Please bear with me...this is an intensely personal issue.

What am I missing here?

I've been studying addiction and compulsion for a quarter-century, and
three years ago uncovered a theoretical model based on developmental
and neurological principles which seems to meet the criteria for a
solution capable of revolutionizing the field.

Capsulizing this theory won't cut it...it's dirt-simple but requires
certain background; it would be like trying to explain the microbial
cause of infections to someone in Pasteur's day, or explaining the
principles of television to someone in 1930. But that's not really the
point.

This theoretical model appears to be the most advanced and
comprehensive in existence; it's been lying about in pieces for years
but to my knowledge I might be the first to have actually collected
and documented these pieces to any depth. But that's not really the
point either.

Addiction and compulsion arguably represent the most costly
afflictions currently known to humanity. This theoretical model seems
to meet all the expected criteria for such a model; it points to a
common root cause for approximately 90 percent of all cases of
addiction and compulsion (any theory claiming to capture all cases
would be false on its face), demystifies these conditions to the point
where they appear to be not just treatable but permanently curable
(but not with any reliability given our current technology), and
provides a rational explanation for virtually every phenomenon
associated with these conditions.

And no, that's not the point either.

The point is that NOBODY WANTS TO KNOW and I don't understand why!

In 1983, a Dr. Marshall discovered the bacterial connection to gastric
ulcer through a chance discovery on a petri dish, and subsequently
provided a rational solution to the considerable majority of cases of
this condition. But it was twenty years before any of us heard about
it.

I'm not a doctor, although I *do* live in the colonies. Let's set
aside the validity of the theory for a moment because that's not the
issue at this point. It seems to me that even if it's invalid in some
fashion, any model that answers so damn many questions so elegantly
has to be highly significant.

But it isn't even getting a hearing from anyone I don't know
personally, and obviously the possibility of tainting through
personality means that I can't rely on that kind of feedback. What I
can say is that those who give it a reasonable hearing don't just find
it rational...they connect with it *viscerally* to the point where I
am a bit frightened of the reactions this stuff is producing.

I've made more than 30 targeted attempts to contact media, academics,
practitioners, NGOs and others to see if anyone is interested in
looking into this further. The implications of this model are
enormous, and even though it doesn't promise cure any time soon, it
seems to point to PHENOMENAL gains possible in harm reduction and
social planning through the application of some of the associated
principles. I've also made it clear in my inquiries that from my
perspective, it is also highly political, since it appears to
rationally explain phenomena currently considered unexplainable. (Let
us not forget that most of addiction treatment in North America is
oriented around the twelve-step program, which has as its sine qua non
the achievement of a mystical state, the "spiritual experience", and
which hinges its success on faith.)

Thus far not one inquiry - NOT ONE - has even received a reply...not
even a brush-off; I bracketed the effort, targeting about a third of
the inquiries to the "top", a third to locals and people working at
grassroots level, and a third scattershot to net contacts I'd hoped
might be interested in such a notion. Without a drop of feedback from
anyone who doesn't know me personally, it is literally impossible to
make any determination of what's going on here.

For what it's worth, I've temporarily placed a draft of some of the
material at www.cublea.net/sonora/ (DO NOT browse this site unless you
feel it's necessary; the hazard warnings are there for a reason) but I
don't think exposure to the model itself will help anyone interested
in this problem, and I don't want to be responsible for adverse
reactions to the material.

Is it truly no longer possible for a layperson to put forward a notion
such as this, and should I just give this up and let someone with
qualifications or charisma make the same discoveries, or is there
something fundamental about the concept or the dynamics of this
problem that I've overlooked which essentially dooms anyone in my
position to going unheard?

Some three months ago, I concluded in a reverie that without someone
both famous and fearless to champion the cause, or someone willing to
devote 20 years to wall-banging, the model can never get a fair
hearing. I can't accept this conclusion. Is it perhaps time that this
was abandoned?

