Response to the June 2017 New Yorker Article on the Opioid Epidemic

At this point, I would think that knowledge about the vastness and seriousness of the prescription opioid and heroin epidemic, the biggest threat to American health and well being since the HIV/AIDS epidemic, would be common knowledge. Of course, given the abundance of shiny Internet things to tantalize easily distracted Americans, this is unfortunately not necessarily the case. Thankfully the New Yorker, with their characteristic excellence in reporting, has just released a superb and humanizing article on the opioid epidemic in their June 5 & 12, 2017 issue.

Read the article here.

The piece puts a much-needed human face to the horrors and misery of opioid addiction and the too-frequent death by overdose. Margaret Talbot, the article’s author, zeroes in on Berkeley County, West Virginia, in the heart of a region of the country hardest hit by the epidemic. I don’t want to give away much (because you should actually just read the article) except that the stories are heart wrenching yet balanced, and thorough in way that only the New Yorker can deliver. While the article is largely about the lives of people affected by and fighting against the epidemic, I was disappointed with a couple of points that were either made incorrectly, weakly, or not at all.

First, the article barely talks about how the epidemic arose in the first place. It mentions Purdue pharmaceuticals, the bastards behind Oxycontin (drug name: oxycodone), and that prescription opioid abuse led to heroin addiction but does not describe how the surge in addiction to prescription opioids occurred in the first place. The article describes the main problem with Oxycontin is that it can be crushed and snorted but a 2010 formulation of the drug reduced this risk. While this is indeed true, the article neglects to mention that when someone is first prescribed an opioid like Oxycontin for chronic pain (as was the case in the late 90s and early 2000s despite any evidence for the effectiveness of opioids in the treatment of chronic pain), the addictive potential of opioids often led to opioid substance abuse disorder in people who took it as prescribed (see this comprehensive article for more info). This is the big point, many of the people that eventually abused opioids started down that road by taking the drug as prescribed! Talbot incorrectly frames the big picture problem but she then goes on to correctly describe how those addicted to prescription opioids found their way to the cheaper and more abundant heroin.

The article goes on to mention the CDC’s release of guidelines on opioid prescription but fails to cite that this guidance came out as late as March, 2016, well after the epidemic had already taken root and thousands were already addicted and dying of overdose (I wrote an article on the CDC’s guidelines last year and highly recommend you read that article too if you want to learn more). The CDC’s guidance is mainly about the point I made above, that the over-prescription of opioids is the real cause of the epidemic, not just the crushable version of Oxycontin, and the limitation of opioid prescription is one of the huge policy interventions that is needed.

Later in the article, Talbot introduces us to Dr. John Aldis, a retired U.S. Navy Physician and resident of Berkeley County, WV who took it upon himself to educate people on how to use Narcan (generic drug name: naloxone), the treatment for opioid overdose. Dr. Aldis makes the critical point about the importance of medication-assisted treatments such as Suboxone (generic drug name: buprenorphine) and methadone. I appreciated the point made in the article that some patients may need these vital treatments long-term, or even for life, to combat the all-consuming single-mindedness of opioid addiction. However, beyond this passing mention, I felt that medication-assisted treatment was only weakly covered. There is still a great deal of ignorance about these treatments. Indeed, current HHS secretary Tom Price falsely characterized them as “replacing one opioid with another” and was majorly criticized by addiction experts. The reality is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence (I’ve written plenty on this site) describing the effectiveness of methadone and buprenorphine at 1) keeping addicts off of heroin, 2) allowing them to be able to live their lives without suffering from withdrawals and cravings, and 3) most importantly, keeping them alive. Talbot could have done a much better job of really hammering these points home but she seemed reticent, for some reason, to discuss it in detail in this article.

