Friday 16 September 2016

Woot, found the reference (that I had wanted to include in the previous post)!

I wanted to reference this statement I made waaay back (well, like exactly one year) in the previous blog post, but since so many posts on this blog contain the words "belief," "dopamine," and "sociopath," it was a little difficult to find which post this statement was made in, via searching for the terms.

From the post Controlled Dopamine Release's Influence in Sociopathism, and for Health, and referenced once already in the post Managing and Increasing Dopamine Can Easily Add Years to a Person's Life and Good Health, I wrote:

If a person can take control of their belief, they can freely give themselves the same continuous positive experience that Cocaine delivers, which is exactly what some sociopaths and highly active people feel as their regular state and think nothing of it.

So, the above statement covers the larger understanding of what was recognized in the study referenced in the previous post:

Smokers get a rush of dopamine when nicotine from a cigarette enters their body.

It's this chemical reaction that means so many people are addicted to smoking.

But scientists believe there is something else at play - a smoker's belief in the chemical reaction can also change their cravings. 

In a study, researchers have discovered that if smokers don’t think they are getting nicotine, the rush of dopamine never arrives.

The perceptions of the nicotine study also corroborate everything that I've been saying about dopamine, including its identity as not being "reward", but mental-task processing fuel, which is utilized whenever Reason causes a mind to consider, such as when something is less than OK (for example, a craving), and which is increased in availability when a mind resolves considerings related to not being OK, and believes that everything is OK. The difference between "reward" and physio-fuel is perfectly antithetical in the resultant understanding of the importance of dopamine for a human brain, moving it from being of the least consideration and arriving as an after-effect, to one of primary importance that is required at the beginning of all effort, and to prevent mental and physical stress, vulnerability, damage, and failure.

This essentially means that contemporary medicine and drug, as well as drug-crime policies are basically all just backwards, and life-stealing shit, and that those people in professions where they rationalize away people's natural right to dopamine are cruel monsters, and hypocritical fraudsters.

Also, I want to point out that having some study corroborate what I say is not what makes what I say the truth. The opinions, ideology, and dogma of a billion sociopaths will not alter the truth, and any number of people who act out of determination, such as an ideology, will all equally be found to have been False, in the end.

When a paid health worker speaks of "reward" and "addiction", they speak from their ignorance, from their sociopathic wishes, from their desire to experience "reward," and from their prejudice. But when I say that addiction does not exist, that dopamine is physio-fuel, and that employing "addiction" as if it were a truthful concept creates the very harms that are those who use the concept typically attribute to drugs, I speak from the truth, and the truth speaks through me.

And I know the truth of far more than these things. In truth, if I will it, this entire planet will be transformed into a planet of gods, both good and evil. And if I will it, this entire planet will be separated from true knowledge. Because in me are all the keys to true knowledge, and I make them known as I reason is good.

And just as when asked "Who do you think you are?" by the day's religious professionals in reaction to claiming to know God, Jesus responded, "If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you," so it is with what I have said.


Thursday 15 September 2016

Articles: 'Belief concerning nicotine drives behaviour and dopamine availability' & The Experience of Considering


Here are a few articles, which all are about the same study:

Belief in nicotine's powers can increase addiction

Belief about nicotine content in cigarettes can curb cravings

Level Of Smoking Addiction Determined By Smoker’s Perception Of Nicotine

Excerpt from the first article:

Smokers get a rush of dopamine when nicotine from a cigarette enters their body.

It's this chemical reaction that means so many people are addicted to smoking.

But scientists believe there is something else at play - a smoker's belief in the chemical reaction can also change their cravings. 

In a study, researchers have discovered that if smokers don’t think they are getting nicotine, the rush of dopamine never arrives.

Except from the second article:

The smokers who got the nicotine, or simply believed they did, reported reduced cravings and the scan recorded increased neural activity. 

'When they believed there is nicotine and they had nicotine, the craving correlated with these anterior insula activations — but when they did not believe so, that correlation was gone." Gu said.

"Even when they had nicotine, but did not believe there was nicotine, their brain did not respond [with higher neural activity] and they still reported as much craving as before," she said.

