level, and pick apart arguments. As a human being living with a brain that is not standard-issue, I have to learn how to live with my strengths and weaknesses in a way that transcends the biological reasons for it.

Sometimes, yes, I do wonder (especially when I think that given the various traits in my extended family and in-law's family, I would not be surprised if any offspring we do have had autistic traits), but when it comes down to it, we are all human beings muddling around in this great world, trying the best that we can. That includes the so-called experts in their fields, be it Barkley, Castellanos, Hallowell, Mate, Nigg, whoever.

mildadhd
04-09-14, 10:16 AM
I'm trying to bring this conversation beyond the realm of two competing dogmas. I don't think that there is a right answer or a wrong answer to the question of cause. It's only a matter of degree, not either or. I think a lot of different things come together to make us who we are as people.

As a researcher, I have to look at things at a very detailed level, and pick apart arguments. As a human being living with a brain that is not standard-issue, I have to learn how to live with my strengths and weaknesses in a way that transcends the biological reasons for it.

Sometimes, yes, I do wonder (especially when I think that given the various traits in my extended family and in-law's family, I would not be surprised if any offspring we do have had autistic traits), but when it comes down to it, we are all human beings muddling around in this great world, trying the best that we can. That includes the so-called experts in their fields, be it Barkley, Castellanos, Hallowell, Mate, Nigg, whoever.

TygerSan

I do recommend you read, In The Realm of Hungry Ghosts.

I think Dr.Mate does cover these topics.

That is why I am confused by this thread.

There is simply to much information on the topics for me to type out here at ADDF, in one thread.


(I have been mostly posting about the physiology parts, but the book covers a wide range of topics)

(There is so many topics in Scattered that I would like to address, that I have never addressed here at ADDF, it seems I spend most of my time, posting the same topics, in relation to the same questions, over and over.)

Really makes me wonder if I am wasting my time, it takes me a long time to type out the information.

I do plan to address the questions asked to me , in this thread over time, in a different thread,

because I don't feel that many people are really interested in what Dr.Mate actually says, in this thread.

And have reduced his work, without ever actually reading the information.

I learn a lot from you, I always appreciate your links and personal insights/experience.

I just don't know how to discuss second hand subjective interpretation, of this thread.

And wish the conversation was with people who read the material to help me expand my own understanding.

As a person who has read In The Realm of Hungry Ghosts, the accuracy of the second hand subjective opinions, isn't what I interpreted.

I don't mind if someone disagrees, but reducing these complex subjects, to a small little quote, without considering the paragraph, page, chapter, etc, the quote originated from, is hardly accurate, in my opinion.






Peripheral

Amtram
04-09-14, 01:50 PM
So in your opinion everything is genetic, environment is not a factor in brain development?

Babies don't need to be hugged?

Food and shelter and brain development will be fine?

In your opinion, do genes function in a vacuum?

The more I read this thread, the more I love the biology of basic emotion, from the ground up.



Peripheral

No. What I'm saying is that you are misunderstanding what epigenetics is, and that if it worked the way you seem to believe it does, there would be no multicellular life on earth.

mildadhd
04-09-14, 02:15 PM
No. What I'm saying is that you are misunderstanding what epigenetics is, and that if it worked the way you seem to believe it does, there would be no multicellular life on earth.

Well if that is true, that makes two of us.




i!i

Amtram
04-09-14, 04:19 PM
Epigenetics is a molecular process. It is innate, not triggered. We can look at skin cells for an example because they are among the most quickly replaced cells in the body and we can see our skin.

Each time skin cells die off, they are replaced with new cells. These replacement cells are skin cells, not liver cells or lung cells or duodenum cells. That is epigenetics.

If we introduce an environmental factor, the sun, we can change the appearance of the skin cells. They become darker with longer exposure. This is not epigenetic. When the darkened cells die, the cells that replace them will be the same color as they started off before sun exposure.

Epigenetics is not caused by environment. Epigenetics is only very, very, very rarely altered by environment. Changes caused by the environment are almost never epigenetic changes, especially when we're talking about psychology. Even massive chemical exposures do not necessarily cause epigenetic changes.

Your mistake is in assigning far too much significance to environment. Epigenetics is simply the part of cell reproduction during which a very specific environmental factor may have the potential to change gene expression.

Environment has its own set of reasons for being considered significant, completely apart from how or even whether it affects gene expression. Making epigenetics and environment intrinsically significant to one another diminishes our understanding of the importance of both of them.

Amtram
04-18-14, 12:29 PM
Well if that is true, that makes two of us.



People who have praised my understanding of epigenetics and shared my blog articles with their colleagues:

Dr. Kevin Mitchell, neurogeneticist
Dr. Malcolm M. Campbell, PhD, professor of biology
Dr. Alan Horsager, PhD, neuroscientist
Amanda Glaze, PhD, science education
Claire Haworth, associate professor of behavioral genetics
Lorna Lopez, Psychiatric Genetics researcher
Daniel Jonas, Biology teacher
Dr. Margaret Smith, medical researcher
Antonei B. Csoka, assistant professor of epigenetics
John Grealy, Center for Epigenomics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Roman Stilling, neuroscientist

So maybe, just maybe, I actually do know what I'm talking about. You think?

Dizfriz
04-18-14, 12:32 PM
People who have praised my understanding of epigenetics and shared my blog articles with their colleagues:

Dr. Kevin Mitchell, neurogeneticist
Dr. Malcolm M. Campbell, PhD, professor of biology
Dr. Alan Horsager, PhD, neuroscientist
Amanda Glaze, PhD, science education
Claire Haworth, associate professor of behavioral genetics
Lorna Lopez, Psychiatric Genetics researcher
Daniel Jonas, Biology teacher
Dr. Margaret Smith, medical researcher
Antonei B. Csoka, assistant professor of epigenetics
John Grealy, Center for Epigenomics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Roman Stilling, neuroscientist

So maybe, just maybe, I actually do know what I'm talking about. You think?
Way cool!

Dizfriz

mildadhd
04-18-14, 02:03 PM
Forgive me for being so blunt, focusing on ADHD, for this discussion, it is important to realize, that we are discussing about brain cells, right?




P

Dizfriz
04-18-14, 02:30 PM
Forgive me for being so blunt, focusing on ADHD, for this discussion, it is important to realize, that we are discussing about brain cells, right?

P

I thought the tread was on some of Mate's ideas on substance abuse, not ADHD.

In any case, epigenetics covers all of the body and all of the cells. That would also involve cells in the brain.

Right now, we don't know much about the connections between epigenetics and ADHD nor, as far as I know, substance abuse and epigenetics.

There is, almost by definition, a likely connection between epigenetics and those subjects but we don't know enough about epigenetics yet to make any kind of statements concerning that connection.

Dizfriz

Amtram
04-18-14, 02:55 PM
If we are discussing cells, then epigenetics is extremely relevant. And if we're discussing addiction or susceptibility to addictions, or emotional reaction to trauma, it's relevant as well. Methylated or unmethylated cytosine/guanine pairs from promoter regions in the DNA tend to maintain their integrity close to 100% no matter how frequently they replicate. Unmethylated pairs from outside of promoter regions can become methylated, leading to changes in gene expression.

This mechanism is suspected in several negative physical and psychological outcomes including certain cancers and PTSD, and there's a strong probability that this area of vulnerability influences whether or not an individual is likely to have substance abuse problems.

mildadhd
04-18-14, 03:07 PM
(p.1)cells come in different sizes, shapes, and internal structures.

Liver cells differ from brain cells, which differ from blood cells..


(p.3)..on average, intestinal cells live for only 36 hours, white blood cells for 2 days, and red blood cells for 4 months; brain cells may live for 60 years or more.

Growth also requires the production of new cells..



Kapit/Macey/Meisami, "The Physiology Coloring Book", P 1 and P 3.




****



"Anxiety, depression and addiction are the 3 most common adhd commorbidities."

-Dr.Mate




p

mildadhd
04-18-14, 03:45 PM
LEVELS OF HORMONAL REGULATION

1) SIMPLE HORMONAL

-Endocrine Gland Cell
-Hormone
-Target Organ Cell
-Effect Of Hormone

2) COMPLEX HORMONAL

-Pituitary Gland Cell
-Tropic Hormone
-Target Endocrine Gland Cell


3) COMPLEX NEUROHORMONAL

-Environment
-Brain
-Hypothalamus Neurosecretory Cell
-Hypothalamic Hormone



-Kapit/Macey/Meisami, "The Physiology Coloring Book", (Mechanism Of Hormonal Regulation) Endocrines and Hormonal Regulation, P.115.

Abi
04-18-14, 03:51 PM
(p.1)cells come in different sizes, shapes, and internal structures.

Liver cells differ from brain cells, which differ from blood cells..

(p.3)..on average, intestinal cells live for only 36 hours, white blood cells for 2 days, and red blood cells for 4 months; brain cells may live for 60 years or more.

Growth also requires the production of new cells..

Leaving the fact that this "text" is intended for toddlers aside, how is this information relevant to the debate? No one is debating the life spans of the various types of human cells?

mildadhd
04-18-14, 04:09 PM
Leaving the fact that this "text" is intended for toddlers aside, how is this information relevant to the debate? No one is debating the life spans of the various types of human cells?

This text is a extremely popular coloring book for university students and medical students. (well recommended for anyone interested in anatomy/biology/physiology)

Kapit/Macey/Meisami, "The Physiology Coloring Book".


P

mildadhd
04-18-14, 04:25 PM
Amtram,

What do you disagree with Dr.Mate about, specifically, in regards to brain development/addiction/epigenetics?


?

Abi
04-18-14, 04:25 PM
Good for them. We didn't get colouring books in COmputer-Science-school :(

What does the quote have to do SPECIFICALLY with the topics at hand?

Amtram
04-18-14, 05:12 PM
Gabor-Mate's ideas about what causes addiction are in conflict with much more thoroughly researched ideas of addiction specialists like Nora Volkow. His ideas are much more speculative and based in partial understanding and misunderstanding of the biological mechanisms that are relevant to addiction.

mildadhd
04-18-14, 05:13 PM
Not all cells are the same.

Although internal and external enviornmental factors are involved in all genetic expression.

Environmental factors are more involved in epigenetic brain development.

Brain cells are more complex than, skin cells.

Whether we are discussing ADHD (or Addiction) and epigenetics, they involve complex brain areas, which develop in interaction with the environment.

Lets focus on epigenetic brain development. (since ADHD,addiction, depression, anxiety all primarily involve brain function, in this discussion).







P

Amtram
04-18-14, 05:22 PM
Although internal and external enviornmental factors are involved in all genetic expression.

No. This is incorrect.

Environmental factors are more involved in epigenetic and brain development.

Also not true.

Brain cells are more complex than, skin cells.

Why is this relevant?

Whether we are discussing ADHD or Addiction and epigenetic, they both involve brain cells/areas, which develop in interaction with the environment.

Nope.

Lets focus on epigenetic and brain development.


We can't do that if you insist on starting with a flawed assumption.

http://www.alisonblogs.com/wordpress/index.php/2014/04/12/epigenetics-think-word-means-think/

http://www.alisonblogs.com/wordpress/index.php/2014/04/15/epigenetics-made-easy/

http://www.alisonblogs.com/wordpress/index.php/2014/04/15/epigenetics-made-easy-part-2/

mildadhd
04-18-14, 05:57 PM
Dr.Mate is discussing environmental factors involved in epigenetics, addiction/ADHD and brain development, but your admittedly not discussing environmental factors involved in epigenetics addiction/ADHD and brain development.

So I don't understand your point, in regards anything in this thread, referring to environmental factors involved in epigenetics, addiction/ADHD and brain development or Dr.Mate opinions on the topics?





P

Abi
04-18-14, 06:18 PM
I think she's saying that Dr. Mate's "opinions" are contradicted by the research and therefore... wrong.

mildadhd
04-18-14, 07:00 PM
I think she's saying that Dr. Mate's "opinions" are contradicted by the research and therefore... wrong.

What did Dr.Mate actually say, that there is a disagreement about?



P

Lunacie
04-18-14, 07:15 PM
What did Dr.Mate actually say, that there is a disagreement about?

P

Namazu explained it rather well in post #31.

mildadhd
04-18-14, 07:53 PM
Namazu explained it rather well in post #31.

Namazu gives some great guidelines for this thread.

But I think that is the work for whoever promotes this thread.

That's a lot of work, and I ask a serious question to one person, and a different person answers.

I don't think anyone is perfect, especially Dr.Mate.

But I learn a lot from him about human beings, being humans.





P

Amtram
04-18-14, 07:56 PM
And what you are saying about epigenetics is fundamentally flawed because you fail to understand the limitations of environment on epigenetics. I posted the links because they address the mechanism of epigenetics on an elementary (or close to elementary) level and make it clear that epigenetics are inherent to cell production and significantly less susceptible to change than you keep saying. (These are the posts that Dr. Miller called "Brilliant," so I'm confident that they're a good explanation.)

If you are going to use epigenetics as an argument for how something could have happened, then you need to understand how it works - and doesn't work. Continuing to argue that epigenetics makes something possible without bothering to understand why or whether it could be possible means that you are, quite simply, making unfounded speculations.

It's like saying "In a geocentric model, this is what we expect would happen." Well, the geocentric model is false, so it's pointless to say something would work if we started with a geocentric model. Ergo, by starting with the premise that epigenetics is a process in which environment determines gene expression, you will reach equally unsupportable hypotheses.

Gabor-Mate's hypothesis about addiction hinges upon this idea that environment determines gene expression. (See article in the OP) Since gene expression is almost exclusively determined by genetic transcription, and the opportunities for gene expression to be altered by environment are severely limited, that means that his hypothesis is incorrect.

Lunacie
04-18-14, 08:07 PM
Namazu pointed out what the authors of the article disagreed with.

Because you're more familiar with Dr. Mate's writings ...

he asked you to come up with reasons that the authors of the article are wrong.

You don't have to, of course. Not sure it would change anyone's mind anyway.

mildadhd
04-18-14, 08:15 PM
And what you are saying about epigenetics is fundamentally flawed because you fail to understand the limitations of environment on epigenetics. I posted the links because they address the mechanism of epigenetics on an elementary (or close to elementary) level and make it clear that epigenetics are inherent to cell production and significantly less susceptible to change than you keep saying. (These are the posts that Dr. Miller called "Brilliant," so I'm confident that they're a good explanation.)