Finally, the article repeatedly emphasizes the importance of rehab clinics and tells the story of a huge victory for Martinsburg, WV (a town in Berkeley County) when the city council agrees to open a clinic in the town itself. I do not want to discount the importance of an addict assessing their addiction and taking an active role to end it, but this article does miss another critical point: rehab clinics only exist because addiction medicine is not part of medical school curricula and most hospitals are ill-equipped to treat those suffering from addiction. I feel this article could have really made the case for the importance of training for doctors in addiction medicine and the necessary shift that needs to happen for addiction treatment, a move away from overpriced (and often ineffective) private rehab facilities, and to public hospitals. Unfortunately, this point was not made.

Despite these missed opportunities, I commend Talbot and the New Yorker for a well-written article and thank them for this important piece that I encourage all to read.

 

Advertisements

Response to HuffPost Marc Lewis Interview on Addiction

So the Huffington Post runs a sub-blog on Addiction and Recovery and sometimes they present excellent reporting (for example, the piece on opioid addiction by Jason Cherkis who actually interviewed my boss, Dr. Mary Jeanne Kreek, for the article). But more often than not, they present quite variable reporting on addiction.  A recent interview with psychologist Marc Lewis, PhD is one such example.

Based on my own neuroscience of addiction background, I unfortunately find a number of Dr. Lewis’s claims not supported by scientific evidence and I believe the spread of such false statements can have the exact opposite of his intended effect—hurting more addicts rather than helping them. I do not claim to be the consensus voice of the addiction field but present my own arguments based on my own research and work done in the field. I also admit have not read any of Dr. Lewis’s books and am merely responding to the statements made in his interview. I include references at the end of the post.

The original interview between Carolyn Gregoire, Senior Health and Science Writer for Huffington Post and psychologist Marc Lewis, PhD

The questions (Q) by Carolyn Gregoire in the original interview are in bold, Dr. Lewis’s response (L) is italicized, and my response (S) is the un-italicized larger-size text.

Q: What’s wrong with the disease model of addiction? 

L: I know what scientists are looking at when they say addiction is a disease. I don’t dispute the findings, but I dispute the interpretation of them. They see addiction as a chronic brain disease — that’s how they define it in very explicit terms. 

My training is in emotional and personality development. I see addiction as a developmental process. So the brain changes that people talk about and have shown reliably in research can be seen as changes that are due to learning, to recurrent and deep learning experiences. But it’s not an abnormal experience and there’s nothing static or chronic about it, because people continue to change when they recover and come out of addiction. So the chronic label doesn’t make much sense.

S: The brain is a physical organ that operates under defined molecular biological principles. Drugs are physical chemical substances that perturb the molecular function of the brain. It is true that addiction is a process that can take months or even years to develop but the end result is a physical neurobiological change in how the brain functions [1, 2]. And when neuroscientists say chronic brain disease—or what my lab says A disease of the brain with behavioral manifestations—what we mean is that repeated drug use has caused a change is brain function which in turn results in a change in behavior. That doesn’t mean that this change is irreversible but, like other diseases, the first step to treatment is recognizing the underlying biological cause. Defining addiction as a chronic brain disease is not a judgment or interpretation of the development of addiction (which definitely does involve a learning and memory component [3, 4]) but is a statement asserting that drug addiction and drug cravings, compulsive drug use, and relapse are ultimately based on physical changes in the brain. It is important that we recognize this because otherwise we would not be able to treat it with effective and safe medications, in combination with other behavioral and psychological therapies.

Q: What’s problematic about the way we treat addiction, based on the disease model? 

L: Well, lots. The rehab industry is a terrible mess — you either wait on a long list for state-sponsored rehabs that are poorly run or almost entirely 12-Step, or else you pay vast amounts of money for residential rehabs that usually last for 30-90 days and people often go about five to six times. It’s very difficult to maintain your sobriety when you go home and you’re back in your lonely little apartment. 

What I emphasize is that the disease label makes it worse. You have experts saying, “You have a chronic brain disease and you need to get it treated. Why don’t you come here and spend $100,000 and we’ll help you treat it?” There’s a very strong motivation from the family, if not the individual, to go through this process, and then the treatments offered in these places are very seldom evidence-based, and the success rates are low. 

