Alcoholism is not a disease. A Home Program to overcome Susbtance Abuse is available today

Alcoholism and Drug Addiction are not diseases.

Alcoholism — Not a Disease.
By G.J. Brown 2005

In science, nothing exists that has no proof of existence. That which has no proof, but is thought to exist, exists as a matter of faith, not science. In the case of disease, meaning “a condition that results in medically significant symptoms in a human,” there   exists no credible evidence supporting the notion that regular excessive use of any   substance is a disease. This conclusion is based on the normally accepted understanding of the word “disease.”
Consider that there are facts (not rationalizations) surrounding the disease theory, and the development of the disease theory, which provides conclusive evidence that the “disease of alcoholism,” indeed alcoholism, itself, is merely folklore and not     established by way of scientific method.   Disease, real diseases, are determined and described by scientific method. If, indeed, alcoholism (excessive consumption of alcohol), is a disease there must exist some   scientific study that determined it to be a disease. Such a study would most certainly describe a specific and predictable set of symptoms that were involuntarily manifested in the sufferer. No such study exists.
The AMA when adding “alcoholism” to the DSM4 was, for the most part, relying on the work conducted by Dr. E.M. Jellinek at Yale University during the decade of the 1940’s. The AMA proclaimed alcoholism a disease in 1956. Subsequently, Jellinek’s study was determined to be flawed according to Yale University. Moreover and apparently at the request of Yale University, Jellinek, himself, retracted all of his conclusions, stopping just short of admitting that his research was fraudulent. Later Jellinek, too, was found to be a fraud. The schools where he claimed to have earned his degrees had no record of him receiving any degrees. The point here is not to malign Jellinek or Yale, but to merely provide an historical account with respect to the origin of “alcoholism, the disease.”
Based on the evidence (and common sense), clearly, alcoholism is not a   disease. Moreover, the word “alcoholism” does not describe a disease but a behavior; ergo, alcoholism is a behavior. Behavior is self-determined by choice. Choice, then, is the cure for alcoholism and any other form of drug abuse. In fact, it is the only method by which people stop alcohol and drug abuse.◙

Alcoholism and Addiction.
Not in Our Genes, But in Our Choices
By G.J. Brown 2005

“Men at some time are masters of their fates: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings." - (Julius Caesar Act I, Scene II). For at least the last 500 years man has tried to blame unwanted behavior on anything and everything but himself. If there is a genetic link for overindulging in alcohol or some drug, then if I have the gene, I am not really responsible for my drinking and drugging behavior. But, even if there was a genetic link, before any person begins drinking or drugging all people are on equal footing with the same choice. So, let’s set aside the hysteria and look at this from a common sense point of view.

If there really is a genetic link for the over-consumption of alcohol would not there also be a gene for the over-consumption of peanut butter, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Cheerios, baby formula, coffee, tea and milk?
Perhaps, too, there is a motorcycle gene and a high speed gene, or maybe a thrill seeking gene? When common sense prevails, often the right answer is what we have known all along: The fault, dear Brutus …is in ourselves.

Don't be fooled by the propaganda that attempts to make you believe you have a lifetime incurable disease. You can get well and stay well for the rest of your life.

Alcoholism and drug addiction are not diseases. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any scientific evidence of such a nonsensical assertion.

While anecdotal data is for the most part unreliable as a convincing scientific argument, it can, however, serve as an experiment of one. Jerry Brown, one of the authors of the Jude Thaddeus Home Recover Program, offers his experience:

In the mid 1970s I was what is known as a hopeless alcoholic and drug addict. At least that is how the experts diagnosed me while I was going through detoxification from alcohol for the second time. Specifically, these experts told me that I had the disease of alcoholism and that it was incurable - I would be an alcoholic and drug addict for the rest of my life. They also told me that this was an insidious disease and that by its very nature would forever try to convince me that I didn't have the disease. Finally, they told me that if I ever used alcohol or my drugs of choice, even in the minutest quantity, I was destined to return to abusive use of both. That, they asserted, is the pattern of the disease. Frantically, I immersed myself in researching the “disease theory,” only to discover that there was no scientific study that showed over-consumption of alcohol to be a disease. Unexpected, however, I discovered a few common sense methods that were supported on historical and scientific data. This information proved invaluable.

Some 28 years ago I discovered the information that is now in the Saint Jude Home Recovery Program. Today, I am 64 years old and I have not abused drugs or alcohol for more than 28 years. My experience is simply this: overuse of any drug, including the drug alcoholic, is not a disease - it is merely a choice. Today I view myself as a nondrinker and I am certainly not a drug addict. Today I do not drink socially because I choose not to, nor do I do drugs recreationally. But according to conventional wisdom that promotes the disease concept here in the United States, I relapse every Sunday. That is: every Sunday I participate in a religious observance where I take a drink of wine. Not only that but I use mouthwash with alcohol in it, and when I have a cold I take cough medicine with alcohol in it. Additionally, I was “hopelessly addicted” to benzodiazepines which I had taken in enormous quantities for more than 8 years. Yet, today I take Lorazepam, as prescribed, to lessen anxiety before, during and after episodes of atrial fibrillation.