"Basically, you have nicotine and your brain is kind of on, but the twist here is you have to have nicotine, but also believe you have nicotine for the brain to be on," she said.

"So in other words, if you have nicotine, but did not think so — you thought you had some kind of placebo — then your brain is still off," Gu said.

While the biological pull of nicotine plays a key role in the addiction, a person's belief system can also exert a pharmacological effect, she said.

Researchers hope the study, recently published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, will tell them more about the mechanism of addiction.

"It looks like addiction is not just about the substance itself, but also the belief you need the substance to have a normal daily life," Gu said.

She said the study shows why cognitive therapy is so important in changing a smoker's beliefs.


The conclusion of this study claims to have discovered something which I've already explained in much greater detail.

Recently, in the post Article: "this is how social media affects your brain", I said:

It will be no different if a person considers pouring hot-sauce in their belly-button, or any other inane activity: Whatever a person believes in which consider within their brain, to make their person's well-being status as OK only evaluate as True when the concept that is their belief is fulfilled, which will always free up dopamine, since those considerings, conscious and sub forefront-conscious, will be resolved once their reasons are fulfilled, and considering is the work of a brain, and the work that requires dopamine to connect pieces of information in new ways.

And in the post Overview of Why Placebo Works, and Isn't Really Placebo After All, I said:

- The mechanisms of the metabolic pathway can be triggered in two ways: by decomposition of a molecule (which itself has a frequency that carries its meaning as a signal and equates to a ‘This Is’ declaration upon whatever it contacts), or by a reasoned thought-signal that contains the same declarative information

I also talked on the same theme in the post The Placebo Effect is Belief Freeing Up Dopamine to Help Healing Consider


I wish it wouldn't be said in the news articles about this study'd finding that "scientists believe there is something else at play," or that science would be mentioned at all, since the greatest understanding of these things comes from me, and I did not use any science to come to know them, or read any similar understanding from any scientist's work before I spoke these things from my own knowing. In fact, when I spoke them, it was in complete opposition to and rejection of everything I'd ever heard said from the perspectives of those calling themselves scientists. I knew the truth because of Reason, and I spoke it because it is the truth. To indicate science in this is to hijack some of the full understanding's considerations, and align them in ways which spoil the image of truth of the matter.

No science was needed to know, with certainty, that this happens, because its understanding is simply inherent in the knowledge that dopamine is a brain's work potential, and that considering is a brain's work for which dopamine is required, that considering is a streaming of considerations, that a consideration is polar, that a mind is all-factoring and inter-dependent, and that belief is a 'This Is' command upon which Reason immutably acts.

There is no test, observation, research, studying, institutions, regulations needed to know even the greatest of truths. There is simply belief, considering, knowing.


As Tesla said, “My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists.”

Well, what is received is a streaming of considerations, which is considering. And what enables considering is belief, which is a 'This Is' command, upon which Reason acts. But an environment that is heavily falsified, such as the mind of a scientist, cannot very easily consider, because the environment of considerations which is their mind evaluates as False against all realty, because of their determinations, and so cannot produce a truthful 'This is' command, to initiate considering. But if they could, then considering is similar to this scene in Transformers.

However, in that scene, the character who information is considering through is being raped by another force, and is not in control - which, by the way, is what doctors do to synapses in people's brains whom they impose their False institutional doctrine concerning dopamine, drug-use, upon. And that is a major part of what is happening in a psychosis, which, like many other things, is only caused by a lack of dopamine to connect information to stop the broken considering processes from forcefully pushing information through synapses not in sync with all other information. And this is also what is happening in the case of autistic children being sensitive to sounds, light etc. Unfortunately, licensed medicines are, relative to cocaine, complete garbage and poison when it comes to being effective at helping against these things, because of their far worse dopamine / adrenergic effect ratios, with the adrenergic effect increasing the workload of a brain, while dopamine increases the capacity for a brain to handle larger workloads.

Considering with reasoning is also like this scene from The Fifth Element, where the character learns via watching progressive scenes on a subject, reasoning their collective meaning as the scenes progress.