S: I strongly agree with this assessment. The rehab industry and many 12-step programs are ineffective, expensive, and rarely based on scientific evidence. The primary reason is that for decades addiction was thought of a problem of “spiritual weakness” or “lack of will power”. In reality addiction is a medical disorder based on physical neurobiological processes that make it seem like an addict has no “will power”, when in reality that addict’s brain has been hijacked to crave the drug compulsively and practically uncontrollably. However, again, I disagree that calling addiction a disease is what funnels people into rehab clinics. I believe it is the stigmatization of addiction that precludes treatment by doctors (unlike for every other disease), which in turn fuels admission into the rehab industry. Sadly, effective medications exist (such as methadone and buprenorphine for opioid addicts) that can flick a switch off in an addicts brain, satisfying their craving and allow them to live a normal live [5, 6]. Or medications such as naltrexone may be effective at reducing drinking in alcohol addicts but is not widely used [7, 8]. It is only recently that public acknowledgement of the biological basis of addiction and appropriate shifts in public policy are beginning to take place. Importantly, addiction medicine is beginning to become incorporated into medical school education and the first accredited residency programs in addiction medicine have been announced.

Q: There are lots of ways to trigger a humanistic response besides calling something a disease. So you would say that telling people who are in recovery for addiction that they have a “chronic disease” is actually doing them a disservice? 

L: Well, the chronic part is really a yoke that people carry around their necks. [Proponents of the disease model] say that this is important because this is how to prevent the stigmatization of addicts, which has been a standard part of our culture since Victorian times. 

But I think that’s just bullshit. I don’t think it feels good when someone tells you that you have a chronic disease that makes you do bad things. There are ways to reduce stigmatization by recognizing the humanity involved in addiction, the fact that it happens to many people and the fact that people really do try to get better — and most of them do. There are lots of ways to trigger a humanistic response besides calling something a disease.  

S: I agree that stigma is a huge problem with the treatment of drug addiction and mental health. Admitting you are an addict or depressed or know someone who suffers from these disorders is accompanied with unnecessary shame and fear of admission of the problem. I disagree that acknowledgement of medical/neurobiological basis of these disorders (ie calling them diseases) increases stigma but in fact do humanize patients. It helps alleviates shaming–both public and self–and can help an addict to seek evidence-based, medical treatment. Acknowledging the chronic nature of the disorder is not intended to make people feel bad but is merely truthfully stating the nature of the problem in hopes that it can be properly treated; denial can be lead to false and ineffective treatments.

Q: It can be difficult to comprehend the idea that something as severe as a heroin addiction is a developmental process. Can you explain that? 

L: First of all, let’s include the whole bouquet of addictions. So there’s substances — drugs and alcohol — and there’s gambling, sex, porn and some eating disorders. The main brain changes that we see in addiction are common to all of them, so they’re not specific to taking a drug like heroin, which creates a physical dependence. We see similar brain changes in a region called the striatum, which is an area that’s very central to addiction, which is involved in attraction and motivational drive. You see that with gambling as much as you do with cocaine or heroin. So that’s the first step of the argument — it’s not drugs, per se. 

From there, it’s important to recognize that certain drugs, like opiates, create physical dependency. There’s a double whammy there. They’re hard to get off because they’re addictive, like sex or porn is, but they also make you uncomfortable when you stop taking them. People try to go off of them and get extremely uncomfortable and then they’re drawn back to it — now for physical as well as psychological reasons. 