This is eating me alive, in no small part because I see the
possibility of hope for myself in what I've come across. I'd have
offered more for answers but I don't have much left right now...I'm
almost afraid that if I keep this up much longer, I could be tempted
to gamble my net worth on a massive media push to get some kind of
hearing for this.

My sense is that there is a very obvious solution to this dilemma, a
reason why this dynamic is playing out in this fashion that is just
beyond my scope of vision. I'm almost hoping that whoever can answer
this question can answer it in about 30 seconds.

Thanks for your patience.

---

Request for Question Clarification by omniscientbeing-ga on 17 Sep 2003 02:36 PDT

cublea-ga,

Can you be a bit more specific in terms of what it is you'd like a
Researcher to answer for you? If not, that's okay, but the more
specific you are in terms of what you want to know, the more satisfied
with your Answer you are likely to be.

omniscientbeing-ga
Google Answers Researcher

---

Clarification of Question by cublea-ga on 17 Sep 2003 02:49 PDT

I'll try to summarize...

What am I missing here? Is it truly no longer possible for a layperson
to put forward a notion such as this, and should I just give this up
and let someone with qualifications or charisma make the same
discoveries, or is there something fundamental about the concept or
the dynamics of this problem that I've overlooked which essentially
dooms anyone in my position to going unheard?

---

Request for Question Clarification by sublime1-ga on 24 Sep 2003 23:55 PDT

cub...

Have we satisfied your interests in asking your question?

---

Clarification of Question by cublea-ga on 25 Sep 2003 01:43 PDT

Sublime1, I haven't quite known how to respond...I don't think the
fundamental issue here has been addressed, namely the dynamics
involved here. While it COULD just be my pathetic simpering or
insincerity (but why should I listen to my parents any more?), it
seems to me that there's something likely to be glaringly obvious in
the dynamic itself that's being overlooked; I can't distance myself
from the subject matter enough to see it, and from the looks of it,
you seem to be almost as caught up in the details as well.  The facts
of the subject matter kind of obfuscate the issue; the elements of the
problem are really fairly simple: a joe nobody discussing possible
information of value about a high-profile condition in varying
contexts to varying individuals ostensibly with vested interests in
this issue, and in varying professions, and not even receiving
acknowledgement of receipt from any of them...not even individuals who
actually KNOW joe nobody.

As I've had time to think about this, I can't believe the result would
have been any different if you replaced "addiction" with "asthma". I
still don't have a clue what I'm overlooking here.

And assuming this might be more of a "counselling issue" than a proper
GA question, since it seems to involve looking through a presenting
problem, have I underpriced this answer?

cublea...

You may enjoy familiarizing yourself with Dr. Arthur Janov,
who had been espousing a similar approach to many problems,
including addiction, since the mid-sixties:

"Dr. Janov has been conducting revolutionary research in the
 field of psychotherapy for more than three decades. As the
 originator of Primal Therapy, he has treated thousands of
 patients and conducted extensive research to support his
 thesis that both physical and psychic ailments can be
 linked to early trauma. He has concluded that patients
 can dramatically reduce such debilitating medical problems
 as depression, anxiety, insomnia, alcoholism, drug addiction,
 heart disease and many other serious diseases. In 1970 he
 introduced his radical new approach to therapy to the
 general public in his first book,  The Primal Scream,
 which became a best-seller and has since sold more than
 a million copies worldwide."
http://www.primaltherapy.com/atomsGp03/aboutArthurJanov.htm

Dr. Janov has experienced a similar response from what
can be termed 'mainstream psychology', which he explained
quite simply, in that, in order to deliver the benefits
of Primal Therapy without succumbing, in the process,
to their own psychological limitations, qualified 
therapists had to be willing to undergo therapy
themselves. This simply did not sit well with those
who had already obtained PhDs, and were considered to
be 'authoritative' in every other sense of the subject
of psychiatry, short of actual 'results'.