With considering, and reasoning while considering, the scenes are the reasoned meaning of all known considerations, and they can consider at even millions of times the rate of those which the Fifth Element character is watching in the given clip. And the individual scenes are made of great expanses of considerations, connecting across many dimensions. And the considered scenes themselves can even be living, with their contents being living experiences of the considerations which make them.

Einstein engaged a basic level of this when he thought in pictures, and came up with his theory of relativity. But neither Einstein, nor Tesla, though they engaged considering at basic levels, knew the greater reality of these things. They neither identified the movement and interaction of considerations as a knowledge to grow, and only focused on producing works in their fields via their individual abilities as they were without any recognition for what the difference was between their minds and other people's.

But, Jesus had already spoken the same as Tesla's "My brain is only a receiver" comment, when saying "By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me." And considering grows into forms far greater and more magnificent than either of these examples, or the capabilities Tesla and Einstein possessed.


While Tesla was fascinated by what the small could be made to do, and worked upon the small with a separation between it and himself, I know the full resolution, Reason, which gives the small its meaning and purpose, and by knowing Reason, I also know all the considerations which resolve into it, not as an outsider, but as an equal, and as one mind, with the shared sight of all who are in Reason. These considerations not only reveal the truth about what is, but they also are what is.

If I'm willing, I can write what resolves everything that all those working in the field of physics seek, and far greater, in a single post. But, as of now, I am not resolved to do this.

A truthful person and a sociopath speak from different devices. A truthful person only speaks what has already been fully considered, and which is already true and reason. A falsehood-bearing person makes determinations about what is, and speaks their determinations without knowing anything. In the truthful person, the truth is their leading considering, and their self is placed last. In the falsehood-bearing person, their own self is their leading consideration, and the truth is placed last. By determining ones self ahead of the truth, the possibility for the truth to present is falsified.

What good is all the information in the universe if it is achieved by determination, and so is outside of you, and therefore you and that information as one is not the truth? The movement of considerations evaluating True into one another is life, and as Jesus said, "Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death," and also, "What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?"

Making determinations reduces connectivity between considerations. If everything a person has is by making determinations upon what they perceive as being outside of themselves, then there is little connection between the determiner, and all the things that they imposed determinations upon. So how will a person be able to consider through those things so that their life will continue? They will be vulnerable to the "outer darkness" that Jesus spoke of, and these words: "But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself? This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God."

So, what if all that a person has aligned themselves to is a granfalloon? That granfalloon as a whole does not consider into the truth.


Now, back to the articles about nicotine cravings being subdued by a belief which resolving anxious considering thereby freeing up dopamine-availability, thereby increasing a person's well-being and functionality.

At the end of the CBC article, this is printed:

Researchers hope the study, recently published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, will tell them more about the mechanism of addiction.

"It looks like addiction is not just about the substance itself, but also the belief you need the substance to have a normal daily life," Gu said.

A tremendous fallacy in these statements is the use of the term "addiction," which shows that the mind speaking such is carrying determinations which are causing their considering to collapse into falsehood.

Inherent within the term of addiction are considerations which speak that a person has no control, that a person is not acting by controlled choice, and that a person's behaviour is not acceptable. If a person accepts the term of addiction as True, then Reason will cause the considerations within their own mind, which form those messages, to align in a manner which is against their own personal strength and ability to overcome. Addiction doesn't exist in the truth, but is an imposition which sociopaths place upon others in order to dominate and exploit those people. By accepting the idea of addiction, a person is choosing to allow  be dominated by its concepts.

Accepting the message of addiction is the same as accepting the message of "you can't," which doesn't allow considerations to pass, which makes it impossible for a person to overcome. And this is the great deceit, theft, and treachery behind Alcoholics Anonymous, as well as government and institutional anti-drug messaging, which has been cultivating non-confident drug usage, which is the cause of all the problems which those in government and institutional medicine continue to try to attribute to drugs.

