Standard Alcohol Drinks Cause Alcoholism

Standard Alcohol Drinks* (STDs), which features at the forefront in the Gov. and the other alcohol research, prevention, treatment institutions much publicized moderate (safe, low-risk, controlled) drinking promulgations indeed potentially dangerous to Human consumption!

Because, all the available alcohol research evidences** in this matter clearly indicates that all these STDs, most popular among them is the Standard beer, which contains around 5% alcohol (v/v) potentially cause alcoholism particularly the alcohol dependence.

On the other hand there are no fundamental alcohol research evidence that in any way indicate that the Low-Alcohol Drinks (LAD’s that contains around 2% or less alcohol) cause alcoholism problems specially its “alcohol dependence”!

However the greatest irony of this matter is that the Gov. Alcohol Policy Makers (APMs) mainly its researchers who monitors the safety of the products (specially the food and drug), which they sanction for the public consumption does not seems to recognize the potential dangers of the SADs consumption even though its evidence right in front of them!

So the question arise; why does the Gov. Alcohol Policy Makers (APM) continued to endorse those SADs brought in by the Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturers (ABM) despite the overwhelming alcohol research evidence that all of which potentially cause the alcoholism and the diseases?



*A Standard Alcohol Drink is calculated around 10 to 14 grams of pure alcohol in essence. (Please notice the difference in the alcohol amounts between the US and the International!) The different alcohol concentration in the drink (V/V) is one of the main criteria between different category of alcoholic beverages. Please note the5% alcohol (v/v) beer drink comes down lowest in the list! It make the people to wrongly to assume that it contains the lowest alcohol in the alcohol drinking standard! Please note there is absence of Low-alcohol Drinks in the there.

In the US scale of measurement it comes to:
1.5 ounce of 80-prof distilled spirit (around 40% alcohol v/v)
one 5-ounce glass of wine (around 12% alcohol v/v)
one 12-ounce bottle of beer (around 5% alcohol v/v)

In the European scale of measurement it comes to:
A single shot of spirits or liquor of 40ml. (around 40% alcohol v/v).
A glass of wine or sherry of 140ml. (around 12% alcohol v/v).
One can of beer of 300ml. (around 5% alcohol v/v).

…………………………………

** The Standard Alcohol Drinks (SADs) remains ubiquitous in all alcohol drink research, much so in the research of the drinks causing alcoholism problems unless it specifically mentions the name of the Low Alcohol Drinks. Therefore, anyone asking for the evidence for the existence of the STDs in the alcohol research is like asking for the evidence of saltwater when referred to the seawater!

Here are the leading Standard Alcohol Drinks stipulations, descriptions information web sources : -
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Practitioner/PocketGuide/pocket_guide2.htm
http://www.standarddrinks.com/
http://www.alcohol.org.nz/WhatsInAStandardDrink.aspx
http://www.agingincanada.ca/a_standard_drink.htm
http://health.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=21149



Main Subject: A Whistleblower Report A Major Scientific Misconduct in alcohol Research; in which the Ethics in Science, Integrity, Responsible Conduct have taken a back seat.

SMAR: A Breakthrough Statement.

Here is an important Statement that I would like to make.

My present Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report (SMAR) pursuit is fundamentally different from my earlier ZAD research findings and it venture. The ZAD is a research finding regarding the alcoholism prevention treatment and its cure, while the SMAR is a research misconduct allegation report.

Although the SMAR is born out of the ZAD research findings, nevertheless it is a major BREAKTHROUGH!

This is why I created this new http://www.geocities.com/scientific_misconduct website, blog quite separate from the old http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell website, blog.

At present the pursuit of this SMAR is most important for me than the ZAD venture. However sometimes they overlap on each other.

Valerian Texeira.
http://www.geocities.com/scientific_misconduct
http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com
http://alcoholicscurewell.blogspot.com

My Humble Opinion About BLOG

Forwarded with some corrections

My Humble Opinion About BLOG

BLOGS are fundamentally different from the website in many ways.

First of all they are user friendly when it comes to hosting them in its dedicated sites.

Blogs are treated more equally by their search engines compared with the website search engines.

It mostly operates on the principle of first come first served and of course the olds are left behind for good! But don’t worry the good old can return back to the front pages by re-writing it again and again!

Blogs are predominated by the individuals opinion. Having money resources doesn’t matter much. On the other hand websites are predominated with the commercial interest. Corporate, Powerful Agencies, Institutions dominate all over its scene. Individual people having no money, power, resources simply do not fare.

What I like most about them is they are more Democratic! Where the Individual effort (vote) really counts! Making them to appear first in the given topic mainly depends upon the persons blogging frequency and the time spend working in it. Although I don’t understand many of its nitty-gritty, nevertheless it helps me a lot.

Did I miss any more points?

Rach

Yes! This happens to be my experience!

Val

SMAR -Forwarded.

Please see its copy in the recent month post.

World Alcoholism Mess Sec. 5

Continuation of the last post

References and suggested reading


[1] World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases, (ICD-10) (Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines, Tenth Revision.) Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1992. WHO [3]

[2] American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). Washington D.C.: The Association 1994.

[3] World Health Organization 20 Avenue Appia CH-1211 Geneva 27 Switzerland http://www.who.int/en/

[3a] Alcohol: Neuroscience of Psychoactive Substance Use and Dependence http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/alcohol/en/ [3]

[3b] AUDIT The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines for Use in Primary Care: Thomas F. Babor, John C. Higgins-Biddle, John B. Saunders, Maristela G. Monteiro. World Health Organization Department of Mental Health and Substance [3]

[3c] Screening and brief intervention for alcohol problems in primary health care http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/activities/sbi/en/[3]

[3ca] Brief Intervention For Hazardous and Harmful Drinking A Manual for Use in Primary Care. Thomas F. Babor, John C. Higgins-Biddle. World Health Organization Department of Mental Health and Substance Dependence http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/WHO_MSD_MSB_01.6b.pdf [3]

[3cb] Alcohol Use Disorders www.who.int/msa/mnh/ems/primacare/edukit/wepalc.pdf [3]

[3d] Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland: WHO European Ministerial Conference on Young People and Alcohol www.who.int/director-general/speeches/2001/english/ 20010219_youngpeoplealcohol.en.html [3]

[3e] WHO Management of Substance Dependence announce the facts www.who.int/ mipfiles/1962/ManagementofSubstanceDependence.pdf
www.who.int/whr/2002/chapter4/en/index6.html [3]

[3f] WHO: Chapter 4 Addictive substances www.who.int/whr/2002/chapter4/en/index6.html

[3g] WHR 2001: Substance use disorders www.who.int/whr2001/2001/main/en/chapter2/002e2.htm

[3h] WHO: The global burden www.who.int/entity/substance_abuse/ facts/global_burden/en

[3j] Alcohol Drinking http://www.who.int/health_topics/alcohol_drinking/en/

[3i] WHO to meet beverage company representatives www.who.int/entity/mediacentre/releases/2003/pr6/en

[3k] European Alcohol Action Plan 2000-2005. EUR/LVNG 01 05 01 www.euro.who.int/alcoholdrugs/Policy/20021009_1

[3L] Global Status Report: Alcohol and Young People whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/WHO_MSD_MSB_01.1.pdf

[3m] Global status Report: www.who.int/entity/substance_abuse/publications/ en/GlobalAlcohol_overview.pdf

[3n] International Guide for Monitering Alcohol Consumption and Related Harm
whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2000/WHO_MSD_MSB_00.4.pdf

[3p] Withdrawal state http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/withdrawal/en/

[3q] WHO Constitution http://policy.who.int/cgi-bin/……Document42]”[3]

[3r] What is the big concern about binge drinking www.ecu.edu/student_health_serv/ sthealth/alcohol%20and%20you.pdf

[3s] International Guidelines for the Evaluation of Treatment Services and Systems for Psychoactive Substance Use Disorders whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2000/WHO_MSD_MSB_00.5.pdf


[5] US. Department of Health and Human Services; Public Health Services; National Institute of Health; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) is a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Please send comments or suggestions to the NIAAA Web Master (niaaaweb-r@exchange.nih.gov)

[5a] 10th Special report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health June 2000 from the Secretary of Health and Human Services [6] http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/10report/intro.pdf

[6] National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) 5635 Fishers Lane, MSC 9304 Bethesda, Maryland 20892-9304. http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/ The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) is a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Please send comments or suggestions to the NIAAA Web Master (niaaaweb-r@exchange.nih.gov) [5]

[6a] Publications http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/publications.htm [6]

[6b] U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 232. Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 3d ed. Washingt on, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1990 6d WHELAN, E.M. To your health. Across the Board, Jan. 1988, pp. 49-53.

[7] Pamphlets/Brochures/Poster http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures.htm

[7a] ALCOHOLISM Getting the Facts: http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/booklet.htm

[7b] How to Cut Down on Your Drinking http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures.htm

[7c] Make a Difference: http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures.htm

[7d] Alcohol and Neurotransmitter Interactions By: C. F E Valenquela http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh/21-2/144.pdf.