If you are going to use epigenetics as an argument for how something could have happened, then you need to understand how it works - and doesn't work. Continuing to argue that epigenetics makes something possible without bothering to understand why or whether it could be possible means that you are, quite simply, making unfounded speculations.

It's like saying "In a geocentric model, this is what we expect would happen." Well, the geocentric model is false, so it's pointless to say something would work if we started with a geocentric model. Ergo, by starting with the premise that epigenetics is a process in which environment determines gene expression, you will reach equally unsupportable hypotheses.

Gabor-Mate's hypothesis about addiction hinges upon this idea that environment determines gene expression. (See article in the OP) Since gene expression is almost exclusively determined by genetic transcription, and the opportunities for gene expression to be altered by environment are severely limited, that means that his hypothesis is incorrect.

Do genes function in a vacuum? (simplest example)


P

Amtram
04-18-14, 08:19 PM
No. They function in cells. That question is Not Even Wrong.

mildadhd
04-18-14, 08:44 PM
Namazu pointed out what the authors of the article disagreed with.

Because you're more familiar with Dr. Mate's writings ...

he asked you to come up with reasons that the authors of the article are wrong.

You don't have to, of course. Not sure it would change anyone's mind anyway.




I think Dr.Mate is discussing epigenetic brain development, but nobody wants to discuss epigenetic brain development?

That is where I think we should start.

But for some unknown reason its everything about epigenetics but epigenetic brain development.

Brain areas and functions highly implicated in ADHD and addiction, are not part of any present epigenetic conversation.

I don't think it is Dr.Mate's flaw if people ignore the actual brain mechanisms involved in the discussion.

I have posted research on these topics, not even a cricket accidentally replies against.

So I call Banana Split.


P

Abi
04-18-14, 08:52 PM
P,

You have not posted research.

You have posted/pasted hypotheses; opinions; and general biological facts that no-one disagrees with, from colouring books.

Lunacie
04-18-14, 09:09 PM
I think Dr.Mate is discussing epigenetic brain development, but nobody wants to discuss epigenetic brain development?

That is where I think we should start.

But for some unknown reason its everything about epigenetics but epigenetic brain development.

Brain areas and functions highly implicated in ADHD and addiction, are not part of any present epigenetic conversation.

I don't think it is Dr.Mate's flaw if people ignore the actual brain mechanisms involved in the discussion.

I have posted research on these topics, not even a cricket accidentally replies against.

So I call Banana Split.


P

Posters like Amtram have explained several times why the research indicates that

Dr. Mate's idea of epigenetic brain development in utero and in childhood is wrong.



I don't think we need to discuss Dr. Mate's opinion of epigenetic brain development

when we don't think it stands up to scrutiny.

Apparently no one else does either.

You're the only cricket chirping that particular tune.

mildadhd
04-18-14, 09:54 PM
#1)

MATERNAL CARE, GENE EXPRESSION, AND THE TRANSMISSION OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN STRESS REACTIVITY ACROSS GENERATIONS

Abstract

Naturally occurring variations in maternal care alter the expression of genes that regulate behavioral and endocrine responses to stress, as well as

hippocampal synaptic development. These effects form the basis for the development of stable, individual differences in stress reactivity and certain forms of

cognition. Maternal care also influences the maternal behavior of female offspring, an effect that appears to be related to oxytocin receptor gene expression, and

which forms the basis for the intergenerational transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity. Patterns of maternal care that increase stress reactivity

in offspring are enhanced by stressors imposed on the mother. These findings provide evidence for the importance of parental care as a mediator of the effects of

environmental adversity on neural development.





http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.1161?journalCode=neuro




i!i

mildadhd
04-18-14, 09:58 PM
#2

Transgenerational effects of posttraumatic stress disorder in babies of mothers exposed to the World Trade Center attacks during pregnancy.

Abstract

CONTEXT:
Reduced cortisol levels have been linked with vulnerability to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the risk factor of parental PTSD in adult offspring of Holocaust survivors.

OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study was to report on the relationship between maternal PTSD symptoms and salivary cortisol levels in infants of mothers directly exposed to the World Trade Center collapse on September 11, 2001 during pregnancy.

DESIGN:
Mothers (n = 38) collected salivary cortisol samples from themselves and their 1-yr-old babies at awakening and at bedtime.

RESULTS:
Lower cortisol levels were observed in both mothers (F = 5.15, df = 1, 34; P = 0.030) and babies of mothers (F = 8.0, df = 1, 29; P = 0.008) who developed PTSD in response to September 11 compared with mothers who did not develop PTSD and their babies. Lower cortisol levels were most apparent in babies born to mothers with PTSD exposed in their third trimesters.