I spoke the following, in the post: Adendum - Migraines are Dopamine Deficiency - and also: The Importance of Tact in Dopaminergic Application - and also: The Importance of Considering the Truth

(I've also now added a link to the above, in this blog's previous post: Article: "Percocet Ruins Lives", But It Saved This Woman's)

Considerations have polarity, and receive their identity as relative to one another. And such a belief aligns certain considerations in a negative manner, and for as long as it evaluates as True towards the activity a person is engaging in, all signals relating to that activity will pass through that consideration, and receive an antagonistic influence, a quantum of negative consideration-value, which can infect the whole mind. And increasing adrenaline and noradrenaline will accelerate the considering of those things that are worries, and progressively amplify the presence of negative consideration-value in the brain until a time when things settle down and they can be reconsidered into normalcy. This is where drug-induced anxiety and psychosis come from - there is nothing inherent in the drugs taken themselves that cause thes)e things, but it is a contagion created by doctors, scientists, and government, out of their sociopathic inclinations to attempt to justify their own statuses by demeaning and harming those of others, who they deem as targets for their prejudice.
Also, ironically, when anti-drug propaganda is being administered to a society, there is a growth in sociopathism within that society, and a reduction in intelligence within that society, and the harms put into children and teenagers are those very ones which anti-drug propaganda would have them think come from drugs: Considering is the mechanism behind evolution, and a brain develops its connections through the course of considering. Those connections themselves represent the considerations of a person's mind, and greater Truth is manifest the more considerations are accounted for within an environment - and considerations which resolve into one form concepts. A determination is like a road-block that prevents considering from occurring - and the more determinations held in a mind, the less presence of truth there is in that mind, and the more selfish and sociopathic it is likely to be.

And just as I said in this post:

The considerations that are being held in the concept of science have their truthful placements elsewhere, and science must be discarded so that the truth may appear.

And as I spoke similarly concerning memories, in this post, it is the same regarding harmful drug-usage habits, where the imposed determination of "addiction" has forced the alignment of its involved considerations, in a case of 'if one then not the other', to dominate, subjugate, and exploit a person:

A person cannot overcome the traits of addiction while accepting the notion of addiction as a truth. It is a ball-and-chain that keeps people in the state of dependence upon the directives of sociopaths outside of themselves. People use drugs because they are addicted in the same sense that black people run fast because they have lots of practice from needing to get away after stealing something. Use of the denigrating term addiction is about maintaining a barrier that prevents the truth from being considered, and the upending of a long reign of sociopathic dominance over those people who are most vulnerable in society due to their low dopamine-availability, which is largely due to their considering the words of sociopaths imposed upon them as True in the first place.

Therefore, the first step to overcome any harmful drug-usage is to first believe and know that it is OK to use drugs, and that it always was. Drugs were never the problem, but harmful messaging coming from doctors, government, and scientists, rather than truthful consideration of the matter of drugs, is what really caused people to experience harms from drugs.

The symptoms of addiction cannot exist in a person unless a person first believes in the concept of addiction, and that it applies to them. And the concept of addiction did not arise because it was truth, but because sociopaths wanted a label to impose upon people other than themselves, to dominate and put them beneath themselves.

But the basis for people seeking dopamine-increasing drugs is simply that they are deficient in dopamine-availability, and therefore the solution is to increase their dopamine availability. Even where the solution is to overcome beliefs which are causing worried considering, which is diminishing their dopamine-availability, the solution is still to increase their dopamine-availability. And a person cannot overcome harmful beliefs without first having sufficient dopamine-availability to do the work of reconsidering, and therefore increasing dopamine-availability to give a brain enough physio-fuel for that work comes first.

And much of what causes diminished dopamine-availability within people who use drugs is the impression imposed upon them that there's something wrong with what they're doing. But everyone's brain runs on the effect of cocaine, and cannot perform any work without enough of it being there first.

Also, sociopaths only have lots of dopamine-availability because they have made determinations to obstruct consideration of the truth, reducing the amount of work which their brains are attempting, while means having ample dopamine-availability.

So, there very first harmful belief for a person who suffers dopamine-deficiency (which is all that "addiction" really is) to overcome, is the notion of addiction being anything other than a falsehood which keeps a person imprisoned. Without that, nothing further can be done. So, the first step to overcoming harmful drug habits is for a person to accept that it is OK to use drugs.