[8] Alcohol Alerts: http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/alalerts.htm Copies of the Alcohol Alert are available free of charge from the Scientific Communications Branch, Office of Scientific Affairs, NIAAA, Willco Building, Suite 409, 6000 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-7003. Telephone: 301-443-3860. [6]

[8a] Diagnostic Criteria for Alcohol Abuse and dependence http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa30.htm

[8b] Screening for Alcohol Problems—An Update http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa56.htm

[8c] Brief Intervention for Alcohol Problems http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa43.htm

[8d] New Advances in Alcoholism Treatment http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa49.htm

[8e] Treatment Outcome Research http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa17.htm

[8f] Neuroscience Research and Medications Development http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa33.htm

[8g] Economic Perspectives in Alcoholism Research http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa51.htm

[8h] Estimating the Economic Cost of Alcohol Abuse http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa11.htm

[8i] Relapse and Craving http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa06.htm pp1

[8j] Craving Research: Implications for Treatment http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa54.htm pp1

[8k] Screening for Alcoholism http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa08.htm

[8L] Assessing Alcoholism http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa12.htm

[8m] Patient-Treatment Matching http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa36.htm

[8n] Alcohol and Tolerance http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa28.htm

[8o] Moderate Drinking http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa16.htm

[8p] Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa05.htm

[8q] Alcohol Research and Public Health Policy http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa20.htm

[8r]The Genetics of Alcoholism http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa60.htm

[8s] From Genes to Geography: The Cutting Edge of Alcohol Research http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa48.htm

[8t] Imaging and Alcoholism: A Window on the Brain http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa47.htm

[9] Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/faq/faq.htm [6]

[9a] Naltrexone Approved for Alcoholism Treatment http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/press/1995/naltre.htm [6]

[10] Alcohol Research & Health http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aharw.htm [6]

[10a] Alcohol and Craving (full text), Vol. 23, No. 3, 1999. Alcohol Research & Health. [10]

[10aa] Inducing Craving for Alcohol in the Laboratory Vol. 23, No. 3, 1999. Alcohol Research & Health. [10]

10b] Update on Approaches to Alcoholism Treatment: Vol. 23, No. 2, 1999. 1999. Alcohol Research & Health. [10]
[10c] Advances in Alcoholism Treatment Vol. 18, No. 4, 1994. Alcohol Research & Health. [10]

[10d] Epidemiology in Alcohol Research Volume 27, Number 1, 2003 Alcohol Research & Health. [10]

[10da] Classification of Alcohol Use Disorders’ by; Deborah Hasin, Ph.D. http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/5-17.htm [3a]

[10e] Brief Screening Instruments for Alcoholism www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh21-4/348.pdf10

[10f] TWEAK www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/tweak.htm [6]

[10g] Alcohol Research and Social Policy Vol. 20, No. 4, 1996. Alcohol Research & Health. [10]

[10h] What Is Moderate Drinking? Vol. 23, No. 1, 1999. Alcohol Research & Health. [10]
[10i] Alcoholic Brain Disease (full text) Vol. 27, No. 2, 2003 1999. Alcohol Research & Health. [10]

[10j] GeneticTechnology in Alcohol Research Vol. 26, No. 3, 2002 1999. Alcohol Research & Health. [10]

[10k] Preventing Alcohol-Related Problems Vol. 26, No. 1, 2002. 1999. Alcohol Research & Health. [10]

[10L Animal Models – Part 1 : Behavior and Physiology 24, No. 2, 2000. 1999. Alcohol Research & Health. [10]

[10m] Animal Models – Part 2 : Searching for the Genes Vol. 24, No. 3, 2000. 1999. Alcohol Research & Health. [10]
[10n] Alcohol Withdrawal Vol. 22, No. 1, 1998. Alcohol Research & Health. [10]

[10o Emerging Approaches to Alcohol Research Vol. 21, No. 4, 1997. Alcohol Research & Health. [10]

[10p] The Genetics of Alcoholism Vol. 19, No. 3, 1995. Alcohol Research & Health. [10]

[10q] Alcoholic Brain Disease Vol. 27, No. 2, 2003 Alcohol Research & Health. [10]

[10r] Neuroscience: Pathways of Addiction Vol. 21 No. 2, 1997 Research & Health. [10]


[11] Reports/Manuals/Guides/Briefs http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/guides.htm 12 Epidemiologic Manuals/Directories http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/directories.htm [6]

[13] 10th Special report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health June 2000 from the Secretary of Health and Human Services [6] http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/10report/intro.pdf [6]

[14] Alcohol research: Achievements and promise American Journal on Addictions http://juno.ingentaselect.com

[14a] Prevalence of…Alcohol Abuse and Dependence... www.niaaa.nih.gov/press/2004/chart-description.htm [6]

[15] Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Thesaurus: http://etoh.niaaa.nih.gov/AODVol1/Aodthome.htm [6]

[16] National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. (NCADD) http://www.niaaa.nih.gov

[17] David F. Duncan, DrPH, CAS, FAAHB http://commonplacebook.tripod.com http://www.duncan-associates.com

[18] Management of Substance Abuse http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/en/ Mailing address: World Health Organization Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Management of Substance Abuse Team (NMH/MSD/MSB) 20, Avenue Appia CH-1211 Geneva 27 Switzerland [3]

[18a] Terminology & classification http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/en/ [3]

[18b] Dependence Syndrome definition http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/definition1/en/ [3]

[18c] Lexicon of alcohol and drug terms published by the World Health Organization http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/who_lexicon/en/ [3]

[18d] Facts & figures http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/en/ [3]

[18e] Activities [http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/activities/en/] [3]

[18f] Publications [http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/en/] [3]

[18g] Expert Committee Reports [http://www.who.int/entity/en/], [3]

[18h] Alcohol Drinking http://www.who.int/health_topics/alcohol_drinking/en/. [3]

[19] ‘A Scientific Method to Minimize Alcohol: The Zero Alcohol Drink Therory by Valerian Texeira, Published by Alcoholics Curewell, St. Joseph Nagar, Mangalore 575002 India.

[19a] Alcoholics_curewell website (Homepage): http://.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell/home/home.htm

[19b] ‘The WHO & USDHHS Promoted World Alcoholism Mess’. Published in 2004. Valerian Texeira, Alcoholics Curewell St. Joseph Nagar, Mangalore 575002 India.

[19c] ‘The ZAD Practice Paper Series’. Published in 2004. Valerian Texeira, Alcoholics Curewell St. Joseph Nagar, Mangalore 575002 India.

[19d] The ZAD Book 2003 (revised web edition) http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell/home/home.htm

[19e] ZAD Perspective Papers http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell/home/home.htm

[19f] ‘On Animal Models’ http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell/home/home.htm

[19g] ‘A Unified Alcoholism Theory’ http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell/home/home.htm

[19h] ZAD Appeal for Justice http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell/home/home.htm

[19i] Abstinence VS. Satiation http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell/home/home.htm

[19j] ZAD Book Reviews http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell/home/home.htm

[19k] ZAD Received Selected Reply Letters http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell/home/home.htm

[20] Addict_L Mailing List. http://listserv.kent.edu/archives/Addict-L.html ADDICT-L@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU

[20a] Alcoholic Anorexia, etc…Al Turner MS CADC post in the Addict –L 31-10-03 [20]

[20aa] Alcoholic Anorexia, etc…vtexeira post on Addict-L 3-11-03 [20]

[20ab] Alcopops Increase Consumption? vtexeira post on Addict-L 28 September 2003 [20]

[20ac] Re: aLCOPOPS iNCREASE cONSUMPTION David F. Duncun DrPH post to Addict-L 30-9-03 [20]

[20ad] Re: ALCOPOPS INCREASE CONSUMPTION vetexeira post to Addict-L, 4-10-03 [20]

[20b] “Thanks” Robin Room post in the Addict-L 15 November 2002 [20]

[20ba] Sex and Drugs, Love is the drug Maia Szalavitz post in the Addict-L 27 December 2002 [20]

[20c] AA's Co-Founder Bill Wilson's Alcoholic Diagnosis (CD)Challenge! Addict-L 18 November 2003. [20]

[20e] “Alcoholic Anorexia (AA)” vtexeira Addict-L, 30 October 2003. [20]

[20f] PERPETUAL ADDICTION! vtexeira Addict-L, 11 November 2001[12] [20]

[20g] TRANSCENDING ADDICTION vtexeira Addict-L, 15 November 2001 [12] [20]

[20ga] Addiction to RELIGION Survival Drive! Re: Workaholism...vtexeira Addict-L 22 August 2004

[20h] Selling Water By The River The Project Match Cover-up By: Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D. Volume 1, Issue 5 Psychnews International August/September 1996. Addict-L 31 December 2001. [20]

[20i] Bait and Switch in Project MATCH: Stanton Peele Morristown, NJ PsychNews International, Vol. 2, May-June 1997 Addict-L 30 December 2001 [20]

[20j] The Effects of Nordic Alcohol Policies Ed. Robin Room http://www.roizen.com/ron/ascription.htm [20]

[20k] Teens Reveal Strategies to Quit, Cut back on Drinking: David F Duncan post in the Addict-L; 19 Jan 2003. [20]

[20L] Appetite-Linked Gene Also Tied to Alcoholism: Al Turner post in the Addict-L; 25 September 2002[20]

[20La] Alcohol Abuse May Follow Onset of Eating Disorder Al Turner post on Addict- L, 11 September 2004

[20m] Fw: [ibogaine] Sweet tooth, a marker for alcoholism: leesmithjr postin the Addict-L; 17 November 2003[20]

[20n] Burgers are as Addictive as Heroin: Robin Room post in the Addict-L, on 25 August 2003. [20]

[20o] “Enough is enough” Maia Szalavitz post in the Addict-L, on 29 August 2003. [20]

[20p] Links between teen drinking, alcoholism 27-06-04 By: CNN. Addict-L [20]

[20q] Controlled Drinking: More Than Just a Controversy Michael E. Saladin; Elizabeth J. Santa Ana http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/473554 Al Turner, post in Addict-L; 13th July 2004. [20]

[20r] Finally A pill for Alcoholism? Addict-L; 5th Aug. 2004. http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/meds/a/aa030517.htm

[20s] FDA Approves New Drug for Treatment of Alcoholism; Addict-L 2nd Aug 2004. [20]

[20t] brief intro ARS: feedback... JC DOUGLAS Addict-L 14 January 2003 19 August 2004

[20ta] ARS-addictive response syndrome Part I JC DOGLAS Addict-L 17 March 2004

[20tb] Re: Workaholism: The 'Respectable' Addiction 19 August 2004 JC DOUGLAS Addict-L

[20u] Moderate Drinkers Healthier Than Abstainers and Ex-Drinkers Al Turner 03 November 2001 Addict-L

[21] A.A. Alcoholics Anonymous 475 Riverside drive, New York, NY 10115 Website: http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org

[22] Research perspectives on Alcohol Craving Addiction Volume 95 supplement 2 August 2000. National Addiction Center, 4 windsor Walk London SE5 8AF, UK. http:/WWW.tandf.co.uk/journals

[22a] Addiction Volume 96 pp. 657-58. April 2001. National Addiction Center, 4 windsor Walk London SE5 8AF, UK. http:/WWW.tandf.co.uk/journals

[24] Self Management and Recovery Training (SMART) http://www.skysite.org/primer/acronym.html

[25] Alcohol and Sensible Drinking – Patient UK www.patient.co.uk/showdoc.asp?doc=23068675

[26] Dr Linda Harris, Wakefield and District Primary Care www.smmgp.demon.co.uk/download/rcgp/alcmish1.pdf

[27] Alcohol & Drugs Information www.ecu.edu.au/SSC/SSS/HMS/alcoholdrugs.html

[28] the ‘Centre for Science in the Public Interest Alcohol Policies Project’ ) CSPIAPP http:/www.cspinet.org/booz/

[29] Gary Slegg http://www.nwspm.ac.uk/GaryInfo.htm

[30] Behavioral self-control training. Hester RK, Miller WR, editors. Handbook of alcoholism treatment approaches: Effective alternatives. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon; 1995.