S: It is true that all addictions involve the striatum and there are similarities between the different addictions but to say that ALL addictions affect the brain in the exact same way is an absurd simplification. Different drugs absolutely DO affect the brain differently and have differences in addiction potential and relapse potential. To say addiction to heroin is identical to addiction to alcohol is identical to gambling addiction and therefore has nothing to do with the specific drug or behavior is just plain wrong. A wealth of evidence is gathering that addictions to different drugs progress differently and effect different brain systems, despite certain changes common to all [9]. For example, even opioids such as morphine and oxycodone, whose pharmacology are probably the best understood of any drug of abuse (they interact with mu opioid receptors [10]), have different behavioral and neurobiological effects that may affect addictions to the individual drugs (see my blog post). In a paper published by the lab I work for, the Kreek lab, cocaine administration in drug naïve mice (mice that have never had cocaine in their system) results in a rapid release of dopamine [11]. In contrast, some studies show that self-administration of an opioid drug only increases dopamine in rats that have already been exposed to the drug and not naïve animals [10]. The differences in the dopamine profiles between cocaine and opioids obviously means that how these two drugs affect the brain is different and is drug-specific! These are just a few small examples demonstrating the scientific inaccuracy of lumping all addictions into one general category or making the false claim that addiction has “nothing to do with the drug” (just as reducing cancer to a single disease is entirely inaccurate and harmful for its treatment).

Q: In the case of any type of addiction, what’s going on in the brain? 

L: The main region of interest is the striatum, and the nucleus accumbens, which is a part of the striatum. That region is responsible for goal pursuit, and it’s been around since before mammals. When we are attracted to goals, that region becomes activated by cues that tell you that the goal is available, in response to a stimulus. So you feel attraction, excitement and anticipation in response to this stimulus, and then you keep going after it. The more you go after that stimulus, the more you activate the system and the more you build and then refine synaptic pathways within the system. 

The other part of the brain here that’s very important is the prefrontal cortex, which is involved in conscious, deliberate control — reflection, judgment and decision-making. Usually there’s a balance between the prefrontal cortex and the striatum, so that you don’t get carried away by your impulses. With all kinds of addictions — drugs, behavior, people — the prefrontal system becomes less involved in the behavior because the behavior is repeated so many times. It becomes automatic, like riding a bike. 

S: Dr. Lewis’s assessment is basically correct. The core of the reward circuit involves dopamine-releasing neurons of the ventral tegmental area (VTA) projecting to the nucleus accumbens (NAc; a part of the ventral striatum), which primarily drives motivated behavior and is involved in reinforcement of drug taking behavior. Conversely, the prefrontal cortex acts as a “stop” against this system and one model of addiction is the motivated-drive to seek the drug overpowers the “stop” signal from the prefrontal cortex. However, addiction is far more complex beyond just this basic system. Numerous other circuits and systems (hippocampus, amygdala, hypothalamus, just to name a few) are also involved and each individual drug or rewarding stimuli can affect these circuits in disparate ways [12].

Q: What would a scientifically informed approach to addiction look like? 

L: That’s a really hard question because the fact that we know what’s happening in the brain doesn’t mean that we know what to do about it. 

A lot of recent voices have emphasized that addiction tends to be a social problem. Often addicts are isolated; they very often have difficult backgrounds in terms of childhood trauma, stress, abuse or neglect — so they’re struggling with some degree of depression or anxiety — and then they are socially isolated, they don’t know how to make friends and they don’t know how to feel good without their addiction. 

S: As I’ve stated above, a scientifically informed approach to addiction treatment already exists but is not widely used. However, one day an addict will hopefully be able to consult with a medical doctor to receive appropriate medications specific to their addiction, which will be combined with individual counseling by a psychiatrist or psychologist and a specific cognitive behavioral therapy or other psychological/behavioral therapy. The combination of medications and psychological therapy administered by trained medical professionals will be the future of evidence-based addiction medicine. Development of additional medications and/or psychological therapies for future treatment absolutely requires solid scientific evidence supporting their efficacy, which includes use of randomized control trials,  prior to widespread implementation.

But to call addiction primarily a social problem once again ignores all the basic neuroscience research that shows the powerful effects drugs have on the brain. It also ignores the prominent effect of genetics and how, due to a random role of the dice, an individual’s risk of becoming an addict can drastically increase [2, 13]. Plus the opioid epidemic that is currently sweeping the nation effects nearly every strata of society regardless of socioeconomic status, age, gender or race, and therefore cannot be explained simply by the hypothesis that addicts are people that are socially isolated. Why someone starts using drugs in the first place and how exactly they progress from a casual drug user to an addict are incredibly complex questions that scientists all over the world are attempting to answer through rigorous research. Being socially isolated or experiencing childhood trauma may certainly be factors that eschew some people towards the development of addiction but are definitely not the only ones.