Related posts:

How Belief Affects Mental Stress Treatment, and the Effect that Anti-Drug Propaganda Has on Mental Health
A Simple Truth About "Addiction" Drug Use, and Trauma
Further Information on "Addiction" and Drug-Associated Health Issues, and the Environment that Produces them
Article: "Percocet Ruins Lives", But It Saved This Woman's
Woot, found the reference (that I had wanted to include in the previous post)!


Sunday 4 September 2016

Article: "Percocet Ruins Lives", But It Saved This Woman's

Article: Percocet Ruins Lives, But It Saved Mine

If the article's writer better understood what is actually behind the narrative and physiology that suggests a picture of dopaminergics and other drugs as ruining lives, it is likely she would only write the first part of her article's title in parentheses: "Percocet Ruins Lives", But It Saved Mine.


Here's a related post from this blog: Adendum - Migraines are Dopamine Deficiency - and also: The Importance of Tact in Dopaminergic Application - and also: The Importance of Considering the Truth


Imagine seeing a starving person begging a very rich and well-fed person for some food, food that would cost the very rich and well-fed person nothing to give to the starving person, not even their time, because they were paid for the time in which the starving person begged for food from the rich person... and the rich person responded to the starving person, while standing next to a table covered in food, and piling up food onto a plate for themselves, by insisting to the starving person that they've done wrong by thinking they also need food, and that they have a problem of addiction, and that they need to re-evaluate their life in a way that will get them off of food-dependency.

That is a retelling of the exchange that took place in the link-to article, where the woman described:

Last year, while I was at school, I realized that I'd forgotten my pills while visiting home. I didn't notice until, later that week, a migraine came on. After two days of hell, I went to a walk-in clinic not far from campus. The doctor, a thin, grey-haired man, glanced at me through his glasses, and asked, "What brings you in today?"

"Well," I said, "I get migraines, and I've had one for two days now. I left my medication at home over Thanksgiving. I'm going home again next week, so I just need a couple to help me get rid of this headache."

"What do you take?" he asked, without lifting his gaze from the computer screen.
"I have a prescription for Percocet."

He turned and looked at me. "How much do those go for on campus?" he said sarcastically.

"Sorry, what?" I said, confused. I began trying to explain myself. "No, you see, I have a prescription, but I left mine at home and--"

"Ya, I'm sure you do," he said, and proceeded to lecture me about my "addiction," while writing me a prescription to "get me off of it."

So, what if a person who was starving and without access to food was asking somebody with access for food, and the person they asked responded condescendingly and scolded them for having a need of food? Wouldn't such a person who treats another that way qualify as a monster? But the experiences of low dopamine can easily be far more painful and torturous than the experience of starving from lack of food, or dehydration from lack of water.

The conduct of the doctor described by the doctor perfectly resembles what I identified in the post Article: Common brain signature marks autism, attention deficit:

I would presume that a lot of the medical professionals who read this blog don't like it when I write pointed accusations at them, since viewer numbers have always dropped off a steep cliff following such statement since the beginning of the blog, but so what? They're professional murderers and thieves of people's lives, and bringers of suffering to those around the people their doctrine steals the life from. Their entire ideology has been a harmful and indefensible lie, and they've been its advocates. If those whose lives, minds, and dreams have been taken or restrained because of their choices haven't been protected, and neither have been those who truthfully spoke their dopaminergic need, then why should be the egos of those who took those people's lives, minds, and dreams, and who prop up the most malicious and deceptive facade human society ever produced?

Do they condition their willingness to engage the truth upon first having their falseness accommodated and pandered to?

What did Jesus instruct? Was it to hypocritically scold, demean, and disregard whoever asks for something, or to "Give to everyone who asks you", and "Do to others as you would have them do to you"? Did Jesus add an exception of "except where sociopathic granfalloons come into play"?

When doctors base and make their whole lives around denying other people, those most vulnerable and suffering, theirs, as well as keeping them in a state of torture, and condescending, chiding, and shaming them for even just requesting what is their only true relief, how can it be substantiated that the doctors who do this are deserving of anything which they have made for themselves?


