Monday, 8 February 2016

Calling Out Research Duplicity and Falsity for What It Is... and some stuff regarding addiction

In the previous post, I said that I'd speak more regarding the matter of institutional duplicity and bias in framing dopamine increases as a health boon when it comes from some sources (coffee, modafinil, etc), while a threat, and "addictive" when it comes from others (basically any non-licensed dopaminergic use), and so I will.


In the article Mice Fed with Cocaine Show Growth in Brain Areas Linked with Learning, Memory, there was speculated and proposed the idea that the same growth in brain regions associated with memory formation and learning that occurs during cocaine use corresponds to drug-seeking behaviour - implying that cocaine guides a brain to form an addiction.

The suggestion wholly ignores the reality that only a small minority of people develop any behavioural habit from cocaine use, fewer than develop habits to many common prescription medications that are prescribed even to children to help them get better grades in elementary school. It also ignores that the same brain growth occurs from caffeine use, and from modafinil use - but in the latter, that growth is praised as healthily boosting a person's smarts, while regarding cocaine the same growth is talking about as if with distrustful paranoia of ill intent.

Cocaine, caffeine, modafinil, and many others, are all dopaminergics, and the reality is that increasing dopamine simply improves a brain's healthy development, including regarding all the efforts that a person puts their focus towards while engaging the dopamine increase. Because cocaine boosts dopamine in a healthier and more proficient manner than both caffeine and modafinil, the amount of brain development that occurs while taking cocaine is more significant than that which occurs while taking caffeine or modafinil, and or doapminergics. Everything said beyond than that is only sentiment, bias, politics, ideology, non-objectiveness.

The basis for the referred-to sentiment and speculation in the above linked-to article is simply an attempt to rationalize and provide a counter-weight against recognizing and publishing an apparent positive about the subject. It is in no way truthful, or objective. It is propaganda, and an offence to the truth, and a betrayal of the greater subject of truthful human physiology and health.

The reality is that dopamine is the means by which a brain accomplishes all work, and when increasing dopamine with a dopaminergic drug, whatever a person puts their focus towards will receive enhanced development. And not only the things that a person consciously puts effort towards, but also subconscious matters. The whole brain will be improved for work. It is through and through a positive, and is the basis for why Modafinil boosts mental capacities – although modafinil does so nowhere near the extent to which cocaine does. As I said, increasing dopamine is like turning a dial up on all a brain’s power and control of thought, its ability to work with more details at once, its experience processing (which is memory formation) to beneficial resolution, and memory recollection, perception of senses, etc.


The choice to misrepresent a subject is a fairly common impulsive tendency exhibited by those who conduct medical research (and also in doctors) regarding illicit drugs, where interpretations are typically being tapered in a manner to reinforce a pre-determined negative framing of the subject. In other words, authorized research on illicit drugs is typically conclusions in search of data. And this is for a variety of reasons, one of the bigger ones being that consideration is what overlays and forms the structure that is conduit for emotion, and provides mental articulation - but a sociopath lacks consideration. And so instead of considering things, a sociopath is guided by their ambiguous sentiments, and makes blunt determinations based off of them.

And when a person makes determinations, it polarizes their brain even more, to the point that the person can be looking at the same thing, presented under two different labels, and in one presentation, they will deem the thing to be of no harm, and even a positive characteristic of great boon to health and life, while in the other, will deem the same thing to be nefarious and the cause of every minutest problem that can be spoken for in a person’s health and life - or they'll omit, downplay, or dismiss one particular detail regarding pharmaceutical medications, while while egregiously over-hyping the same detail when it appears in a non-licensed medicine.

Yet the thing will have been exactly the same in both presentations. This is what we see happening regarding dopamine being released via cocaine vs being released via coffee, or modafinil, and actually cocaine is significantly healthier than either coffee or modafinil, and is phenomenally greater at increasing a person’s mental capabilities than either coffee or modafinil.

Yet the exampled prejudist and senseless conduct is par for the course when it comes to researching and reporting on illicit drugs, and really has hardly improved since 1936’s reefer madness – the bullshit today is just more subtly presented, being dressed up with a bunch of technical jargon, which itself is a worthless mass of disconnected determinations.

Many hacks and frauds are willing to use and praise modafinil, while spreading deluded sensationalism regarding cocaine, yet the root mechanism in both of them is one and the same: dopamine. And dopamine is not addictive when released by one dopaminergic and then miraculously not addictive when released by another.

Addiction doesn’t even come into play here, and is itself a false concept – both in the instances of so-called “physical addictions” and also “chemical addictions”. When a doctor or scientist refers to these things, they’re tapping into sentiments within themselves, and not truthful understandings. And the various types of so-called treatments for these things reflects the ambiguity of the understanding regarding what these things actually are, where they come from, and why they’re happening.

A major reason why certain dopaminergic drugs becomes more common for impulsive use than others is exactly because of the same reason why advertising sways opinions and leads to consumer uptake. It’s all a result of the messaging chosen and expressed by doctors, scientists, and government. When these sources tell people that a certain thing is addictive, then Reason’s principle applies as the message is considered through the minds of people who don’t know better, and then there will be an uptick in the number of people who develop behavioural habits regarding that certain thing – even if that certain thing actually does nothing itself to create behavioural habits, such as is the case of cocaine.

Yet a minority of people start using cocaine in a habitual way – some of those cases are completely valid, while others are uncontrolled impulsiveness, and the direct product of years of public brainwashing from doctors and governments.


Consideration is what normalizes a brain and gives structure to emotion, and consideration is what a sociopath is lacks. Consequently, the more sociopathic a person is, the more they are guided by sentiments and the more easily they can be influenced by the power of suggestion.

This is why so many doctors and scientists write and believe things about illicit drugs such as the example I’ve given at the beginning of this post. Doctors and scientists’ efforts of trying to convince people that a lot of various illicit drugs are addictive, when they’re not at all, is also the reason why behavioural habits are as big of issues that they are in present society. Just as telling a person without understanding of the matter that they're addicted will commence connection-forming considering processes within their brain to reason what that means, telling a person a different, better message would also render a different, better influence in society.

But a lot of what doctors and scientists would judge by appearance to be an “addiction” is nothing more than the sensible practicality of a person who lacks dopamine fundamentally needing it - and there’s no way around that, and to try to avoid that is to be in denial of reality, and a hypocrite. The difference in dopamine between a healthy and functional person, and a person suffering mental stress is the ‘why’ for everything regarding the state of the person with mental stress and their behaviours. Just as a person who is dehydrated in a desert needs water, and their feeling is as such, it is no less the case regarding a person who is enduring dopamine deficiency. And the effects of dopamine deficiency within a human body and brain are terrible, and costly, and life-ransoming.

At the root of it all, despite a small minority of people who use cocaine developing behavioural habits for specific and resolvable reasons, cocaine is non-addictive. And it never was addictive, and it can’t be addictive, because its favourable effect is only the greater and healthier release of the very same dopamine which a person’s brain runs on from the day they are born, and which is present in every mental and physical action they make. It is the means by which all a person’s accomplishments are achieved, and is fundamental to their better mental and physical health. 

If what cocaine does is addicting, then every human being is already an addict, and so the term addiction in regards to cocaine no longer holds any meaning because it doesn’t identify something that’s particular. As I said before, in this present society, those who profess to treat others of mental stress ailment are responsible for the very things they claim to oppose.


No comments:

Post a Comment