CONCLUSIONS:
The data suggest that effects of maternal PTSD related to cortisol can be observed very early in the life of the offspring and underscore the relevance of in utero contributors to putative biological risk for PTSD.




http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15870120



P

mildadhd
04-18-14, 10:04 PM
This is 2 examples of research about epigenetic brain development that I have posted in the past, no worries if you missed them.

Ignoring this research is not Dr.Mate's flaw.

(I have more, but I would like start here if anyone is interested in discussing about epigenetic brain development.)

mildadhd
04-18-14, 10:43 PM
#3)

Childhood Experience and the Expression of
Genetic Potential: What Childhood Neglect Tells
Us About Nature and Nurture

BRUCE D. PERRY



Abstract.

Studies of childhood abuse and neglect have important lessons for considerations of nature and nurture.

While each child has unique genetic potentials, both human and animal studies point to important needs that every child has, and severe long-term consequences

for brain function if those needs are not met.

The effects of the childhood environment, favorable or unfavorable, interact with all the processes of neurodevelopment (neurogenesis, migration, differentiation,

apoptosis, arborization, synaptogenesis, synaptic sculpting, and myelination).

The time courses of all these neural processes are reviewed here along with statements of core principles for both genetic and environmental influences on all

of these processes.

Evidence is presented that development of synaptic pathways tends to be a “use it or lose it” proposition.

Abuse studies from the author’s laboratory, studies of children in orphanages who lacked emotional contact, and a large number of animal deprivation and

enrichment studies point to the need for children and young nonhuman mammals to have both stable emotional attachments with and touch from primary adult

caregivers, and spontaneous interactions with peers.

If these connections are lacking, brain development both of caring behavior and cognitive capacities is damaged in a lasting fashion.

These effects of experience on the brain imply that effects of modern technology can be positive but need to be monitored.

While technology has raised opportunities for children to become economically secure and literate, more recent inadvertent impacts of technology have spawned

declines in extended families, family meals, and spontaneous peer interactions.

The latter changes have deprived many children of experiences that promote positive growth of the cognitive and caring potentials of their developing brains.



http://centerforchildwelfare2.fmhi.usf.edu/kb/chronicneglect/childexperience.pdf

namazu
04-18-14, 10:56 PM
MODERATOR'S NOTE TO ALL THREAD PARTICIPANTS (myself included!):

The topic of this thread is Stanton Peele and Alan Cudmore's blog post (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201112/the-seductive-dangerous-allure-gabor-mat) discussing the reasons they disagree with Mate's arguments about the causes of addiction.

Please, let's keep the thread centered on that article
(whether or not you agree with its premise or conclusions)
and avoid bringing interpersonal disputes / hard feelings from other threads into this one.

Where background information (concepts in biology, psychology, etc.) is relevant,
please mention it selectively, and explain how it is relevant to the article,
for those of us who have trouble connecting the dots.

If you feel that a general concept is vital for people to understand,
in ways that go beyond the scope of this thread,
please link to more extensive discussions elsewhere on the forum or the internet where the topics can be done justice.

Don't do this to yourself (easier said than avoided, I know!):
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png (http://xkcd.com/386/)
Original subtext: "What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"

Be kind to each other and to yourself.
Take a breather and/or use the "ignore" button when that fails.

Thanks, and have a nice weekend.

mildadhd
04-18-14, 11:07 PM
I found these research in Dr.Mate's notes. (there is lots more)

And Dr.Mate discusses more about these researches in his book, In The Realm of Hungry Ghosts.

If anybody wants me to type out the discussions where Dr.Mate refers to any of these research, or if they want to me to post more research

information from the notes, about the subjects, let me know.

I hope any new readers to the discussion understand why I am reluctant to spend to much time trying to discuss this information, I have posted and tried to

discuss this information many times, and am always ignored.



P

Lunacie
04-18-14, 11:30 PM
I found these research in Dr.Mate's notes. (there is lots more)

And Dr.Mate discusses more about these researches in his book, In The Realm of Hungry Ghosts.

If anybody wants me to type out the discussions where Dr.Mate refers to any of these research, or if they want to me to post more research

information from the notes, about the subjects, let me know.

I hope any new readers to the discussion understand why I am reluctant to spend to much time trying to discuss this information, I have posted and tried to

discuss this information many times, and am always ignored.



P

There's a difference between being ignored ... and being disagreed with.

I see people explaining why they disagree with you ... and with Dr. Mate.

That is not being ignored.

And that happens even when there is no clear connection between Dr. Mate's ideas

and the topic of a thread. We ask questions to understand what connection you are seeing.

Neither is that being ignored.

Mr Muscle
04-19-14, 12:27 AM
Apologies if this sounds irrelevant but when I saw the title of this thread it immediately reminded of the one quote I know of Dr Mate.