Q: So what can we do about that?

L: Other than certain drugs that can reduce withdrawal symptoms, there’s nothing much medicine can offer, so we have to turn to psychology, and psychology actually offers a fair bit. There’s cognitive behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing, dialectic behavioral therapy, and now there are mindfulness-based approaches, which I think are really exciting. 

There’s been good research from Sarah Bowen in Seattle [on Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention] showing that mindfulness practices can have a significant impact on people, even on people who are deeply addicted to opiates. 

S: This is a completely false statement: medications for treatment of addictions exist [14]! Once again, comprehensive systematic reviews of methadone and buprenorphine, two medications used for treatment of opioid cravings, have indisputably shown that these medications are effective at keeping addicts off of heroin compared to no medication [5, 6]. Furthermore, a number of other drugs are currently being explored for treatments to alcohol and cocaine addiction [15, 16]. Some people may consider methadone or buprenorphine replacing “one drug with another” but this is naïve view of how powerfully addictive opioid drugs can be and how use of these FDA-approved medications in combination with individual psychological counseling, can lead to gradual dose reduction and amelioration of cravings. Medication-assisted addiction treatment is designed to help addicts fight their craving so that they can live a normal life. With time, dose can be reduced and cravings can become less intense.

The study Dr. Lewis cites regarding mindfulness is well designed and intriguing. However, the study did not compare mindfulness-based approaches to medication-based approaches and is therefore incomplete [17]. Nevertheless, it is an interesting approach that may be able to be combined with medication-based treatment but definitely requires more research before its efficacy can be confirmed.

References

  1. Koob GF, Le Moal M. Addiction and the brain antireward system. Annual review of psychology. 2008;59:29-53.
  1. Kreek MJ, et al. Opiate addiction and cocaine addiction: underlying molecular neurobiology and genetics. The Journal of clinical investigation. 2012;122(10):3387-93.
  1. Kelley AE. Memory and addiction: shared neural circuitry and molecular mechanisms. Neuron. 2004;44(1):161-79.
  1. Tronson NC, Taylor JR. Addiction: a drug-induced disorder of memory reconsolidation. Current opinion in neurobiology. 2013;23(4):573-80.
  1. Mattick RP, et al. Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2009(3):CD002209.
  1. Mattick RP, et al. Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2014;2:CD002207.
  1. Anderson P, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies and programmes to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. Lancet. 2009;373(9682):2234-46.
  1. Hartung DM, et al. Extended-release naltrexone for alcohol and opioid dependence: a meta-analysis of healthcare utilization studies. Journal of substance abuse treatment. 2014;47(2):113-21.
  1. Badiani A, et al. Opiate versus psychostimulant addiction: the differences do matter. Nature reviews Neuroscience. 2011;12(11):685-700.
  1. Fields HL, Margolis EB. Understanding opioid reward. Trends in neurosciences. 2015;38(4):217-25.
  1. Zhang Y, et al. Effect of acute binge cocaine on levels of extracellular dopamine in the caudate putamen and nucleus accumbens in male C57BL/6J and 129/J mice. Brain research. 2001;923(1-2):172-7.
  1. Russo SJ, Nestler EJ. The brain reward circuitry in mood disorders. Nature reviews Neuroscience. 2013;14(9):609-25.
  1. Kreek MJ, et al. Genetic influences on impulsivity, risk taking, stress responsivity and vulnerability to drug abuse and addiction. Nature neuroscience. 2005;8(11):1450-7.
  1. Kreek MJ, et al. Pharmacotherapy of addictions. Nature reviews Drug discovery. 2002;1(9):710-26.
  1. Addolorato G, et al. Novel therapeutic strategies for alcohol and drug addiction: focus on GABA, ion channels and transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2012;37(1):163-77.
  1. Bidlack JM. Mixed kappa/mu partial opioid agonists as potential treatments for cocaine dependence. Advances in pharmacology. 2014;69:387-418.
  1. Bowen S, et al. Relative efficacy of mindfulness-based relapse prevention, standard relapse prevention, and treatment as usual for substance use disorders: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA psychiatry. 2014;71(5):547-56.