[31] Behavioral self-control training for problem drinkers: A meta-analysis of randomized control studies. Walters GD. Behavioral Therapy 2000; 31:135-149.

32] Classical conditioning mechanisms in alcohol dependence. Drobes DJ, Saladin ME, Tiffany ST. In: Heather N, Peters TJ, Stockwell T, editors. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2001. pp. 281-297.

[33] Moderation Management (MM) Network, Inc. c/o 22 W 27th street New York, NY 10001 http://www. moderation.org/

[34] Problem drinkers: Guided self-change treatment. Sobell MB, Sobell LC. New York: Guilford Press; 1993

[35] The Moderation Management guide for people who want to reduce their drinking. Kishline A. Moderate drinking: New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks; 1995.

[36] Klaw E, Luft S, Humphreys K. Characteristics and motives of problem drinkers seeking help from moderation management self-help groups. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice 2003; 10:384-389.

[37] Sobell LC, Sobell MB, Leo GI, et al. Promoting self-change with alcohol abusers: A community-level mail intervention based on natural recovery studies. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2002; 26:936-948.

[38] Larimer ME, Marlatt GA, Baer JS, et al. Harm reduction for alcohol problems: Expanding access to and acceptability of prevention treatment services. In: Marlatt GA, editor. Harm reduction: Pragmatic strategies for managing high-risk behaviors. New York: Guilford Press; 1998. pp. 69-121.

[39] Alcoholism Abstinence. Stanton Peele http://www.peele.net/lib/cdvsabs.html

[40] Alexander DeLuca, M.D. Addiction, Pain, & Public Health website http://www.doctordeluca.com.

[41] Controlled Drinking Strategies http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/litrev/treatmod/lit5e_e.shtml
[42] Harm Reduction …. Alternative to Heavy Drinking Robert W. Westermeyer, Ph.D. http://www.habitsmart.com/cntrldnk.html

© Copyright 2004. Valerian Texeira. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part (especially the” ZAD Clinical Therapy” without the authors permission) is strictly prohibited.

Alcoholics Curewell, St Joseph Nagar, Mangalore- 575002. India.
http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell

World Alcoholism Mess. Sec. 4

Continuation of the last post

The ZAD Findings Facts Evidence
Alcohol Policy Clinical Therapy And The Practice


Finding Of The ZAD Practice: A Complete Cure for Alcoholism

After suffering from long years of alcohol dependence[19] believing in the establishments* doctrines of alcoholism; then in my despair I found (necessity is the mother of invention) that a simple safe and inexpensive but really pleasurable alcohol tapering down drinking method has completely eliminated my almost 15 years of alcohol dependence! My alcohol Craving, Loss of control, Physical dependence and Tolerance all its symptoms [9] syndromes [18b] have completely gone! And I got completely cured from my chronic alcoholism during the course of the year 1998. Since then I have been absolutely able to consume alcohol, to such a minimum levels [19], which is far below than the establishments moderate, low-risk or the safe drinking limits [3b,...8o..], nevertheless fully enjoy my alcohol drinking! In the year of 1999 I wrote my findings in this paper titled: A Scientific Method to Minimize Alcohol THE ZERO ALCOHOL DRINK THEORY’ and sent it mainly to the World Health Organization (WHO*) and other leading worlds health establishments, authority concerns. There was not much of a response. So in the year 2000, Alcoholics Curewell was born (mainly with the testimony of my friend Victor Pais) and published the book of the same title[19]. It was mostly a revised version of my first ZAD paper in the book form. Neither there was much response at this time except two book reviews. (Its web copies available in our Alcoholics Curewell book review section[19j].) Luckily then I got subscription in the Addict-L mailing list[20], which helped me to learn and know lot about the current addiction fields its politics and the people involved. In between the years 2000 and 2003 I wrote many ZAD perspective papers[19e]. In the beginning of the year 2003 the Alcoholics Curewell launched its website[19a] containing most of my ZAD literatures (book, papers, letters and many more) in it. However, the concerned establishment authorities so far mostly remained silent and entirely ignored my ZAD findings. Nevertheless I should admit that none of my previous ZAD papers and the book, in-line (compliant) with the establishments “alcohol dependence” its “syndrome” research “terminologies” given in their disease diagnosis documents, except this ZAD alcoholism research paper[19b] for the first time!

The Two Main Criticism Against The ZAD

Among the scanty response so far, there emerged, three main criticisms against the ZAD which I consider most important, they are; 1). The ZAD book or its papers lack the “terminologies”, therefore, the researchers are not interested in it! 2). The ZAD method (practice) remains very much entangles with its theoretical aspect, there is not yet any independent, concise or compact version of its concrete “practice”. 3). There is no independent research carried or empirical evidence to prove the ZAD practice. (Prof. David F. Duncan raised most of these criticisms in the Addict-L mailing list.)

Now to address the first criticism; fortunately enough in this paper, first time so far in my ZAD writing carrier, I found a way (thanks to the web) and able to carry out some basic research of the Establishments (“alcohol dependence”), publications and able follow and use those alcohol dependence research terminologies, its definitions, guidelines in the context of my present ZAD writings. So I hope now, I have cleared the first major hurdle so the researchers will be interested in it! Secondly, in conjunction with this paper we primarily bring its concrete instruction manual in the name of; “the ZAD practice papers series”[19c] which is the nucleus of this paper providing its concrete and practical instruction manual independent from all of its previous hypothetical or theoretical version! Of course the ZAD Clinical (alcohol detoxification and dependence removal) therapy is also as important practical guide presented in the last part of this paper [19c] itself! The third criticism however more contentious! First of all people will always question the validity of any given facts or evidence which they don’t agree! Nevertheless this paper also provides many empirical evidences research study, reports, documents ‘references’ that endorse the basic validity of the use of the lower-alcoholic beverages in the prevention of the excessive alcohol consumption! Of course the ZAD needs ‘independent’ and impartial research experimentations (animal, human, clinical, lab test etc.) basically to scrutinize the scientific validity of its claim under its stipulated parameters, which is nevertheless the responsibility of the concerned research establishments! Now in this paper its terminology question has been resolved together with its basic primary physical facts, empirical evidence has been presented in this ZAD alcoholism research paper; all this I hope more or less resolves the third obstacle (also because it is somewhat connected with the first) so I hope the concerned authorities in the establishment now come forward to scrutinize or investigate into this whole ZAD findings.

Another major criticism against the ZAD practice could be; (This I imagined myself and no one has mentioned this to me so far) ‘the alcohol users in general and the dependents in particular would not “like” this ZAD practice (please note: I addressed this question in this paper before in a different angle) so it simply would not work’! Of course this would happen in every other health medication, prevention treatment environment! If the affected people refuse, or not willing accept or to follow (undergo) the prescribed medical treatments or the therapies then obviously it won’t work for them! For example, the alcohol dependence people in general may not like to adhere to the ‘total abstinence’ practice because they think they are not alcoholics (alcoholics denial?) or it would deprive them from the pleasures of the drink! However the alcohol dependent people have to necessarily follow or accept such preventative measures if they want protection from the disease! The same rule applies to the ZAD alcohol dependence prevention and elimination clinical therapy and the practice, ironically for those who dogmatically believe that they have this chronic incurable alcoholic disease (Alcoholics Anorexia [20e].) and the drink satiety wont work (denial?) in these conditions! Nevertheless they have to necessarily follow the ZAD practice if they really want to get rid of their alcohol dependence syndrome or the alcoholism from their system and get completely cured of it! However the fundamental difference between the total abstinence and the ZAD practice is that; the ZAD never would compel the alcohol dependent people to stop drinking alcoholic beverages and deprive them from the pleasures or the enjoyment of their delicious drinking for life! In fact the ZAD adds or puts-in more pleasure (satiety) and tries using it strategically, (especially the delicious taste, flavor) to manipulate, reduce and replace the drug desire or its pleasure! In this way it provides a solid physical/biological empowerment or “self defense” to the alcohol dependent people that enables them to reduce, cut- down, and control their overall alcohol consumption well within (far below) the ‘safe drinking levels’ thus completely get cured from their alcoholism! Above all the ZAD practice is such a delicious pleasurable way of alcoholic beverage drinking, that could be much more appealing than the unappetizing old kind of alcohol drinking! Therefore, there is a huge chance of people liking to this new way of drinking and it will work far better than the total abstinence if the “Establishments” implement ZAD clinical therapy and its practice in their alcoholism prevention and treatments!

The ZAD Pioneering Alcohol Dependence Prevention and Treatment Landmark Frontiers

Now, this newly compiled ZAD therapy/practice model paper [19b] heralds, three pioneering alcohol dependence (alcoholism) preventions and treatment landmark frontiers, i.e. 1. The ZAD Therapy, 2. The ZAD Practice and 3. The ZAD Policy. The ZAD Clinical (inpatient) therapy comprises of the alcohol detoxification and its dependence prevention and elimination, which has been explained in details in the last part of this paper. The pioneering “Alcohol Policy” (third one) outlined in principle, in between in this paper, which is fundamentally different from the establishments alcohol policies! [3a, 3k, 8q, 10g] However, the “ZAD practice”[19c] (second one), which is the nucleus of this ZAD model, published separately or independently in conjunction with this paper. Another most important feature of this paper which I mentioned before is that, it takes major departures from all my previous ZAD literatures as it complies with the “TERMINOLOGIES” guidelines, expounded by the establishments [3, 6]) and along with it basically reproves and indicts the establishments entire alcoholism and particularly their alcohol dependence promulgations in principle as, “narrow-minded psychoactive drug desire bigoted doctrines, which totally disregards the drink satiety desire involved in the alcohol drinking and its drinking; therefore responsible for the ongoing alcoholism mess (Biggest World Health Blunder) and the mayhem that the world face today. It also most importantly presents a list of “references” including many valuable research study reports empirical evidences that could endorse the basic validity of the ZAD model! And finally the 1100$ Alcoholics Reward to any one who disprove or refute the ZAD practice.