My recovery from my earlier bad decisions was based on choice. The experts assured me that I had no choice - that choice alone could not provide a lasting solution. Now I am 64 years old. Many of those I got sober with, as a matter of choice, have lived out the rest of their lives in happy sobriety. The experts were, and are, wrong. There is no disease - there is just a choice - a choice that anyone can make for themselves.3

We are not alone in our assertion that alcoholism and drug additions are not diseases. Please take a few minutes to understand what research is now telling us about abusive drinking and drug use.

First it is important to understand that the disease theory is just that - a theory. Additionally, it is important to understand that this theory is only accepted as fact by the treatment industry here in the United States. The rest of the world considers the disease theory for alcoholism pure bunk. In his book Why We Should Reject The Disease Concept of Alcoholism, Herbert Fingarette, Ph.D., makes the following observations:

"...In the United States, but not in other countries such as Great Britain (Robertson and Heather, 1982), the standard answer is to call the behavior a disease - 'alcoholism' - whose key symptom is a pattern of uncontrollable drinking. This myth, now widely advertised and widely accepted, is neither helpfully compassionate nor scientifically valid. It promotes false beliefs and inappropriate attitudes, as well as harmful, wasteful, and ineffective social policies."

The myth is embodied in the following four scientifically baseless propositions:

1) Heavy problem drinkers show a single distinctive pattern of ever greater alcohol use leading to ever greater bodily, mental, and social deterioration.

2) The condition once it appears persists involuntarily: the craving is irresistible and the drinking is uncontrollable once it has begun.

3) Medical expertise is needed to understand and relieve the condition ("cure the disease") or at least ameliorate its symptoms.

4) Alcoholics are no more responsible legally or morally for their drinking and its consequences than epileptics are responsible for the consequences of their movements during seizures.

The idea that alcoholism is a disease has always been a political and moral notion with no scientific basis. It was first promoted in the United States around 1800 as a speculation based on erroneous physiological theory (Levine, 1978), and later became a theme of the temperance movement (Gusfield, 1963). It was revived in the 1930s by the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), who derived their views from an amalgam of religious ideas, personal experiences and observations, and the unsubstantiated theories of a contemporary physician (Robinson, David, 1979)."1

Another observation is offered by [Jeffery Schaler, Ph.D.] (http://www.schaler.net/fifth/cultbusting.html) in June of 1995:
"Extensive research supports the idea that addiction is a voluntary process, a behavior that is better explained by individual psychological and environmental factors, than physiology and the chemical properties of drugs."2

In another article authored by Dr. Phil Stringer entitled Disease, Victimization, and Personal Responsibility he raises the question, "How many people who never decide to drink would 'catch' the 'disease' of alcoholism?"

The obvious answer is none. In the traditional meaning of the word "disease," a chosen behavior (i.e. drinking alcohol or taking drugs) does not define a disease in that one can just as reasonably choose not to drink or use drugs. The disease theory simply provides the person with a drug or alcohol problem an easy out from taking responsibility for themselves, their behavior, and the problems they cause others.

There are hundreds of researchers who have looked carefully at the alcoholism disease theory. Most have rejected the notion that alcoholism is a disease. The only studies that support the disease theory are those conducted by organizations and individuals who have a vested interest in the over consumption of alcohol or other drugs being a disease (e.g. Alcoholics Anonymous, NIAAA and NCADD.) The studies that have touted alcoholism as a disease are researchers who derive a living, in one way or another, from the treatment industry. These are hardly sources that can be trusted.
Finally, consider the paradoxical nature of the disease theory: the theory contends that once the disease is in place (diagnosed), the alcoholic has lost the power of choosing not to drink or the drug addict to not use drugs. But, how can that be true when millions of diagnosed alcoholics have stopped drinking and never return to problem drinking and drug addicts have stopped using drugs? If, indeed, they lost their power to choose to not use alcohol or other drugs, how did these millions of people with drug and alcohol problems stop drinking and/or drugging? Are we to believe that counselors and other professionals can make the choice for their patients because their patients have "lost their personal power of choice?" Or perhaps Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs provide some "magic" that gives members their choice back, but only "one day at a time." Or maybe we are to believe that there is some universal power (choice power) that is channeled only through licensed counselors and other would-be professionals.

The millions that at one time had a substance abuse problem and now do not, do not have one because they made a choice not to. You can too. The Jude Thaddeus Home Recovery Program cannot make that choice for you - only you can do that. What the Jude Thaddeus Home Recovery Program can do for you is help you formulate your plans for sobriety and share with you our experiences of making the choice not to drink and drug and then make that choice a reality of your own life.

Footnote 1: Extracted from: Why We Should Reject The Disease Concept of Alcoholism; Herbert Fingarette, Ph.D.. in: Engs, Ruth C. [editor]. Controversies in the Addiction Field. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt, 1990. from: http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/cbook. Down Loaded 24 February 2003.

Footnote 2: Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D., "Cult-Busting," The InterPsych Newsletter 2(5), June 1995, http://www.schaler.net/fifth/cultbusting.html. See also Alexander, B. K. (1990). The Empirical and Theoretical Bases for an Adaptive Model of Addiction. Journal of Drug Issues, 20, 37-65. See also Alexander, B. K. (1987) The Disease and Adaptive Models of Addiction: A Framework Evaluation. Journal of Drug Issues, 17, 47-66.

Footnote 3: Author: Jerry Brown, Board Chairman, Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. If you have additional questions about the information please send us an e-mail here.

ABOUT US | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP