Alcohol Research Misconduct

Authors Note:- This is the most important and the principle document of this blog first published here on Friday, May 25 2007. To keep it at the forefront I regularly update and republish it so not to confine it to the archives.

Alcohol Research Misconduct
By: Valerian Texeira.

Introduction: -

This is a major “Scientific Misconduct” Allegation Report (SMAR) made in good faith. It is the outcome of my long years of study into the alcohol research that finally uncovered that the worlds leading alcoholism preventions treatment research ‘institutions’ most important among them is the US National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA); continue to carry on this major and most treacherous scientific/research misconduct. --- I have described the details of this entire issue mainly in the above mentioned: http://www.geocities.com/scientific_misconduct website. This is the concise version (2007) of it.

Background: -

My quest started during the year1999 when I first discovered that by opting to the low-alcohol drinks, successfully removed my fast 15 years of chronic alcohol dependence or the alcoholism. Of course this Low-Alcohol Drinking (LAD) ‘wisdom remedy’ known since ancient times I only ‘re-discovered’ it with some modification and named it as the “Zero Alcohol Drink”(ZAD) method. In the year 2000, I was able to publish its book titled: “A Scientific Method to Minimize Alcohol: THE ZERO ALCOHOL DRINK THEORY”. Its book-review got published in THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS – Science Express on Tuesday 20th June 2000; and in the UK Journal “Addiction” (April 2001) 96, pp. 657-58. Thereafter its landmark website ‘Alcoholics Curewell’ http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell was launched in the year 2003.

However the ‘institutions’ dismissed this entire ZAD finding by basically saying that -- there is no such ‘academic’ research evidences to prove it. -- Even after two of my most important papers 1). “The WHO & USDHHS Promoted World Alcoholism Mess” 2). “Zero Alcohol Drink- Alcohol Detoxification Clinical Trial (ZAD-ADCT)” published subsequently in the year 2004 and 2005, did not change their fundamental position on alcoholism prevention treatment.

Institutions fundamental Alcoholism Position: -

The Alcoholism prevention treatment research institutions fundamental position, (promulgations) on this matter basically asserts that; ‘alcohol drinks irrespective of the alcohol content in them high or low nevertheless cause alcoholism problems particularly in those vulnerable, “predisposed” people. Therefore, opting for low-alcohol drinking, to prevent or eliminate alcoholism particularly the dependence cannot succeed or such attempts bound to fail (due to the loss or “impaired control” symptom of the alcohol dependence), if the people try it’.

No Research evidence of Low-Alcohol Drinks Causing Alcoholism: -

My real breakthrough in this matter (uncovering or this scientific/research misconduct) came in 2006 when I started seriously searching for the institutions academic (empirical, clinical, epidemiological) research reports, evidences that supports their above mentioned fundamental alcoholism position. My search took me to look into those leading Alcoholism, preventions treatment research institutions peer-reviewed Journals reports publications. Thanks for the Internet, the world wide “web”, which made it all possible. My search included the most important “Medline Plus” . “PubMed” <http://etoh.niaaa.nih.gov/Pubmed.htm>. “ETHO” <http://etoh.niaaa.nih.gov/About.htm>. However to my utter shock I found absolutely NO such research evidence that basically suggest that people who opt for the Low-Alcohol Drinks in order to prevent alcoholism nevertheless fall victims to the alcoholism or the “dependence” problems. On the contrary there are quite a few research that suggest that opting for the low-alcohol drinks indeed prevent alcoholism!

“Standard Alcohol Drinks” Cause Alcoholism: -

The most important thing that I learned from my study in this regard is that all the institutions alcoholism prevention treatment research conclusions seems to be based on the outcome of consuming the “standard alcohol drinks”. The most popular among them is the “standard beer” drink, which contains around 4.5% alcohol (v/v). Meanwhile, all these “alcohol research” seems to have totally omitted, ignored or neglected to verify or to check it out whether any of the alcohol use disorders, dependence, alcoholism, problems occurs in the people who prefer, choose or opt to drink the low-alcohol drinks, say containing around 2% or less alcohol v/v, (which is only around half of the alcohol content of the standard beer) to prevent alcoholism. All those research strongly suggests that the alcoholism problems in people most probably occur from consuming the “standard alcohol drinks”. (Ironically, these are the same drinks, sanctioned by the institutions, in their much publicized “How to cut down, control, limit or moderate alcohol drinking”.) On the other hand NO such research to prove that the alcohol “dependence” (ICD-10, DSM-IV, diagnostic criteria) or the alcoholism problems occur in the people who choose to drink the “low-alcohol drinks” that I have mentioned above.

A Major Scientific/Research Misconduct Allegation Report: -

It took me some time to realize that this principle “omission”, negligence or failure to conduct the alcohol research on this most critical of the Alcohol (low) drinks, brings in a basic default or the “FALSIFICATION” into this entire alcoholism prevention, treatment research, which under the principles of “Ethics in Science” is defined as a Scientific or “Research Misconduct” on the part of the institutions. Thereby in a ‘good faith’ I wrote its extensive complaint titled “A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report” (SMAR) containing two parts, explaining in details many of its different aspect, fundamental points, basic facts, of this matter and send it to the Universities/Institutions most importantly to the NIAAA asking them to immediately undertake an inquiry into this SMAR under the US. Policy of Responding to Research Misconduct Allegation PHS CFR Part 93. <>.


NIAAA, Institutions Total Irresponsiveness to My SMAR:-

However to my total dismay, majority of those university/institutions members most importantly the NIAAA Director (to whom I send my SMAR and its connected documents) completely ignore it to the extent, don’t bother to send me even an initial acknowledgement response to it! This amounts to a reckless disregard or “violation of due process” by these institutions in such matters. In this regard the PHS scientific/research misconduct policy, including the Whistleblowers Bill or Rights, commands the institutions to send a written notice or acknowledgment in response to a scientific/research misconduct allegation report in the part of its ‘allegation assessment’ regulations.

Health Action: -

Meanwhile, a beckon of hope to my SMAR comes from a leading health institution in India <http://www.chai-india.org>, which has shown a healthy interest and tried to help me by publishing it under the title: “A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report”(in two parts) in the November and December (year 2006) issue of their health magazine called the "Health Action" in its ‘Research & Ethics’ section.

Final Appeal: -

I am a lay person committed to social justice most of my life, now ended up with this major SMAR, which further escalated by its Whistleblowers complaint. From my disadvantaged position from India, it is most difficult for me to pursue this major public health research misconduct carried out by the leading alcohol research institutions mainly in the US. So there is a serious need of the concerned people media to take up this major public health issue and to see to it that the concerned authorities undertake “A thorough, competent, objective, and fair response” mandated under the US Policy [PHS CFR Part 93. 300 (b), 304 (b)] of “Responding to Research Misconduct Allegation” for the sake of the worlds public health. Further more details documents most important on this matter available in the website: http://www.geocities.com/scientific_misconduct.