"It is simply a matter of historical fact that the dominant intellectual culture of any particular society reflects the interest of the dominant group in that society. In a slave owning society the beliefs about human beings and human rights and so on will reflect the needs of the slave owners.

"In the society, which is based on the power of certain people to control and profit from the lives and work of millions of others, the dominant intellectual culture will reflect the needs of the dominant group. So, if you look across the board, the ideas that pervade psychology, sociology, history, political economy and political science fundamentally reflect certain elite interests.
".

Given this is a critique of dr mate perhaps this quote may hold some relevance, and if you feel it does not it is still one one of the most insightful quotes i have ever read.

I only briefly scanned the original link but found very little if anything of note or particular significance or perhaps I missed something.

Amtram
04-19-14, 07:53 AM
The subject in the OP is that Mate's theories of addiction are flawed. Information that illustrates why they are flawed, IMHO, is relevant to the topic. The biggest flaw is that he bases his ideas on a complete misunderstanding of the mechanics of epigenetics. That means that all the ideas that are built upon that are going to be inherently flawed.

The majority of our genes are already methylated, meaning that expression has been turned off or on, and nothing will change that. That leaves the unmethylated genes. If the unmethylated genes are in a promoter region of the DNA, then they will remain unmethylated. That means that the only genes that can be changed are the unmethylated genes in non-promoter regions, and the effect of methylating these genes most often is going to have no impactful effect on the individual unless it happens very early on in fetal development. Most often, the result of methylating these genes is going to be something like cancer, not ADHD.

When it comes to the brain, neurons are constantly re-routing themselves, synapses are connecting or disconnecting (sometimes dying off, even. . .) and this is directly connected to learning, and is not epigenetic. Brain cells are among the least likely cells in the body to be affected by epigenetics, because they do not reproduce themselves before dying off the way the rest of the cells in the body do. Unfortunately, brain cells tend to die and that's the end of it. Remaining neurons may, after many years, re-grow synapses that have been destroyed, but we're pretty much born with all the neurons we're ever going to have. The size changes, the connections change, they grow axonal branches and dendrites, but there's not a lot of cloning and apoptosis.

In order to have an epigenetic change, you need to have cell reproduction, and you need to have an unmethylated gene become methylated. In the brain, after birth, this is simply not happening, or it is happening on such a small and slow-moving scale that it's not worth considering as relevant.

Since Mate's hypothesis is based on a model that is biologically impossible, it follows naturally that his hypothesis is wrong.

mildadhd
04-19-14, 01:48 PM
The subject in the OP is that Mate's theories of addiction are flawed. Information that illustrates why they are flawed, IMHO, is relevant to the topic. The biggest flaw is that he bases his ideas on a complete misunderstanding of the mechanics of epigenetics. That means that all the ideas that are built upon that are going to be inherently flawed.

The majority of our genes are already methylated, meaning that expression has been turned off or on, and nothing will change that. That leaves the unmethylated genes. If the unmethylated genes are in a promoter region of the DNA, then they will remain unmethylated. That means that the only genes that can be changed are the unmethylated genes in non-promoter regions, and the effect of methylating these genes most often is going to have no impactful effect on the individual unless it happens very early on in fetal development. Most often, the result of methylating these genes is going to be something like cancer, not ADHD.

When it comes to the brain, neurons are constantly re-routing themselves, synapses are connecting or disconnecting (sometimes dying off, even. . .) and this is directly connected to learning, and is not epigenetic. Brain cells are among the least likely cells in the body to be affected by epigenetics, because they do not reproduce themselves before dying off the way the rest of the cells in the body do. Unfortunately, brain cells tend to die and that's the end of it. Remaining neurons may, after many years, re-grow synapses that have been destroyed, but we're pretty much born with all the neurons we're ever going to have. The size changes, the connections change, they grow axonal branches and dendrites, but there's not a lot of cloning and apoptosis.

In order to have an epigenetic change, you need to have cell reproduction, and you need to have an unmethylated gene become methylated. In the brain, after birth, this is simply not happening, or it is happening on such a small and slow-moving scale that it's not worth considering as relevant.

Since Mate's hypothesis is based on a model that is biologically impossible, it follows naturally that his hypothesis is wrong.




Please read the link below.

Not sure what else to say, it seems either the State of Washington and Dr.Mate and Dr Perry and Dr Grandin, and Dr. Panksepp (and many others) are wrong?

Or Amtram is wrong?


The first five years of life have so much to do with how the next 80 turn out.

Learning begins at birth.

The first years of a child’s life are incredibly important.

Babies and toddlers aren’t just cute—they are growing and developing at an astonishing rate.

About 85 percent of the human brain develops in the first three years of life.

During this crucial developmental time, young children form the “wiring” needed to think, communicate, move and form attachments with those around them.

Children who have nurturing, healthy and supportive experiences in their early years are much better prepared to succeed in school and life.


There are about 2,000 days from when a child is born to when she starts kindergarten.