The woman who wrote the linked-to article correctly perceived that the increase in dopamine-availability which oxycodone (the main ingredient in Percocet) provides her is the authentic, needed +1 to her dopamine-deficient state of -1. Or, perhaps the dopamine she receives from the oxycodone in Percocet is only a +6 to her dopamine-deficient state of -17, and yet the difference of being raised to only -11 would still feel like a heavenly relief.

Meanwhile, the typical doctor is probably riding on a baseline dopamine platform of +50, which they produce for themselves by believing that they are good dogs for casting the peer-approved determinations upon other people. And they feel so aggressively entitled to that dopamine-rich state, which is their failure to consider, that it is rare for one of them to open their minds to considering the actual people that they practice their professional rape upon.

To properly care for a person, the person must be considered first. When a doctor is more interested in foisting their dogma upon a person who is suffering, it is not the person they are caring for, but their ideological granfalloon, which they adamantly adhere to so that they can tell themselves what a good dog they are, and shut down all considering work in their brain to induce a greater dopamine-availability. When a doctor acts as the one described by the woman who wrote the linked-to article, they are literally jacking off their brains via their sociopathic stupidity, while chiding a person for recognizing their personal actual need for the same dopamine that the doctor is desperately trying to build up in their science-addled brain.

But since for all things there is an ordering of considerations, and in a case of 'if one then not the other', when a doctor lets their dogmas and granfalloons evaluate as True, so that they can beat a patient with them, then their consideration of the person who is their patient evaluates as False. And without considering the person as they express themselves, they have not cared for the person.


Also, notice that the doctor described in the woman's article defaulted to a determination about the woman as soon as she described her situation and made her request. The considerations a person puts forth is rolling-out of a blueprint that reveals precisely how their brain is wired. In the case of the doctor described, that person has allocated their determinations to be of greater importance than giving room to let the truth be considered. Because a determination is a falsehood by nature, saying 'these considerations, but not these others', it falsifies the output of any considering that emanates from it:

The Will by which a thing is considered is the Will that is returned at the end of the considering. And the Will placed into a determination is an evaluation of False towards the truth, which is carried through all the considering that streams from that determination, and outputs a conclusion that will be perfectly-antithetical to the truth in some manner, just like in the case of 'dopamine as reward'.

Just as much as it is impossible for a mathematical statement to express a truthful answer if one of its variables is changed from its True form, it is just the same with considering. Determining a false ordering of considerations falsifies the whole work. And it is precisely and only because mathematics obeys the rule of Reason (which I will illustrate at some point) that it works.

 Because the doctor so easily imposed a determination, which he then proceeded to consider as True by act of will, it means that the doctor's mind is wired for falsehood, and that he is highly sociopathic. And because that doctor held their determination as True, from that point onward, he was unable to see anything clearly, and was acting upon a delusion from his own mind. And that delusion harmed the woman who had come to see him, and worsened her dopamine deficiency-based state of suffering.

Normally, when people act on hallucination and are dangerous to other people, they are sometimes locked up and put under observation. Shouldn't doctors be locking themselves up, since their entire ideology is a sociopathic delusion that has harmed, and is continuing to harm many millions of people? By not locking themselves up, to keep the public safe from them and the falsehoods they peddle, they are adding to their hypocrisy.

P.S. - psychology, psychoanalysis, tends to be drivel, but what I speak from shares the same exactness as mathematics, and is why mathematics bears truthful statements. If a doctor imposes a determination which they then consider off of as if it were True, they have formed, and are actively engaging sociopathic connectivity in their brain. And any efforts made though exertion of that falsified ordering of considerations will bear the falsehoods of that circuit passed on in their results. And everything traces back to where it originated, down to the very consideration, its evaluation, and all that made up its environment, including all the furthest reaches of existence.