The ZAD Empirical Evidence Surveillance

So far as I said, the concerned Establishments have not come forward to conduct an independent enquiry into the ZAD facts or evidences, obviously therefore I could not provide any such establishments ZAD research study, experimentations as its evidence for or against! (As a matter of fact one of the main objective of this paper is to obliging them to do so!) However, there are some well known pragmatic evidences, that I would like to point out in this regard is; people probably from ancient times have been following similar Alcohol Tapering Down Drinking methods or strategies (Did the Romans practiced it?) in order to reduce their overall alcohol consumption which remains popular even today! A very well known empirical fact is; today millions of alcohol drinkers (especially the young people) worldwide choose to drink the lower alcohol content alcoholic beverages specially the “beers” and succeed in it. One can find its ample evidences in many of the WHO and others alcohol beverages consumptions empirical research studies statistical surveys, charts, ‘Global Status Report’ [3L, 3m, 3n, 6a,12] etc. One of the Health Behavior News Service news survey reports; Teenagers drink "better-tasting" non-alcoholic drinks as a strategy to cut back their drinking! [20k] There are lots of research reports* suggesting that the human appetite (linked to food) is very much linked to alcoholism![20L, 20La, 20m, 20n, 20o, 20t, 20ta, 20tb] which basically endorses the ZAD perspective. There are major ‘animal models’ research studies, which reveals that the appetite (taste, stomach) plays significantly important role in the animals alcohol consumption [22]. By the way, the most valid research reference on this regard, I got is; from the Al Turners MS CADC post in the addict-L, Re: Alcoholic Anorexia, etc… [20a] its references are so important so that I am giving it in this foot note below itself! Particularly Prof. Herman H. Samson’s one of the animal model research has been explored in my ZAD perspective paper on Animal Models[19f]. However then these researchers suddenly recoil back in their reply letter (see my letter correspondence with Herman H. Samson [19k, 20aa]) at my ZAD suggestions!

ZAD Evidence in the Establishments ‘Non-Alcoholic drinks’ advice!

Most importantly, one can also find the ‘Zero Alcohol Drink’ similar ‘Non-alcoholic Drinking’ “tips” suggestions or advice given almost in every establishments controlled, moderate, How to cut-down (reduce, low-risk) you drinking advisory list [3a, 3ca, 3cb, 3r etc.] including the NIAAA [7a]! Some of the European Governments even de-classify these very low-alcohol content beverage as non-alcoholic* beverages and give them the tax benefits[20j]!. However the original source (research study) and the intentions of these suggestion remains very much obscure and ambiguous* and most importantly they fastidiously warn any one that this drinking tips or advice definitely NOT for the “alcohol dependent people” for whom they strictly advise to stop drinking, choose total abstinence as their only recovery solution! Nevertheless, one amazingly wonderful and major endorsement (support) for the ZAD kind of drinking method to reduce ones alcohol consumption, I came across in my web search recently,*** promulgated by the WHO Management of Substance Abuse Primary Care, ‘Alcohol Use Disorders’ web site[3cb]; its copy in the following : -

How to reduce your drinking

Quench your thirst with non-alcoholic drinks before having an alcoholic drink
Avoid salty snakes when you are drinking
Eat before drinking; it will make you more full and then you will drink less
Have one or more non-alcoholic drinks before each alcoholic drink
try to take small sips of your drink, avoid gulping, and if possible use a straw
dilute your drinks, e.g. add soda to wine and mixers to spirits

I have come across many such “How to cut-down your drinking”* tips of ‘non-alcoholic drinks’ suggestion advises**, in this web search, which are in fact far more extensive and elaborate! [26, 27]. However finding such advice in the WHO Management of substance abuse, gave me great hopes of finding the original source of its basic clinical experiments trials research reports, documents, books publications so that I can add them into this paper reference perhaps as the most valid of all the ZAD evidence. However unfortunately so far I could not find any of its original source research of this advise. So I wrote to msb@who.int to provide more information but so far received no reply from them!

Now the most important point is; if the non-alcoholic beverage drinking could reduce the persons overall alcohol consumption then it should also reduce the alcohol consumption in the alcohol dependence person. Here emerges the principle ambiguity of their “how to reduce your drinking” stand point. Virtually every one of these web sites, assiduously or diligently warn the alcohol dependent (alcoholic people) that these, ‘how to reduce (cut-down) your drinking’ tips or suggestions never meant to the alcohol dependence persons, they should immediately quit or stop drinking and strictly observe the total abstinence for life, which is the only recovery option available for them!

Now our main question is; is there any such alcoholism research conducted, in which it is been proven that consuming the non-alcoholic beverages or drinking lower alcohol content (percentage) alcoholic beverages shown to reduce or cut-down the overall alcohol consumptions of the persons having some sort of the “alcohol use disorders” but at the same time clearly did not reduce or cut-down the alcohol consumption of those persons having the alcohol dependence? As far as I understand there is no such alcoholism research findings (at least that has come to my notice) so far! In fact none of the establishments psychoactive drug desire bigoted alcoholism research findings such as; neurobiological deficiency, psychosocial, behavioral, spiritual disorders hypothesis or their basic moderate safe drinking levels (limits) standard alcohol drink formulations could support or justify any such biological drink “satiety” based prevention and treatment for alcohol use disorders or alcoholism! (Their vehement anti-alcopop stance don’t help it either!) Probably the researcher learned or picked up this non-alcoholic beverages drinking tips from their treatment research subjects themselves who reveal to them that drinking non alcoholic beverages is one among their strategies to quit or cut back their drinking![20K]. (I wonder does the ZAD had any influence over some of them lately?) Perhaps it is derived from the common knowledge and the popular drinking practice of the general alcohol drinking public! Whatsoever, the establishment totally oppose to this lower alcohol content alcoholic beverage drinking treatment suggestions in their prevention and the treatment of the “alcohol dependence” syndrome, or alcoholism but relegate it to the “safe” areas of the alcohol use disorder where it seems to sit mostly idle! Whatever may be difference nevertheless, the ZAD considers the establishments how to cut-down your drinking; ‘non-alcoholic drinking’ suggestions as most important and valuable piece of evidence that comes out of directly from the establishments (horse) mouth, which basically endorse the validity of the ZAD practice.

ZAD as an Alcopop: Establishments Deep Opposition

In contrast to our above mentioned lower alcohol content beverage drinking empirical and pragmatic evidences, some of the establishment mainstream alcohol dependence prevention treatment lobbies vehemently oppose any such deliciously tasting lower alcoholic beverages drinking suggestions for the alcohol dependent people which they claim could further tempt or appeal the alcoholics (or any one in general, teenagers in particular) to drink more of that kind of drink and obviously exceed their safe drinking levels so they end up in excessive alcohol consumption; loss of control, binging, boozing, getting drunk! The huge hue and cry raised by the ‘Centre for Science in the Public Interest Alcohol Policies Project’ [28] (CSPIAPP) that seems to be at the forefront of this battle! This entire lobby (including WHO) seems to ambiguously argue that these new kind of alcoholic beverages which they say disguised in a delicious taste and flavors which collectively known as “alcopops”[3d, 3L] posses far greater threats dangers or harms for the teenage drinkers (let alone the alcoholics)! Garry Slegg [29] who conducted the ZAD book review (2000) in the journal of ‘Addiction’[19j, 22a] in this connection quotes “Alco pops may actually lead to an increase in the level of consumption among young people” (BMA, 1999)! In general, the worlds leading health establishments mostly seems to foster this ‘alcopop’ position! It is due to such preposterous narrow- minded one-sided, ‘half-truths’, prejudices, propagandas against the delicious (appetizing) lower alcohol content alcoholic beverages dominated by such narrow-minded drug desire bigoted alcoholism doctrines and dogmas that plagues the establishments entire alcohol dependence, alcoholism prevention and treatments!

Establishments Bogged-Down Research On Low-Alcohol Alternatives Beer

Another most important research findings to the question of whether it is possible to reduce ones overall alcohol consumption by switching to low-alcohol beer comes from David F. Duncan Dr PH Post in the addict-L, (Alcopops Increase Consumption? [20ab, 20ac]) in which he points out that “on average drinkers do consume less absolute alcohol, when they drink lower alcohol content beverages” then he righteously points out; “That a great many alcoholics who try to do so (reduce their alcohol consumption by switching to beer or watering down their drinks) fail is also clearly established”! This is where all the establishments’ research on this subject matter gets bogged-down and ends up! It is mainly because, with the commonly available standard low-alcohol beverages, without reducing the alcohol content in it “sufficiently enough” and without carrying the step by step alcohol percentage reduction, and not giving the proper (or any) attention to adding the delicious taste flavor or in one word without taking care of all those important ‘drink satiety’ factors, (which should also include the ZAD ‘motivational’ factor) it is not possible to irrefutably prove (like the ZAD therapy/practice) that the alcoholics able to ‘infallibly’ reduce their overall alcohol consumption to a safe, low-risk levels! Therefore a great many alcoholics who try to reduce their alcohol consumption with such kind of establishments, low-alcohol content standard alcoholic beverages (leave their drug desire bigoted blunder propaganda alone) NO DOUBT will end up in drinking excessive[18c] that will far exceed their low-risk levels, moderate safe limits, standard alcohol drink number counts! Primarily because, it lacks fundamentally this ZAD infallibility thirst, taste, stomach satiety also factor! motivation! (pointed out in the ZAD therapy MDBCCAB) factor! This is what I have been arguing through out the ZAD model, having all these most important drink satiety factor, makes the ZAD therapy/practice infallible, impregnable, unassailable and therefore fundamentally different from all the previous low-alcohol contend beverage drinking!

The great piece of reaction of this letter [20ac] to the ZAD model, comes at its end, as the author concludes: “We don't need to do the research you are calling for because it was done ages ago and is confirmed daily in practical experience of the failure of such approaches that focus on the alcohol rather than on the behavior and the behaver”! (No doubt, he is [17] one of the staunch ‘Harm Reduction’ (HR) proponent!) This is what I have been basically pointing out through out this paper, as the ‘establishments (including the controlled drinking model) researchers narrow-minded obsessive psychoactive drug desire bigoted mind-set …… that has so far prevented them from finding this simple safe pleasurable and infallible “drinking” (satiety) strategy to completely eliminate the alcohol dependence!’ However, luckily by the way, it provided me with the great historical opportunity (call it a twist of fate or whatever!) of finding it! Nevertheless, I consider this authors post very important, as it also provides the valuable research finding reference that now I give in the following: -

Whitehead, P.C., and Szandorowska, B. (1977). Introduction of low alcohol content beer: A test of the addition-substitution hypothesis. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 38(11), 2157-2164; Geller ES, Kalsher MJ, Clarke SW. (1991). Beer versus mixed-drink consumption at fraternity parties: A time and place for low-alcohol alternatives. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52(3), 197-204; Van Houten, R., Van Houten, J., Malenfant, J. E. (1994). The effects of low alcohol beverages on alcohol consumption and impairment. Behavior Modification, 1994 Oct;18(4):505-13.