Every day matters.

Kids gather the building blocks for school readiness long before they enter a kindergarten classroom.

From birth, children need to be read and talked to, cuddled and hugged.

They need access to medical care and healthy food to eat.

They need places to run, jump, pretend and use their creativity.

Early learning is a smart investment.

Investing in early learning is not only the right thing to do, but it’s also the smart thing to do.

Research shows that for every dollar invested in high‐quality preschool programs, at least $7 is saved in future costs related to social services, remedial education,

public safety and juvenile justice.

Pay now, or pay more later.


http://thrivebyfivewa.org/why-early-learning/


.

Mr Muscle
04-19-14, 01:49 PM
It would be easier to more accurately establish Dr Mates position on the subject by quoting him directly than through the filter of someone else's interpretations, for instance what those who wrote the piece regard as "childhood trauma" im comparison to what Dr Mate regards as "childhood trauma".

A couple of questions...

If Dr Mates theories are thought to be flawed what is a theory of addiction that is not flawed?

If Dr Mate is following the "wrong road", then what is the "right road"?

hurricane92
04-19-14, 03:21 PM
I think the least flawed theory of addiction is the 1950s old school theory of addiction. It goes something like this and sounds like your grouchy great uncle-

"I was doing something too much, so I thought, hey, I'm doing that too much, better stop it."

That theory of addiction has proved tremendous helpful in my life.

daveddd
04-19-14, 06:55 PM
I think the least flawed theory of addiction is the 1950s old school theory of addiction. It goes something like this and sounds like your grouchy great uncle-

"I was doing something too much, so I thought, hey, I'm doing that too much, better stop it."

That theory of addiction has proved tremendous helpful in my life.

true

we attempt to make everything a physical disease to remove guilt

i think it makes it worse though

Fortune
04-19-14, 07:22 PM
If that were true, addictions would not be a problem for people who have them. They could just stop doing it. Want to stop smoking? Just stop. Want to stop heroin? Just stop. Yeah...no. Also withdrawal effects are not exactly trivial for everything you can be dependent upon.

Also, why should people feel guilty for getting hooked on something?

daveddd
04-19-14, 07:26 PM
If that were true, addictions would not be a problem for people who have them. They could just stop doing it. Want to stop smoking? Just stop. Want to stop heroin? Just stop. Yeah...no. Also withdrawal effects are not exactly trivial for everything you can be dependent upon.

Also, why should people feel guilty for getting hooked on something?

no idea why they should, but they do, thats common sense

i was, and i couldn't move forward when i thought it was a physical disease

when i threw that lie out the window, things got much easier

Dizfriz
04-19-14, 07:38 PM
Please read the link below.

Not sure what else to say, it seems either the State of Washington and Dr.Mate and Dr Perry and Dr Grandin, and Dr. Panksepp (and many others) are wrong?

Or Amtram is wrong?


P, how is this material relevant to the OP? Just posting stuff is not a conversation. It would be helpful if you, for instance, show how Perry is in agreement with Mate in reference to the OP and perhaps demonstrate how Grandlin and Panksepp's writings are relevant to Mate's views on substance abuse.


Can you demonstrate how Amtram is wrong in your own words?

Dizfriz

Fortune
04-19-14, 07:44 PM
no idea why they should, but they do, thats common sense

Common sense is a meaningless phrase. It means literally nothing.

i was, and i couldn't move forward when i thought it was a physical disease

when i threw that lie out the window, things got much easier

So what you experienced is applicable everywhere? What about actual physical withdrawal effects? I can quit caffeine but I have splitting headaches for a few days afterward. I can cope with that and I don't really want/need caffeine afterward. But caffeine is a fairly mild substance compared to some things you can get hooked on.

At the very least many people do require support and assistance to quit because quitting is physically as well as psychologically painful. I don't mean the 12-step program (I don't believe that approach is valid) but just saying "you can just decide to quit" doesn't seem to reflect reality in the slightest.

Amtram
04-19-14, 08:05 PM
Please read the link below.

Not sure what else to say, it seems either the State of Washington and Dr.Mate and Dr Perry and Dr Grandin, and Dr. Panksepp (and many others) are wrong?

Or Amtram is wrong?



No mention of epigenetics. Pick a theme. Not a peep. Because it doesn't apply.

Abi
04-19-14, 08:08 PM
Yeah, commonsense would suggest that the Earth is flat and a whole bunch of other known-to-be-untrue things.

Amtram
04-19-14, 08:08 PM
And I already mentioned Nora Volkow, whose life work is the study of addiction. She uses large, randomized, controlled studies for her data, as opposed to anecdotes, too.

daveddd
04-19-14, 08:12 PM
Common sense is a meaningless phrase. It means literally nothing.