Nevertheless, it was/is not uncommon for Dr. Janov
or his colleagues to disprove the theory that a 'true'
alcoholic cannot return to drinking without addictive
behaviors taking over their lives. There are numerous
testimonials in his books of people who were, by any
standard, alcoholic prior to treatment, who were able,
following therapy, to have a glass of wine or two on
occasion, without further interest in drinking.

Best regards,

sublime1-ga

Sublime One:

Just to clarify in relation to the subject matter, Janov's work in
this area has produced results but not the satisfactory explanations
for primal's success and recidivism rates, and as such is no less
phenomenological than the results achieved by AA, ibogaine, Doyle
Henderson and Clovis Hyder, and the numerous "spontaneous cures"
reported since antiquity. Janov's claims have been largely superceded
by more recent evidence relating to shock, and from what I've seen,
lack the developmental and neurological support to validate his theses
to the degree he has claimed. That's not to minimize the phenomenon by
any means...there's a lot to be learned there...but his codification
of these matters hasn't proven to be as valuable or as accurate as
claimed. Janov is only one of a host of such individuals pursuing the
same trail, including Ichazo, Grof, Bradshaw, Henderson, Emerson,
Smith and others.

In relation to the question, according to my information Janov had
pretty letters after his name and no small amount of personal
charisma. I'm unemployed trailer trash from rural Canada. Publishers
don't even give me permission to submit.

Janov was at least able to get heard in the hangover of the acid daze.
Marshall was ignored - threatened with removal of his license if I
recall - even when he injected himself with helicobacter pyllori and
gave himself an ulcer to cure.

2003 is not 1970, and while I suspect the dilution effect of the
Internet plays some role in this dilemma, I believe there's something
else at work here that I'm not seeing.

Thanks for your comments...it was a fair try, and I apologize for not
pre-empting your reply in my question.

cub...

If you'll notice the timestamp on my comment, you'll see that
it was just before I went to bed. Therefore, I had only briefly
read what you are presenting on your site. I apologize for posting
a comment prior to a thorough perusal of your site, which would
have made it clear to me that you are already quite familiar 
with the contributions of Arthur Janov, as indicated on this page:
http://www.cublea.net/sonora/qna/whodiscovered.html

Let me clarify that we are kindred spirits in the questions you
have raised. Reading Janov's first book was enough to initiate
a healing process for me, which triggered the cathartic release
of early buried memories and led to a natural resolution. I 
continued the process for about 2 years thereafter, using my
intuition and growing experience with the healing process to
go deeper. My own success with this process made me wonder
why this powerful approach did not receive greater acceptance,
if not prominent acclaim. I initially chalked this up to what
Janov himself indicated - that mainstream practitioners were,
themselves, too conflicted on subtle levels to steer clients
toward their painful experiences, lest their own unresolved
pain should surface and belie their authoritative composure.

Thereafter, I spent 20+ years in the field of mental health
and saw for myself that, in addition to dilemma which Janov
presented, the trend toward economy of time and money in
addressing the mental health of the public sector effectively
precluded any approach which required the depth of therapy
and length of aftercare necessary in the approaches you've
explored. Managed care has made this even less likely.
Simply put, it occurred to me along the way that, whereas
it would seem that the goal of any treatment organization,
whether medical or psychiatric, would be to effectively
put itself out of business via successful interventions,
the reality is that such organizations seem more aligned
with perpetuating themselves.

You have noted on your site that "...those who benefit 
from social sanction for their addictions and compulsions 
are also those who seem to have the most power in civilized
cultures, and it is they who stand to lose the most."

Additionally, in Janov's terms, the majority of the population
is neurotic, and, since the way to resolve this epidemic has 
to do with a willingness to feel repressed pain, and a trust
in the environment in which this is even possible, the vast 
majority are quick to dismiss such approaches due to classic
automatic defense mechanisms and the rarity of known
environments in which to do so.

As to your question, "Is it truly no longer possible for a 
layperson to put forward a notion such as this, and should I 
just give this up and let someone with qualifications or 
charisma make the same discoveries, or is there something 
fundamental about the concept or the dynamics of this problem
that I've overlooked which essentially dooms anyone in my 
position to going unheard?"