A Pioneering ZAD Alcohol Policy

In the light of the ZAD alcoholic beverages drinking perspective in this paper, Alcoholics Curewell strongly urges the establishments alcohol policy makers [3k, 8q] in the first place; to bring in a pioneering legislations* that radically reduce or bring down the percentage of alcohol in all standard alcoholic beverages to its present half! According to which, the alcohol percentage in the distilled-spirits never should be allowed more than 20%, in the non-distilled strong brew (wine) the alcohol percentage never should allowed more than 10%. In the low-alcohol brews (beers) categories the alcohol percentage in it should not be allowed more than 2% or 2.5% at the most!

Following these above ZAD alcohol policy guidelines; the alcohol percentage in the distilled-spirit should be strictly reduced from the prevailing (general standards) 40% to down to 20% or lower! (10% would be ideal!) In the non-distilled category, the alcohol percentage in strong wine or beers etc should be strictly reduced from the prevailing 20% in general to 10% or lower. And most importantly, the alcohol percentage of the low-alcohol content beer, wine coolers, alcopops etc., should be strictly reduced from the prevailing 5%, down to 2% or less. Especially because the majority of the alcohol drinkers who consume these low-alcohol beverages assume that they contains fairly safe, low-risk, lower-alcohol content! Therefore, the alcohol percentage in them never should not be allowed to exceed more than 2% or 2.5% at the most! Most importantly the prices of the one standard alcohol drink beverages containing more than 2.5% alcohol should be strictly more (by taxing it) than the delicious quality beer contained in one standard alcohol drink of 36 ounce (1000 ml) which contains 2.5% and less alcohol content in it! In one word sternly discourage people from drinking the high alcohol content beverages and on the other hand promote or encourage the alcohol drinker to replace it with the very low alcohol content alcoholic beverages! The most important point to know in here is; Only the alcohol policy that strictly restricts the alcohol percentage 2% or below in the alcoholic beverages can be employed effectively or safely in the prevention and elimination of the alcoholism, the other reductions above this percentage can mostly (only) serve as a powerful message to reduce alcohol content while drinking it.

However the main obstacle to enact such alcohol policy probably is the drug desire bigoted mind-set of the alcohol policy makers themselves! For them, people drink alcoholic beverages resolutely to get its psychoactive drug pharmacological effect (positive/negative reinforcement) or the pleasure! So, if they reduce the alcohol percentage from the standard alcoholic beverage then they dogmatically assume that the people will simply drink more and more of the beverage to attain their required drug pleasures so there is no point in them enacting alcohol policy legislations to keep the alcohol percentage strictly below a standard limit, they would rather impose more taxes, increase the legal drinking age or ban advertisements on the alcoholic beverages! For them the ZAD drink satiety contention to prevent and eliminate the alcohol dependence may seem very naive that simply would not work under the strong indoctrination of their psychoactive drug desire obsessed alcoholism doctrines and dogmas!

The ZAD (Alcoholics Curewell) envisaged or pioneered alcohol policy in the prevention and treatment of alcohol dependence (alcoholism); to radically reduce the alcohol percentage from the alcoholic beverages is fundamentally different and could be far more effective and successful than all the establishments contemporary alcohol policies [3a, 3k, 8q, 10g] that aims to prevent the alcohol-related problem[18c] as a whole! For example; increasing the taxes would not be “much” successful in preventing the alcohol dependence people from buying their alcoholic beverages. Increasing the legal age limit of drinking (or strictly enforcing it) would also not much successful in its intention as the targeted young (below legal age) people will find some indirect ways of appropriating the alcoholic beverages and the beverage companies devise more devious ways to promote their products despite banning of its direct advertisement! Therefore, it becomes very difficult to strictly enforce or implement any such alcohol policies legislations due to their inherent flaws or the shortcomings! On the other hand the alcohol percentages in the alcohol beverage can be strictly monitored and enforced from the top manufacturing levels, down to the retail shop, pubs, bars, and other outlets, therefore much more effective successful in its strict implementations! This ultimately means advising the alcohol drinkers in general and the alcohol dependence people in particular, to drink lots and lots of the delicious alcoholic beverages, which contain sufficiently enough, lowest possible alcohol percentage, is far better and more prudent than strictly advising them to follow its total abstinence.

ZAD Clinical Therapy For Alcohol Dependence Treatment

(Authors Note: From this revised edition of this paper to the Addict-L List [onwards] I replace this section of this paper with my Zero Alcohol Drink- Alcohol Detoxification Clinical Trial [ZAD-ADCT] paper, which will be sent to the list some times latter.)

Will be continued in the next post Section 5
…………………………..

World Alcoholism Mess: Section 3

Continuation of the last post


ESTABLISHMENTS ALCOHOLISM
DIOGNOSIS & TREATMENTS

Establishments Principle Failure In Finding the Cure: ‘Alcoholism Cannot Be Cured’ etc. Dogmas of Total Abstinence Dictum

Now let us turn our main attention towards the principle issue of this paper i.e. the establishment’s research, prevention and treatments for the alcohol “dependence” its syndrome or the alcoholism. With all their available advanced science, sophisticated technology and the huge resources, they could not find not even a single therapy treatment that could ‘infallibly’ enable the alcohol dependent person in general to cut down, moderate or control their alcohol consumption and completely come out of their alcohol dependence while still continue to drink alcohol! All their known alcoholism prevention and treatments miserably fail in this task, therefore they arrive at the ultimate conclusion that the alcohol “dependence” or its syndrome (alcoholism) is chronic disease to which ‘a cure is not yet available’ [7a, 9] Therefore the only available solution for the alcoholics is to completely stop drinking and to adhere to the ‘Total Abstinence’. Meanwhile, they promptly warn the alcoholics that it is only a “recovery” solution and not a complete cure!

The main question now we ask is; why alcoholism (syndrome) is not curable? What really causes it? Why, all the establishments’ alcohol ‘dependence’ preventions and treatments fail majority of the times? The Establishments already have some ready-made answers! They claim it is a genetic, neurobiological, opioid, neurotransmitters, chemicals etc. deficiency; all of which basically points towards; their obsessive preoccupation with the ‘psychoactive drug desire’, which they say “often strong, sometimes overpowering”[18b]) compounded with the psychosocial maladapted behavior! So far their sciences have not advanced enough to develop an effective medication (drugs) or any comprehensive therapies that could provide a complete cure for the alcohol dependence. However then they also claim that they are getting more and more success in their new advancement in alcoholism pharmacotherapy treatments! [8d, 10b, 10c]. The alcohol aversion drug Disulfirum (Antabuse) could effectively prevent the drinkers from consuming alcohol thus enable them to maintain abstinence. The more advanced and much safer medications or drugs (Opioid- antagonist) like Naltrexone, Acamprosate (Campral) and those Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) Fluoxetine (Prozac) Sertraline (Zoloft) Paroxetine (Paxil) and many more which targets or inhibits the specific chemicals neurotransmitters, in the specific regions of the brain may one day achieve full success in it! However so far the efficacy and safety of these drugs remains highly controversial and questionable as it fails prevent alcoholism majority of the times! Even though, the alcohol aversion drug Disulfirum could effectively prevent most of the people from drinking alcohol, nevertheless its effects are most disgusting or repugnant (aversive) it also posses dangerous health risk or side effects ! Therefore, the compliance to this drug therapy is much less forth coming, as most therapist and patients alike reject that drug! So, in that sense all of their medication drugs used in the prevention and treatment of alcohol dependence fails in most of the times, even to achieve total abstinence! There are others who believe that the dependence is not all that neurobiological but mainly caused by the psychological, social, or environmental causes therefore they devise their own innovative psychosocial, cognitive behavioral therapies (CBT) Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET), Twelve Step Facilitation (TSF), coping-skills training, interaction therapy etc. However, they also fail most of the times attaining even the total abstinence, let alone the cure for the alcohol dependence syndrome or alcoholism!

So the establishment sets out a major research investigation called the project MATCH”[8m] to scientifically determine which specific treatment matches or suits which specific clients characteristics! But for their total dismay they could NOT find any specific therapy or treatment that could be significantly successful in the treatment of any character specific alcohol dependent person. In other words, so far they have not found any specific treatment that could basically work well with any specific client characteristics. So they smartly conclude that ‘all treatment works,’ which latter raised huge controversy! [20h, 20i] However such pragmatic, tactful positioning in the front is most important for the establishments because they don’t wont to be accused of pursuing or favoring only their genetic, neurological, neurotransmitters, chemicals deficiency oriented drug medication, prevention, treatment agenda! They would also like to accommodate the other psychotherapy (CBT) prevention treatment approaches (Except the ZAD practice!) in the prevention and treatment of alcoholism. Therefore the 10th Special Report to the U.S. Congress on “Alcohol and Health” [13] in its Treatment Research Chapter endorses; “both psychological approaches (such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, motivational Enhancement therapy and 12 step program such as Alcoholics Anonymous) and medications”[Pp 429 ] in the treatment of the alcohol dependence! However none of these treatment programs could enable the alcoholics to control their drinking and remain within the low-risk, controlled, safe drinking levels and to get completely cured of their alcohol dependence! So they all candidly admit to this fact and all most all of them (baring those controlled drinking proponents[20q]) simply jump into the bandwagon of the age-old Total Abstinence (sobriety) oriented recovery solution and most of their effort energy and the resources are channeled into it! Even then, all of their research, therapy, treatments programs, however well they may combine; miserably fails even to achieve this total abstinence (let alone safe drinking levels) in majority of the times, as the establishments all the alcoholism prevention/treatments turns out to be, not really much (significantly) better than the non treatment outcomes!


‘Establishments’ Drug Desire Bigoted Alcoholism Diagnosis Doctrines
ICD-10 & DSM-IV also AUDIT CAGE MAST etc.

To remind the readers once more; it is fundamentally because of the establishments total disregard for the humans drink desire satiety involved in the alcohol dependence, or the total absents of it in their diagnosis and treatment doctrines, we basically reprove them as “drug desire bigoted” alcoholism doctrines or dogmas. Otherwise we fully acknowledge the validity of the drug desire part of the alcohol dependence syndrome or alcoholism when it is rightly placed in combination with the drink satiety in which a complete cure for the alcohol dependence can be achieved!