So what you experienced is applicable everywhere? What about actual physical withdrawal effects? I can quit caffeine but I have splitting headaches for a few days afterward. I can cope with that and I don't really want/need caffeine afterward. But caffeine is a fairly mild substance compared to some things you can get hooked on.

At the very least many people do require support and assistance to quit because quitting is physically as well as psychologically painful. I don't mean the 12-step program (I don't believe that approach is valid) but just saying "you can just decide to quit" doesn't seem to reflect reality in the slightest.

Common means everyone knows addicts feel guilt for being addicts

Physical withdrawal and physical disease aren't the same thing. Strange you think that

daveddd
04-19-14, 08:14 PM
Yeah, commonsense would suggest that the Earth is flat and a whole bunch of other known-to-be-untrue things.

I love your customized definition

Can I use it?

daveddd
04-19-14, 08:16 PM
Common sense is a meaningless phrase. It means literally nothing.



So what you experienced is applicable everywhere? What about actual physical withdrawal effects? I can quit caffeine but I have splitting headaches for a few days afterward. I can cope with that and I don't really want/need caffeine afterward. But caffeine is a fairly mild substance compared to some things you can get hooked on.

At the very least many people do require support and assistance to quit because quitting is physically as well as psychologically painful. I don't mean the 12-step program (I don't believe that approach is valid) but just saying "you can just decide to quit" doesn't seem to reflect reali

ty in the slightest.

And yes addicts are all alike. You ever worked with them?

mildadhd
04-19-14, 10:00 PM
I thought we where the addicts.



P

mildadhd
04-19-14, 10:21 PM
You mean I am the only person here, with ADHD, with an addiction commorbidty?

As noted earlier in this thread.

"Anxiety, Depression, and Addiction are the 3 most common ADHD commorbidities."

-Dr.Mate


P

hurricane92
04-20-14, 10:55 AM
Everyone is different. I think it's almost like a religion- what works for you may not work for someone else, even if you believe they are encompassed by your beliefs. We all have a right to share what works for us and try to do as much give and take as we can. Personally I am not a huge fan of the disease model, but I do not doubt it can be very helpful for people who don't think the way I do. We all need different things from treatment. Some of us need to admit we are helpless, some of us need to affirm we are NOT helpless, some need to be broken, others need to rise. Rebuild or tear down, start over or make amends, and so on. Often people insist what works for them must work for everyone, because a huge measure of the validity of their effort is the method they used- it can give them a sense of community and a well of comfort (again, like religion almost). That's just being human.

daveddd
04-20-14, 11:00 AM
Everyone is different. I think it's almost like a religion- what works for you may not work for someone else, even if you believe they are encompassed by your beliefs. We all have a right to share what works for us and try to do as much give and take as we can. Personally I am not a huge fan of the disease model, but I do not doubt it can be very helpful for people who don't think the way I do. We all need different things from treatment. Some of us need to admit we are helpless, some of us need to affirm we are NOT helpless, some need to be broken, others need to rise. Rebuild or tear down, start over or make amends, and so on. Often people insist what works for them must work for everyone, because a huge measure of the validity of their effort is the method they used- it can give them a sense of community and a well of comfort (again, like religion almost). That's just being human.

while understanding that people have differences , its incredible how similar addicts are

when you see a cocaine addicted doctor, siting next to a homeless crack addict and they can finish each others sentences , its very eye opening (this is a real example )

mildadhd
04-20-14, 12:39 PM
Everyone is different. I think it's almost like a religion- what works for you may not work for someone else, even if you believe they are encompassed by your beliefs. We all have a right to share what works for us and try to do as much give and take as we can. Personally I am not a huge fan of the disease model, but I do not doubt it can be very helpful for people who don't think the way I do. We all need different things from treatment. Some of us need to admit we are helpless, some of us need to affirm we are NOT helpless, some need to be broken, others need to rise. Rebuild or tear down, start over or make amends, and so on. Often people insist what works for them must work for everyone, because a huge measure of the validity of their effort is the method they used- it can give them a sense of community and a well of comfort (again, like religion almost). That's just being human.

Would ADHD,anxiety and depression also be like a religion, in your opinion.

I do believe in the biology of belief.



p

daveddd
04-20-14, 12:40 PM
also, i understand that different ways work for different people, I've heavily defended AA here even though I've never used it

what i meant was thinking a certain way does not classify something as a disease ,

mildadhd
04-20-14, 12:49 PM
I think the biology of belief, is very real, just like the biology of anxiety, depression, addiction, and other ADHD commoribdities.



P

daveddd
04-20-14, 12:51 PM
yea, I'm sure all of our thoughts and actions have a corresponding biologically reaction

mildadhd
04-20-14, 01:04 PM
yea, I'm sure all of our thoughts and actions have a corresponding biologically reaction

I agree, I am still not sure how understanding the actual biology involved in addiction could be seen as flawed?

In my opinion, I think it can only help to consider as many of the actual factors involved, as possible.



P