Having started this blog due to what I discovered concerning my own severe health ailments, and their successful resolutions, after having spent many, many years as a victim of far too many doctors and specialists, I can state confirmation, that what the woman who wrote the linked-to article described about her experience with a doctor is normal, and that the caring of many, perhaps most doctors is so conditional and superficial that, often, all semblance of it quickly vanishes the moment anything about the doctor's own environment of personal comfort, which is their practice, their feeling of authority, their belief in a dogma, is put to test, even benignly. And the moment that happens, many, many doctors will abuse their position to inflict intimidation, condescension, or spite, even in ways that they fully know can or certainly will be physically or otherwise severely detrimental to a patient. Though there are exceptions, I believe that this describes the temperament of the average doctor, and that their self-assuredness does not come from actually knowing anything, but from the appearance of authority presented by their granfalloon, that they are giving themselves to.

But, when a doctor's caring for patients only exists within the pre-fulfilled context of their personal wants being pandered to, with their title, reputation, office, authority, salary, an easy access to drugs they prevent other people from accessing (depending on where in the world, a doctor is not allowed to write themselves prescriptions. But, a great number of doctors, including ones who are hard-line against writing opioid and stimulant prescriptions to patients, give themselves special prescriptions of these kinds by writing them using names of their family members, that they then pick up themselves, for their own use. Also, there are doctors who write each other friendly bonus prescriptions, thinking as if their special educations make them super-duper good for it), yet they aren't willing to consider anything that puts any of those things at risk, it means that they aren't genuinely caring about other people, but just themselves.


When I read the woman's experience, I am filled with reminder of the awareness that what the doctor aggressively opposes for someone who is most desperately needing of it for her proper, natural health and well-being, has been the foundation for everything that the doctor, with great arrogance, seeks for himself, even through his lecturing of the woman in service of his dogmatic suppositions.

But the difference between the doctor and the woman's pursuit of the same dopamine is that the woman legitimately needed it, and was rightful in acknowledging that and pursuing it, whereas the doctor already had an abundance of it, stored up through the much less legitimate means of circumventing truthful consideration with his determinations. And perhaps he greedily sought more of it by way of congratulating himself for being a good dog by enforcing what is a false and evil ideology, all at the expense of a woman who was suffering specifically because she lacks in availability of that same dopamine - which, for the doctor, doesn't become more available from doing anything right or wrong, good or bad, but from believing to himself that he is now a good dog, resolving any prior considering of the situation and freeing up the dopamine that was being used to connect information required for the sake of that considering.


I hope that it has become clear to all who read this blog that what a doctor, scientist, or anybody has been justifying as their dopaminergic "reward", their self-pandering entitlement, and their right to feel superior because of their learnedness has actually been nothing more than their colossal inhumane, arrogant stupidity, and selfish bias.

Those who believe 'dopamine as reward' have defined goodness as whatever serves their own personal comfort and bias. Many doctors practice medicine on people because doing so means to them that they've now fulfilled the picture of what is good, and can feel as though they've done their bit, resolving considering in their brain, which delivers them "reward" - and not because they consider the people who have need for help, that they might become empathetic of them. But it is not an action that makes somebody justified or non-justified, but the reason why it was done, with account given for all considerations.

There is a difference between doing what is determined as good because is serves personal reward, and doing what is truly good because to do so is the truth, and so that goodness will be. The former can never be truly good, and the difference is known in the truth.


In the case of the woman who wrote the article, the doctor who abused her exacerbated her dopamine deficiency by presenting trouble, and non-truthful consideration by his words and attitude, which the woman's brain then had to consider the truth of in the light of a better belief, in order to overcome - and the work of a brain, which is considering, requires dopamine.

"Satan" means 'one who opposes', and this doctor was a satan to this woman, her health, and the truth. But, despite the evils of doctors and their doctrine, look at the final sentence the woman wrote for her article, and notice that she's found the perfect truth, and that the light of the truth has shone through her experience and words:

"I do not have an addiction. I do not have a problem with prescription drugs... I have a solution."

The publishing of her article shows that she did indeed overcome the stress inflicted upon her by the doctor - thanks, in part, to the increase in dopamine-availability that her Percocet provided her with.
But also because she didn't accept the harmful determinations the sociopath doctor imposed upon her, but instead considered her own experience, and had faith in the truth of the matter, which her own experiences taught her.

I think that it is time for society as a whole to overcome the harms and evil of self-"reward"ing doctors, scientists, and their false dogma.