Having said that; most importantly; in this section of this paper we primarily expose and indict the ‘establishments’ principle alcohol “dependence” diagnostic research doctrines their screening instruments, Brief Interventions preventions and treatment as entirely based (build) upon the before mentioned alcoholism doctrines and dogmas! The alcohol dependence syndrome [18b] and its related part in the WHO International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10)[1], its extended versions described in their ‘management of substance abuse’ publications[18] those alcohol drinking sites [3a] their Expert Committees Reports on alcohol dependence, Lexicon[18c] and almost every documents or publications that deals with the alcohol “dependence”, its prevention and treatment fronts all these have been totally hijacked or corrupted by the same narrow-minded(one-sided) psychoactive drug (alcohol) desire bigoted dogmas! Similarly, the NIAAA principle documents on alcohol “dependence” starting with its FAQ[5], Alcoholism Getting the Facts[7a], its diagnostic guidelines given in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual(DSM-IV)[2] their extended version described in their alcohol research and Health [10]Alcohol Alerts[8] and almost every document, publications of the NIAAA[6] that deals with the “alcohol dependence” (which is my main focus) has been totally contaminated by that alcoholism doctrines which totally disregards the humans natural biological drink satiety need or desire primarily involved in the alcoholic beverage drinking, its dependence syndrome or the alcoholism.

The same fundamental alcoholism dogma contamination prevails in the establishments alcohol Screening instruments, AUDIT[3b], CAGE, MAST etc, [3ca, 8b, 8k,] employed in the Brief Interventions [3c, 3ca, 8c, 10b,10e], accompanying their prevention and treatments [8d, 13]. For example; when the professional, doctors or the health worker inquire about the ‘amount’ or quantities of the alcohol drink the alcohol drinkers consume, they exclusively mean it by how much amount of the alcohol (substance) they consume to get ones drug “high,”. They don’t give any importance to the total amounts, quantities, qualities, tastes properties of the drink that the drinkers usually consume to achieve their overall biological drink satisfaction or satiation! Because under their drug desire bigoted alcoholism dogmas they can never even imagine that basically the drink satiety has any thing to do with peoples habit of alcohol drinking and its dependence, its prevention and elimination! Finally it all gets manifested or culminates in their perilous formulation of “a standard alcohol drink,” prescribed ‘in their low-risk, safe, moderate, controlled (how to cut-down your drinking) drinking guideline modules [3b, 3ca, 3cb, 8o, 7a,..9] It is among the most dangerous of their alcoholism doctrines which contains treacherously high amounts of alcohol percentage compared (relative) to the inadequate total amounts (quantities) of the drink that standard drink contain, which totally fail to provide the drink satiety for the person within that limited two or three standard alcohol drinks! It could potentially work as the “priming dose” [10aa] and lead the vulnerable segment of alcohol drinkers-even though their having all the good intentions or desire to conduct controlled moderate drinking but having the natural instinctive biological tendency or urge for drink satiety, due to their genetic, voluptuous, cultural, youthful or whatever predisposition- to dangerously drink more and more of such relatively high alcohol content with drink deficient standard alcoholic beverages to attain their drink satiety, so they end up with excessive alcohol consumption, the so called bingeing or boozing! The “Alcohol policy”[3k, 8q, 10g] makers of the establishment also totally obsessed with the drug desire aspect of the alcohol drink, remain totally blind to the positive natural biological drink satiety aspect involved in the alcoholic beverage! They injudiciously’ or callously allow such a high alcohol content (percentage) generally in all the alcoholic beverages (including those standard beers that contains around 5% alcohol). for the public consumption under their own ‘alcohol policy,’ which could prove to be dangerously high particularly to the segments of alcohol drinkers who are vulnerable to the problems of alcohol use disorders, abuse and dependence! The two or three (women’s are allowed only one!) counts of such kind of standard alcohol drinks would not be really enough to satiate their natural biological drinking need (desire) especially when it is taken in the form of that distilled-spirit! Overall all these screening instruments, Brief Interventions totally immersed with their psychoactive drugs, pharmacological effect, never bother to investigate into the drink desire satiety aspect involved in the peoples habit of alcohol drinking and its dependence!

Establishments Treacherous ‘Standard Alcohol Drink’ And Dangerous ‘Safe Drinking Levels’ Formulations

Let us now analyze little deeper into the establishments formulations of “a standard alcohol drink,” laid down in their moderate, controlled, safe drinking alcoholic beverage measurement standard levels. It basically reflects the same narrow-minded psychoactive substance alcohol drug desire bigoted mind-set that blindly assumes that the people drink alcoholic beverages almost entirely (resolutely) to satisfy their drug desire, thereby totally disregard the drinkers natural or biological drink satiety desire involved in their drinking! Therefore, they don’t bother to see the basic difference between consuming two different quantities and kind (properties) of alcoholic beverages as far as the beverages contain basically one standard alcohol drink i.e. around 10 grams of alcohol or 13 grams of ethanol! Therefore they conclude a 1.5-ounce 40% of distilled-spirit (liquor) and a12ounce 5% of beer both of which equally containing the same amount of alcohol not any safer than the other or equally dangerous, when it comes to causing the alcohol dependence! For example; the NIAAA pamphlet warns; “Beer and wine are not “safer” than hard liquor. A 12-ounce can of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, and 1.5 ounces of hard liquor all contain the same amount of alcohol and have the same effects on the body and mind”![7c] . They don’t see that ‘A standard alcohol drink’ contained in two different quantities and qualities (properties) of drink packages can have two fundamentally different kinds biological, neurological and psychological effects or impacts! For example; people who drink a standard 1.5 ounce of 40% alcohol content liquor (even after adding some mixer into this liquor) immediately would get their biological drinking appetite systems (taste, thirst and stomach) aggravated particularly their thirst getting triggered! and the taste getting activated! It would quickly make them to need or desire for the second drink (they go for it or not is a different matter) and as sooner as they finish the second; if they don’t control enough (they may call it ‘impaired control’ or ‘loss of control’) it would tempt the person to go for the third, fourth and more within a short period of time and end up in drinking excessive [18c] or binge drinking, especially if the person have the instinct (impulsive, voluptuous young appetite?) predisposition towards the alcohol “dependence syndrome or alcoholism! On the other hand, drinking one standard drink (12 ounce) of the beer would have quite a different biological/neurological/psychological property and impact! First of all, it will take longer time to consume (finish) a12 ounce beer and at least for the time being and to some extent it will satisfy the persons overall drinking desire so there will be a longer time period between the first and the second drink! Let me put it this way; it would be quite easy and plausible to those impulsive or instinctive young alcohol drinkers ( especially for the alcoholics) to finish up their given safe or low risk drink quota of 2 or 3 standard drinks of distilled-spirit liquor (3 to 4.5 ounce) quickly, say within 15 minutes and probably few more drinks on top of it without much time delay. On the contrary drinking three standard drink of beer (36 ounces) even for an alcohol dependent (alcoholic) person conceivably will take much more time! Moreover, completing 3 to 4.5 ounces (approximately 80 to 120 ml.) of the volatile liquor in the stomach can still aggravate the biological appetite or desire (as well psychologically loosen the minds inhibitions) in a dependent as well as in a non-dependent person (if they not exercise their minds strong restraints or controls). On the other hand, after finishing 24 to 36 ounces (around 660ml to 990ml.) of the beer in comparison will provide the people with the solid ammunition to physical/biologically and psychologically defend, prevent or guard against themselves from substantially consuming any more of that standard alcohol drink! Most important of all; the overall biological drink satiety will generally dampen their drink interest and tame-down, subdue or dissipate their drug desire or craving at least for a long enough time period!

Therefore the establishments who have laid down such a injudicious standard alcohol drink formulations and its low-risk, safe drinking levels drinking standard number counts in their controlled or moderate drinking modules (this should also include the controlled drinking intervention models[20q]) which callously disregard the alcohol drinkers drink satiety desire aspect involved in the alcohol drinking and its dependence have unwittingly committed such a dangerous basic error that could treacherously lead the vulnerable or predisposed segments or the alcohol drinking population into the fatal alcohol dependence, its syndrome or alcoholism.

Different Alcohol Drinking impact Even within A Standard Beer Drink

The most important thing now to know in the matters of lower alcoholic beverages (beer, wine cooler, alcopops etc.) drinking is; even in choosing between the higher and the lower alcohol percentages beers could make a fundamental difference between becoming dependent or coming out of it! While opting for the higher alcohol percentage beer drinking can dangerously lead a vulnerable person into the alcohol dependence that could ruin their life and lead into their tragic death. On the contrary opting for the lower alcohol percentage beer bring them the immense drinking pleasures and joy of a renewed life and in the process infallibly prevent also eliminate their alcohol dependence and get completely cured of their alcoholism. For example take a standard alcohol drink of beer, packed in two different quantities of beverages. One in a standard 12 ounce 5% alcohol beer and the other in a delicious 40-ounce of 2% (or less) alcohol containing beer both basically containing equally the same one standard alcohol drink! Nevertheless, the first 12 ounce standard beer could dangerously lead the predisposed or vulnerable drinkers into the alcohol dependence, while the second delicious 40 ounce beer can safely guide them into safe, moderate or controlled drinking that undeniably prevent and eliminate the alcohol dependence! Undoubtedly the 40 ounce beer packed in a standard alcohol drink could be the safest kind of alcoholic beverages, better if one could add some more appetizing or delicious (alcopops?) taste flavor to make it much more appealing! This would be the ideal alcoholic beverage that contains the harmless alcohol percentage (less than 2%) that under the ZAD alcohol policy should be recommended to every segment of alcohol drinkers as the safest kind of alcoholic beverage to use. Especially if the alcohol dependence or alcoholic people opt for such low alcohol percentage delicious beers, wine coolers or the alcopops, then they will definitely guard against themselves from the alcohol dependence and get completely cured of it!