Why We Outlive Our Pets

The family dog, Bella. Perhaps she's contemplating aging? (Photo © Derek Simon 2015)
The family dog, Bella. Perhaps she’s contemplating aging? (Photo © Derek Simon 2015)

I decided to take a little break from my typical serious and lengthy addiction/neuroscience blog posts and talk about something a little lighter (and cuter)…dogs and cats! Or to be more specific, the biology of pet aging.

A recent special issue on Aging in the journal Science included a news article by David Grimm on aging of our pets and other animals and what it may mean for the biology of aging.

Grimm aging article Science

Did you know the oldest cat ever, Crème Puff, was reported as 38 years old and the oldest dog, Bluey, was 29?! Both lived twice as long as average. These types of impressive feats of longevity have never been achieved in humans, not even close (the oldes human was 122 but every heard of a 140 year old?). But what can pet aging tell us about animal aging or aging in general?

If you plot animal size versus animal age you get a trend that has been known for years: bigger animals live longer than smaller animals.

In fact, this is the only correlation that’s predictive of animal longevity. Numerous theories have been generated as why this is.  One theory says that the higher metabolic rate in small animals  leads to increased amounts of damage-causing and age-inducing free radicals. But not much evidence exists to support this idea or others like it.

Dr. Steven Austad  of the University of Alabama, an expert on animal aging, thinks it probably has to do with millions of years of evolutionary pressure that favored a slower lifespan for larger animals. From the Science article:

“Whales and elephants can afford to take their time growing because no one is going to attack them, he explains. And that means they can invest resources in robust bodies that will allow them to sire many rounds of offspring. Mice and other heavily preyed-on small animals, on the other hand, live life in fast-forward: They need to put their energy into growing and reproducing quickly, not into developing hardy immune systems, Austad says.”

One interesting turn is that when you compare land mammals to birds, smaller birds tend to outlive their land-locked counterparts. But the same argument can apply: flight is a great way to avoid predators so a similar kind of slowed-down aging may have also evolved in birds for the same reason as in whales and elephants.

Angry female naked mole rat. Credit: Buffenstein/Barshop Institute/UTHSCSA
Angry female naked mole rat.
Credit: Buffenstein/Barshop Institute/UTHSCSA

Similarly, the naked mole rat and the bat also defy their predicted lifespan given their small size but the mole rat lives most of its life underground and the bat can fly away from danger of course. No need to live hard and fast for these guys (or at least to evolve that type of lifestyle).

However, pets sort of flip the size trend upside down. Cats (both domestic and in the wild) tend to live longer than dogs (or their ancestors wolves). Austad argues this may be due to the incredible resilience of cats whereas dogs are more social and therefore may be more susceptible to communicable disease.

Equally strange is that small dogs live much longer than large dogs, which likely has nothing to do with evolutionary pressure (most dog breeds are only a few hundred years old). One argument involves hyper-secretion of hormones such as insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1), which may act a double-edged sword. Big dogs may get a greater boost in growth from IGF1 but accelerated aging too.

A trend that many pet owners should be happy about is that pets live longer today than ever before. And like humans, health care and diet have improved drastically for pets. Plenty of TLC for pets has surely increased their life spans!

However, much is still unknown about pet aging (and aging in general).

Perhaps pet aging can even unlock secrets to human aging. Or as Dr. Daniel Promislow of the Dog Aging Project at the University of Washington says, “If we can understand how to improve the quality and length of life, it’s good for our pets and it’s good for us. It’s a win-win.”