There are certainly examples of laypersons who rose beyond
'conventional wisdom' in approaching a solution to a 
difficult problem. The creator of 'Lorenzo's oil' is one
such success story in the treatment of adrenoleukodystrophy:
http://www.myelin.org/aboutoil.htm

Perhaps the most obvious element in that success story,
which is missing from your own documentation, is the 
element of personal success with a particular treatment,
followed by the ongoing success of increasing numbers
of individuals who experience 'the cure' for themselves.

Add to that your own discussion of factors which have
prohibited the widespread dissemination of this knowledge
on this page:
http://www.cublea.net/sonora/intro/tour/8whyonlynow.html

Taken together, I believe that all of the above factors,
in addition to other, subtler dynamics, comprise the
reasons for the difficulty of popularizing this knowledge.

Best regards...

sublime1-ga

It couldn't hurt to huddle with these folks from Vanderbilt:
http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/root/vumc.php?site=winder&doc=127

Cublea,

I sure don't have an answer for you, but I'll add a few bits of
information that you might find useful. And please don't take anything
I'm saying as critical against your theories. Truthfully, I didn't
really read them closely. I'm just commenting on the overall approach.

First, I know several people who work in jobs that naturally attract
mail from people who have independently developed processes, treatment
programs, health products, or medical devices. This includes an FDA
examiner, a university professor, the head of a pharmaceutical
research lab, and a medical doctor in a large teaching hospital.  I
can tell you fairly confidently that the reason your mail gets no
response is that they receive hundreds of letters, just like yours,
every single month. They can't possibly read them all, much less
assess them and reply to you.

Second, if you are sending your information via email, and if it
contains even a small portion of what is on your website, it's
probably being rejected as Spam –either automatically via filter or by
hand after a quick peruse. With phrases and sentences like:

"…spontaneously healed addicts" ; 
"…I am the first person to thoroughly document" ; 
"..improved treatments that could bring cure to millions";
"… explanation of one of the most astonishing cases of social and
medical ignorance in modern history.."
".. A rare genius of rare heritage.."

Ask yourself, does this read like a medical journal article or like a
hyped up snake oil brochure?  Would YOU buy into a product or process
if you received this kind of information?  I wouldn't.  (Again, not
criticizing the theory .. just the presentation)

Third, one of the key indicators that the public is told to look for
in differentiating "real" medical information from "quackery" is the
claim that the inventor or discoverer has worked alone for years on
his theory in his private lab and has been rejected, discounted, or
suppressed by the medical community – either because they don't
believe him or because they are threatened by his discovery.

Fourth, there is hope for "…a layperson to put forward a notion such
as this."

I'll give you my favorite example – Judith Rich Harris --  Mom,
textbook editor, Harvard reject, working from home. During her many
years of reading and writing psychology textbooks, she came to the
realization that one (well, actually two) of the child social
development theories that had been promoted as "truth" for the last
hundred years, was just plain wrong.

So, she researched, documented, interviewed, wrote letters, inquired,
and studied until she knew she was right. Then she wrote a
professional research paper, submitted it to a medical journal, and
had it accepted.  From there, first the backlash (hers is NOT an
easy-to-swallow theory! It goes against everything parents and
developmental psychologists want to believe.) then the book, the
reviews, the talk shows, (the hate mail), and finally, most
importantly professional acceptance of her research and theory.

Read her article below, and compare that to your website and what you
are sending out to doctors and researchers.

Harris, Judith Rich. "Where Is the Child's Environment? A Group
Socialization Theory of Development." Psychological Review; July 1995
Vol. 102, No. 3, 458-489
http://www.apa.org/journals/rev/rev1023458.html


You see, it can be done, but it's got to be done right. 

Good luck cublea!

-K~

Psst…and btw .. your 10-minute Tour needs a "back" button. :-)