Replacing ZAD with Higher Alcohol content: Argument Against ZAD

Replacing their high alcohol content (percentage) beverage with the lower alcohol content beverages has been perhaps the oldest way (form) of alcohol drinking, probably as old as the alcohol use-disorders and its dependence (alcoholism) itself! Perhaps this was the most ancient alternative to the alcohol total abstinence! However in the emerging modern age of the alcoholism research, the establishments authorities started dogmatically arguing (perhaps influenced by the AA) that it is not possible to reduce the overall alcohol consumption of the alcohol people by opting for lower alcohol content beverages because then they will drink more and more, far too much of that lower alcoholic content beverages that finally will end in excessive alcohol consumption! Alcoholics quick diagnosis [20c] seems to build on such assumptions! Of course in the olden days this argument stood on seemingly unassailable or invincible grounds, simply because unless one adopts a comprehensive ‘step by step’ alcohol “minimizing” (tapering) lowered alcohol beverage drinking ‘satiety’ strategy, then it will become most difficult for the alcoholic people to reduce their overall alcohol consumption and come out of their alcohol dependence in such alcohol tapering down method like this ZAD way!

However now suddenly seeing this comprehensive alcohol tapering down ZAD technique in place, the establishments authorities may quickly realizing that it would be now impossible for them to repute this ZAD therapy/practice by their old argument now “may” suddenly change their century old tracks and start newly claiming; that the alcohol dependence people would not like or go any further into this lower alcohol percentage beverage drinking, due to their ‘often strong and sometimes overpowering drug (alcohol) desire’. However they then contradict their own alcohol dependence diagnostic research criteria that they mainly stand upon which candidly states; “a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to reduce or control substance use”[18b]. There are many such alcohol dependence diagnosis documents, that basically contends that the alcoholics indeed earnestly try to reduce or cut-down their alcohol consumption. For example; the first question in the CAGE asks: Have you ever felt you should cut down on your drinking?”[3r, 7a, 9] Apart from the establishments these documents, it is commonly known that the alcohol dependence alcoholic people genuinely try every available alcohol tapering down techniques or strategies to cut-down or reduce their alcohol consumption but all these techniques strategies or the treatments end up in total failures to reduce limit or moderate their alcohol consumption! Therefore it is preposterous to say that the alcoholic would not like to adopt this ZAD practice because they would not like this alcohol tapering down strategy! The history has proven that Alcohol dependence people will generally accept any plausible alcohol tapering down strategies (this should include the ZAD therapy/practice, if it is give as an alternative to their total abstinence option and included in their prevention treatment programs) as long as it proves that it can infallibly reduce their alcohol consumption to a given safe levels thereby subsequently eliminate and completely cure the alcoholism!

Now let me take up one more important point in this connection! It is very well known that the establishments in their advanced alcoholism treatments programs fully support and promote some opioid antagonists pharmacotherapy drugs, mainly the Naltrexone (REVIA tm) [9a] the Campral (acamprosate) [20s] and now the “Topiramate” [20r], which is said to reduce the psychoactive drug desire or craving, thus enable the people to reduce or completely stop their alcohol consumption. No-where in here the establishment’s people argue against these opioid antagonist medication, saying alcoholics don’t like or accept them because these drugs reduces or prevents them from enjoying the pharmacological pleasures of the drug getting high! They indeed eagerly endorse this drug therapy in their alcohol dependence prevention and treatment programs! However the alcoholics mainly give it up mostly because (apart from its side effect and high cost) majority of the times this pharmacotherapy treatment does not enables them remain within the safe levels of consumption or prevent them from falling into the excessive alcohol consumption while they drink! It is when every such treatment, strategy of moderate drinking fails to reduce or cut-down their alcohol consumption the alcoholics said to opt for total abstinence! Now the ZAD practice provides a simple, safe, inexpensive and a better natural alternative to all those opioid antagonist drugs! In fact ZAD practice and its therapy is far superior to the Naltrexone, Acamprosate, Topiramate or any of those pharmacotherapy and other Behavioral Therapies (including the controlled drinking interventions[20q]) used in the prevention and treatment of alcoholism in every respect; in the sense the ZAD therapy/practice is infallible, simple, safe, natural, inexpensive and above all is pleasurable!

By the way, some people may argue if the drink “satiety” desire involved (cause)in the alcohol drinking and its dependence syndrome (alcoholism) then why majority of the people are able to control their drinking without resorting to drink satiety? The short answer to this is also a question first! If the drug desire (pharmacological effect, high, reinforcement etc.) is involved (cause) in the peoples alcohol use and its dependence syndrome (alcoholism) then why majority of the alcohol users able to control their alcohol use without resorting to the total abstinence? So, the answer for both is; it may be due to some biological, genetic or some sort of psychological, social, behavioral or whatever (drink satiety desire?) may be the theoretical reason! However, the most important matter in here for us is; mainly going for (or finding out) a irrefutable or the “fail-safe” practical solution when the alcohol dependence problem arise! It is at this critical juncture arises the need of the “total abstinence,” which if followed infallibly prevents and eliminates the alcohol dependence. (whatever may be its theoretical cause). It is this what really matters and the same applies to the ZAD therapy/practice model.

The principal point that I am making in the above first of all is; despite all these years of the establishment’s colossal research projects they have not yet come to agree on any certain conclusion that what really causes alcoholism! The majority claims it is caused a malevolent disease ( biological, genetic, opioid etc. deficiency etc.) but their opponents (minority) claims it is caused by some what like “maladapted behavior”[19i] (psychological, social, behavioral etc. disorders) However, the greatest tragedy in both of them is so far they could not find any “cure” for the alcohol dependence syndrome (alcoholism) except the only recovery option “Total Abstinence” which they both accept! Same way keeping all its causes aside we primarily claim to provide a complete cure indeed, for the alcohol dependence syndrome (alcoholism) by our ZAD therapy/practice model and the fact of the matter is that which if followed is as infallible, invincible, impregnable as the total abstinence therapy/practice!

Fundamental Difference Between The ZAD And Establishments
Moderate, Safe Drinking Levels Principles

Here, first of all I must clarify that, there is no controlled or moderate drinking limits for the alcohol dependent people in the establishments doctrines! All of them are strictly reminded (directed) to remain total abstinent. However for the rest of the alcohol drinkers in general and for the problem drinkers in particular they formulate some basic safe (low-risk) drinking levels or limits in their standard alcohol drinking doctrines [3b,3ca, 7a,7b, 8o, 10h…] under the banner of ‘how to reduce or cut-down your drinking’, in which finally the establishments narrow-minded psychoactive drug desire bigoted promulgations comes out very clear! Horribly enough, the standard alcohol drink percentage measures presented (stipulated) in all those doctrines professed by their Professionals, Scholars, Experts, Specialist under the banner of the moderate (controlled) or “safe (low-risk) drinking levels” (limits) in a sense is NOT SAFE or “low-risk” at all! Especially for those vulnerable segment of alcohol drinkers, such standard alcohol drinks with its limited or deficient drink (substance) quantities can potentially trigger the biological impulse, instinct, appetite (thirst, taste and the stomach) voluptuous satiety desire! Therefore, these segment of people in the population due to their natural drinking “predisposition”, (young adults with the powerful, voluptuous appetite, ethnic, genetic, cultural, psychosocial environmental etc., backgrounds) even though usually having all the intentions and desires to control their “drinking” nevertheless become unsuccessful or fail in their attempt of controlling their drinking if they choose the establishments such moderate, safe, low-risk standard alcoholic drinks and fall into drinking excessive, binging, boozing! To whom the establishments latter classify or categorize as alcohol dependents or alcoholics!

One important clarification that I would like to make in here about the establishments “moderate”, “safe” “low-risk” levels of standard alcohol drinks number of counts is that; we certainly agree that making the alcohol drinkers extremely aware of the “dangers” involved of their drinking beyond these limited number of standard alcohol drinks, would warn them to be prudent, mindful and not to indulge into drinking more! This could help depending upon their “resolve” after the consumption of their prescribed standard alcohol drink! However our fundamental opposition to it is, its underlying drug desire bigoted, injudicious formulations, of “a standard alcohol drink” which inexpediently disregard the drink satiety (thirst, taste, stomach) aspect involved in the peoples alcoholic beverage drinking and its dependence! The overall notion of drink quantity or amounts stipulated in their moderate, safe, low-risk levels, standard alcohol drink number counts simply does not consider (care) to provide the overall drink satiety especially for those vulnerable, voluptuous young alcoholic beverage drinkers and the other predisposed segment of drinkers. If they start drinking the establishments prescribed such ‘standard’ alcohol drinks which critically lacks the sufficiently enough drink quantity so callously fail to provide them enough of the overall drink satiety that will certainly impair or loosen their control over their alcohol consumption, it could also work as the ‘priming dose’ and dangerously carry them into the excessive alcohol consumptions and potentially lead them into the fatal alcohol dependence its syndrome or alcoholism!

The fundamental difference between the establishments and the ZAD controlled moderate or safe drinking levels or limits [3b, 3ca, 3cb, 8o, 7a,..9, 10h, 25, 26, 27 etc.] principle guidelines is that; the establishment ‘how to reduce or cut-down your drinking’ formulas strictly restrict the peoples alcohol drinking to some safe (low-risk) drinking limits NUBER counts of the Standard alcohol drinks! It strongly insists that the people should firmly exercise strict self-control over their drinking and remain within this stipulated safe drinking levels and to strictly follow abstinence some number of days in a week! If they are not able to follow these alcohol safe (low-risk) drinking rule, limits or guidelines, then they strictly warn them to stop drinking and to opt for total abstinence! On the other hand the ZAD practice entirely ‘do away with’ the establishments systems of measuring standard alcohol drink safe (low-risk) drinking limit (level) NUMBER counts resolves or the self-control and to follow the abstinence days in the week! It never ask people to control limit their drinking to such and such standard number counts in a day and to strictly to remain alcohol drink abstinence in two days in a week etc! It requires no self-control over the amount of the alcoholic beverage consumption! For the ZAD binging drinking don’t necessarily mean excessive, harmful, hazardous alcohol consumption! Under the ZAD simple and safe alcohol consumption principle guidelines people are absolutely free to consume any numbers, counts or amount of the alcoholic beverage as much as they want, every day in a week or years together if they want! Its only condition is to; ‘always drink sufficiently enough lower alcohol percentage at the consumption levels! To be precise, the ZAD practice has only one principle safe, low-risk, drinking formula guideline, strategy or condition that is: “ALWAYS MIX (OR SIMULTANEOUSLY CONSUME) ‘PROGRESSIVELY ADEQUATE PROPORTION’ OF APPETIZING NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITH THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE. AND DRINK IT STOMACHFUL, FOR SATIETY”! IN OTHER WORDS, NEVER TO DRINK HIGH ALCOHOL PERCENTAGE BEVERAGES (ESPEDIALLY WHILE IN THE ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE) INSTEAD ALWAYS DRINK SUFFICIENTLY ENOUGH LOWER ALCOHOL PERCENTAGE BUT HIGHLY DELICIOUS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES THAT PRIMARILY PROVIDES THE FULL DRINK SATIETY!

TOTAL ABSTINENCE VS. THE ZAD PRACTICE

We fully acknowledge that the “total abstinence” dictum on its one side, is infinitely beneficial to the people and for the society as a whole, whoever willingly embrace to it! However, on its other side it could turn terribly wrong or ugly and cause immense damage, loss, suffering (mayhem) and bring tragic death upon people especially when for one reason or the other the alcohol dependent people not willing or fail to adhere to the total abstinence and fall into the tragic “relapse”! Moreover, the total abstinence dictum is essentially build on the alcoholism dogma which profess that people with the alcohol dependence (alcoholics) cannot cut-down, reduce or control their drinking , “alcoholism is “not curable” (chronic) disease”, so for the alcoholics “total abstinence” is the only recovery possible! Therefore, first of all; the ZAD therapy/practice proves such establishment’s alcoholism decrees or dogmas fundamentally fallacious or wrong! Secondly, they make the alcoholics inferior, brainwashing or subjecting them into thinking that they have this incurable chronic disease or condition that makes them incapable of controlling their alcohol consumption and therefore have to make an essential sacrifice to find their salvation or recovery in Total Abstinence! Such indoctrinations can be very harmful especially to those who for some reason fail and fall into that tragic relapse; (“Abstinence Violation Effect”) especially when a simple, safe, inexpensive and pleasurable alternative, a complete cure solution for alcoholism is made available by the ZAD practice[19c]. The Total Abstinence in itself can become an obsessive-compulsive AA [20e] addiction or passion! Analogically, the total abstinence dictating models can be compared to “autocratic” rule (which could have its own benefits) whereas the ZAD drinking model can be compared with “democracy”! What we really argue in here is; by giving equal priorities, or choices of total abstinence as well as to the ZAD therapy/practice in the prevention and treatment of alcohol use disorders and its dependence, the ‘Establishments’ can basically solve or eliminate most of the alcohol dependence, alcoholism problems.

Analogy Between Total Abstinence and the ZAD Practice Also As An Alternative

“Total Abstinence”(TA) is the exclusive and ultimate vision and goal that implicitly or explicitly expressed in almost every ‘Establishments’ “dependence” prevention and treatment endowments! It can be seen in their document, publications, or promulgations [1,2,..3..6...7...8...9...10...18...etc.] doctrines as a whole! Surprisingly however, despite having some fundamental difference with the TA,’ the ZAD practice has some deep analogical rapport with the total abstinence practice! The basic analogy between the ZAD practice and the Total Abstinence practice is that, as we all know, when people don’t drink alcohol (not imbibe it in any form) as the people always do while observing or practicing total abstinence, then they will never fall into this alcohol “dependence” at all! This is the Irrefutable, Infallible and impregnable primary physical fact, truth or the evidence of the “Total Abstinence” practice. In reality it is simply impossible for any one to refute, disprove or deny this. Owning to this concrete fact (probably also due to its apparent simplicity) the entire establishment of the alcoholism prevention and treatment totally hang on to this most ancient solution! No one who has followed the total abstinence so far has been proven to be having the alcohol dependence! Same way like the TA practice we argue that if people follow the ZAD practice (which is also a form of the ancient alcoholism prevention strategy) and drink the very low (sufficiently enough) alcohol content delicious beverages, then behind a certain physical/ biological limit or barrier they will not be able to drink any more (substantially) of it in a given period of time! ‘Satiation’ is the natures own effective way to successfully prevent the impaired control (loss of control) and to totally dampen, subdue and remove the craving (Total Abstinence prevents drinking but it can not dispels the craving like the ZAD practice do.) for a safe enough longer period of time! This indeed is the concrete infallible, unassailable, impregnable principle fact, truth or the evidence behind the ZAD practice. So analogically in principle, much like the TA practice, no one can question the basic physical/biological ability of the ZAD practice to prevent and remove the alcohol impaired control and the alcohol dependence!

ZAD Not Against The TA Neither Complacent With It

The most important point that I would like to make clear once again at this juncture is that; we do not oppose the Total Abstinence (TA) practice. In fact we fully support it for those people who willingly embrace that option and succeed in it. Most of all we fully agree that the total abstinence is the simplest way or approach in the prevention and the treatment of any of the substance “dependence”! However our main opposition is: to the “Establishments” dogmatic indoctrination of ‘total abstinence,’ as the “only” recovery option or solution for the alcohol dependence and their zealous claim that there is no cure so far available for alcohol dependence syndrome, alcoholism! Nonetheless, the ZAD practice has some basic thing in common with the TA practice. First of all the ZAD could successfully lead and end up into the Total Abstinence! As a matter of fact we suggest that the ZAD practice therapy is the best approach or prudent way to any alcohol dependents to naturally get alcohol detoxification and gradually attain the abstinence instead of suddenly stopping or quitting the alcohol drink! Most importantly in this way one could successfully avoid the dreadful “relapses” that happens in the TA, most of the times! Nevertheless we are not complacent with it either! In fact our main criticism against the establishments TA in the first place is based upon the establishments fallacious, preposterous dogmas and it essentially keeps, sustains and carries forward the “incurable” state or condition (seed of the disease?) of alcoholism inside the alcoholic people dormant that in effect totally prevent them from getting cured out of it for life long! This will always intimidate to wreck havoc in their life threatening if ever they take a few drops or a gulf of alcohol drink that will trigger their alcoholism that burst out into the full blown alcoholic disease, which could cause immense suffering and many times the tragic death in their and others life! Secondly, under the ZAD perspective the TA unjustly deprives those “alcohol dependence” diagnosed [1, 2] people, the life long pleasure, delight, enjoyment of the delicious drink of alcoholic beverages and also the health benefits of moderate safe drinking without them falling into the alcohol dependence!

The ZAD Practice and the TA Practice are Fundamentally Different

Alcoholics Curewell first of all seriously contends that the ZAD practice is far better and superior to all the establishments Total Abstinence oriented prevention treatment therapies! It is indeed most natural far safer and could be more desirable compared to those medications such as the alcohol aversion drug disulfiram (Antabuse®) or the opioid antagonist drug Naltrexone, Acamprosate and the other pharmacotherapy treatments[8d], including the psychosocial or the behavioral therapies (CBT, MET, and 12 steps) all put together, basically for the simple reason; none of these can completely cure (by their own candid admission) the alcohol dependence (its syndrome or alcoholism); while the ZAD practice could completely cure it (enable ‘safe , low-risk drinking), which is the fundamental difference between the ZAD and the TA practice in the first place! Secondly; none of the establishments above mentioned Total Abstinence targeted medications therapies could provide a clear cut guaranty to the people that these therapies totally prevent them from drinking alcohol and thus enable them to remain total abstinent. (unless the availability of the alcohol drink has been totally prohibited or blocked or the drug Disulfirum has been administered as they do in the ‘inpatient’ alcohol detoxification hospital treatment facilities.) On the other hand we promise every single alcohol dependents those who follow the ZAD therapy/practice will infallibly come out of their alcohol dependence completely! Especially we guaranty any one with ‘A1100$ Alcoholics Reward’ if they prove that they (or their alcoholics) have not been able to come out of their alcohol dependence by following this ZAD practice![19c]. The third major difference or advantage of the ZAD therapy/practice over the TA is that the former is more “desirable”, pleasurable and enjoyable than the latter (If the TA any desirable at all!). Therefore, there is a great possibility of this innovative ZAD practice succeeding over the TA practice! The ZAD therapy practice could save billions of dollars of cost burden to the nations and prevent millions of humans suffering including the tragic death caused by alcoholism, even if the establishments employ it even in a small scale in their alcohol dependence (syndrome, alcoholism) prevention treatment therapy endowments!

The most important point to know in here is; it is not about whether the alcohol dependence people will succeed* in following the ZAD practice! As we all know the facts about the Total Abstinence models to which the establishment fully subscribe and put most of their effort and money; yet, majority of the alcohol dependence people fail to follow the TA in majority of the times! The crucial point in here is that; even though the establishments TA therapy treatment programs succeeds only in minority of the cases nevertheless it accounts for saving hundreds of billions of dollars of the cost burden to the nations and prevent the sufferings and the death of millions of people. Likewise the ZAD practice, which comes as an alternative to TA practice at least could also achieve more or less the same results, if not more especially in the cases where the TA models miserably fails!

Yet we caution our readers not to basically compare the ZAD model with the TA model as its direct opposite! Unlike the ZAD model, the TA model requires some other pharmacotherapy or the behavioral, psychological (spiritual) therapy to accomplish it. However the ZAD therapy/practice is in it self is a therapy. As a matter of fact, the Controlled Drinking (CD) models in general [20q, 39]can be compared with the TA models as its direct opposite! The TA models have many pharmacological, psychological, behavioral and other therapies (Disulpirum, CBT, MET, TSF etc.) to accomplish the TA practice, likewise the CD models have therapies like BSCT, MOCE, GSC, MM, HR and now the ZAD therapy/practice is just a newly added therapy into the CD arsenal! Yet the ZAD practice/model fundamentally different from all the previous CD therapies as it is infallible (among other things) compared to them!

Since five years I am desperately trying to bring this new ZAD findings and all its information to the establishments authorities attention, notifying (one can see its evidence in our website, section) that the ZAD method can play such a vital role in the prevention and treatment of the alcohol dependence. However, despite my relentless effort in putting forward these irrefutable, infallible, and impregnable ZAD primary physical facts, or evidence before the concerned establishment authorities, so far they have not expressed any of their opinions on these primary ZAD physical facts at all! Probably because if they admit to its concrete physical fact, then they are compelled to conduct the study research, experiments which somewhat they are not ready to accept! As a result we believe millions of people continually being deprived of the benefits of this ZAD therapy/practice due to the establishments drug desire bigoted alcoholism dogmas! This is the main reason why we indict the establishments promoting the Biggest World Health Blunder, responsible for the alcoholism mess and its mayhem in our world today! Another main reason why they are not interested with the ZAD practice is perhaps; it is so simple and the guy who proposing it so incredible (under-qualified!) and his biological drinking need satiety treatment, cure for alcoholism, they have never imagined before!

Will be continued in the next post Section 4
…………………………..