See these other sites for some more tidbits on animal longevity:

Or check out these review articles for topics on aging (all are open access):

New York City’s Failure to Care for Recovering Addicts

(From wikipedia.com)
(From wikipedia.com)

A new investigative report in the New York Times reveals a corrupt and virtually unregulated system of housing that preys on those that suffer from addiction and mental disease. Called “three-quarter” homes, there may be as many as 600 of these privately owned residences in NYC that act as a limbo between inpatient hospital care and shelters. The article tells the story of a group of homes owned by a single landlord and a few of the unfortunate residents trapped within this system. Disturbingly, reputable hospitals and treatment centers often refer patients to these homes. Landlord’s profit off of their tenant’s state-provided subsidies, which are insufficient for any other type of housing. The landlord collects the government assistance checks provided to the tenants provided that they regularly attend treatment centers. This has the unexpected consequence of incentivizing a landlord to encourage his tenants to relapse and thus remain in treatment…and in the three-quarter home. This vicious cycle is perfectly encapsulated in the articles headline “A Choice for Recovering Addicts: Relapse of Homelessness.” Read the full article for more details.

However, the article neglects the opportunity to elucidate the root cause of the existence of these three-quarter homes: lack of a sufficient, standardized and coordinated health care system for the treatment of addiction and other mental diseases. A critical problem in the American healthcare system is the lack of adequate inpatient medical treatment for people suffering from addiction, and is why people get referred to the three-quarter homes in the first place.

Addiction is a complex mental health disorder that requires an individual treatment plan that may involve medication, counseling, group and/or individual therapy, and other options. Without a well-funded, evidence-based, medical treatment program formulated for an individual’s addiction, they are likely to fall into the purgatory of three-quarter homes or even worse, the streets or prison. Ultimately homes likes these are allowed to exist due to the lack of adequate treatment options and facilities for addicts.

 And of course, the medical and treatment culture of addiction cannot be changed until the stigma against addicts and addiction is changed. Addiction is a medical disease and needs to be treated as such.

 

Response to Huff Post Article: The Likely Cause of Addiction has Been Discovered, and It’s Not what You Think

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-addicti_b_6506936.html

So my goal today was to post an introduction to the neuron but then I read the above article and felt it my duty as a neuroscientist that actually studies addiction to respond to the many glaring problems with this piece.

This is my response (also read it on the Huffington Post Blog directly):

This article makes many false claims that ignores the scientific basis of addiction. I’m a neuroscientist studying the neurobiological basis of drug addiction at the Rockefeller University (NY, NY) and many of the views presented in this article are, in my professional opinion, harmful to the decades of scientific progress made in understanding this devastating disease.

Addiction is a very complicated disease with genetic, environmental, and drug-specific causes and effects. The disease/medical model of addiction is not a “liberal” view but the scientific view (which has no left/right bias). This article makes no mention of the vast amount of concrete basic research that has identified real molecular changes that occur to brain as result of drug use and the subsequent effects on behavior that these molecular changes have. There is no mention of neurons, or dopamine, or neurotransmitters, or neurotransmission, or receptors, or gene expression changes, or neuroplasticity, or mesolimbic reward pathway, or many other of basic concepts in the neuroscience of addiction.

And of course, being in a harmful/stressful environment can induce or exacerbate drug-taking behavior. This has been known for years and the drug/stress interaction is a huge area of study within the addiction field. Stress induces chemical changes within the brain, and many of these chemical changes are similar to the ones that drugs cause. In fact, everything that the brain does and everything that happens to brain ultimately has a chemical basis. And yes, that means there is of course an enormous chemical basis for addiction and the effects of drugs themselves. To say anything otherwise is blatantly not true. The synergy of drug-taking and stressful situations also has a concrete molecular basis and there is an enormous body of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies that support this.

However, I do agree that 12-step programs (on the whole) are successful and that addicts should be treated with compassion and love. Treatment of addiction is just as complicated as the disease itself and multiple approaches are likely required. But to ignore the science, and claiming a political bias of the science, and cherry-picking a handful of studies that support a false overall conclusion, is inexcusably irresponsible. My newly-minted website is attempting to counter harmful information, such as this article, regarding addiction (drsimonsaysscience.org). Thank you.