Strictly Sinclair Week 2

[lenaleed]

Strictly Sinclair Week 2

Zman -- You don't sound hysterical but perhaps a bit preoccupied with some small-odds potential catastrophes. I repeat: The sky is not falling.

Anyone starting TSM would say, "Wow, if I follow one simple rule (take naltrexone one hour before each time I drink) then there's a ninety percent chance I'll be cured."

bob3d over on our board takes benzos and is cured. Eskapa posted a couple of times about benzos not being helpful to TSM because they impair the body's ability to make its own GABA and alcohol is a GABA agonist. People wildly overreacted and started saying things like, "Oh great, I invested my hopes and my time and now he says it will not work for me." Eskapa never said that. He said it wouldn't help and could hamper TSM. We are finding anecdotally that benzo users are progressing at about the same rate as the non-benzo-users.

I never talked to Eskapa about the sweet tooth issue past mentioning it because it was of little to no concern to me. I did mention I had no family history of alcoholism and he mentioned there was a name for that but I forget what it is. It was probably all of two sentences because I did not consider it much of a big deal.

I am a moderator over at the TSM bb and no one deleted your post. I don't know what happened to it, but no one deleted it. I did delete the third time you posted the sweet tooth question on the same day but only because it was repetitive and we are a small board. I thought two posts was plenty.

These red herring issues like sugar and GABA do not merit a lot of hand wringing. If you don't want to do TSM that is entirely your choice but at the risk of repeating myself, it has a 90% success rate for the compliant. I'll take those odds over AA any day, plus I get to use the word "cured."

[Lenore]

Strictly Sinclair Week 2

Is anyone taking naltrexone at more than 50 mg? I've been on Nal for close to three months, and about three weeks ago i increased to 75 mg. I feel that I've benefited from the increased amount. I've never had so little interest in alcohol, and the taste doesn't have the same appeal for me. I also added a lose dose antidepressant when I increased the Nal, and that could be part of my success too. *I think nal is going to be the answer for me*

[lenaleed]

Strictly Sinclair Week 2

Lenore -- 50 mg of naltrexone blocks 100 % of your opioid receptors for about 12 hours. Dr. Eskapa has suggested to a 24/7 drinker that she take an extra dose in the evening to be sure she is covered. If that's why you're doing it, that makes sense. I'm not sure you're doing TSM, though. If so, there is plenty here and elsewhere to read about doing it properly. If not, you should know that naltrexone has a very poor track record as an anti-craving med, and after a few weeks you may find yourself drinking more than ever for a while. Again, there is a lot to read on the topic.

Cindi -- You posted a few days ago about getting easily readdicted if you drink without nal after being cured. That is true, but it takes a while. And the effect of additional opioid receptors goes away after about seven days, after which the number returns to normal. But during that seven day period it is especially dangerous to drink without nal if you have been on it a while. Better to use the receptor upregulation to enforce a positive endorphin-producing behavior, such as fine dining, sex(!), or a vigorous workout.

Potato -- Hey you! Nearly everyone who is cured reports no problem drinking occasionally on naltrexone. The ones who do report an "icky" feeling, agree with you: It is quite a small price to pay for the new life they now enjoy.

A (HOPEFULLY) FINAL WORD ABOUT THE SWEET TOOTH DEBACLE:
I think it would be helpful to note that Eskapa did not use the word "sweet tooth" in describing what the early research show about the 10% for whom TSM does not seem to work: "There is evidence that they tend to be people who do not have close relatives who are alcoholics, who do not like very strong sweet solutions, and -- according to Project COMBINE -- who have a particular form of opioid receptor." Eskapa, p. 51 (bold mine) Note he says "and", which I take to mean they possess all three qualities. Plus, "do not like very strong sweet solutions" is different than "do not have a sweet tooth."

The only good reason not to try TSM is if, as with so many of you, you are entirely satisfied with your current plan and it is working for you.

Best to all -- lena

[Anna B]

Strictly Sinclair Week 2

Hi Lena,

Thanks for clearing up the "sweet tooth"/naltrexone thing. You're so right. Correlation does not equal causation!! That correlation (even of .65 or whatever) could really mean anything. So even if you feel you don't have a sweet tooth (which seems pretty subjective to me anyway), it's NOT a reason to avoid TSM.

--Anna

[Anna B]

Strictly Sinclair Week 2

Also, one more thing: Lena is totally right that "not liking strong solutions" doesn't mean not having a "sweet tooth." Believing that you have a sweet tooth or not is a very subjective judgment. There's a lot of interesting research showing that people really do taste things differently due to the fact that we have different concentrations of fungiform papillae--taste buds--on our tongues. So one person could perceive something as extremely sweet that to another person doesn't taste sweet to them at all--same thing with bitter tastes, tasting fat in foods, etc. If you're interested, check out the wikipedia article: Supertaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (but please don't try to draw any connections btwn being a supertaster and being an alcoholic!!)

So I think that a lot of researchers aren't really sure WHAT to make of these kinds of judgments of liking the taste of sweet things or preferring a strong sweet solution. I think that research finding is just plain interesting (and the reason why I posted the article initially) but personally I wouldn't draw any practical conclusions from it (like, for example, being worried that TSM won't work for you, etc.).

[Lusus Naturae]

Strictly Sinclair Week 2

I started a new thread intended to discuss people's experience working TSM and Baclofen together: Naltrexone (TSM) with Baclofen. I'm hoping people will have something to add.

And on a completely unrelated note...

I had decided to drop the response-to-response... bac/nal thing entirely, but with my re-entry in this thread,



I didn't want to start (and don't want to ignite) a my drug vs your drug war, in fact I don't see it that way at all, but thought I'd explain my thinking with what I wrote. And of course, belabor the points.

WaitingToExhale,

"As far as bac needing to be taken for the rest of your life, that's unknown at this point. It's all guesswork until lots of studies are done that pinpoint exact effects, mechanisms of action, and probability of the inevitable side effects. "
I certainly do not profess to be any type of expert on the subject, but my research to date reads that it will require a lifelong program on a drug that has potentially dangerous withdrawal effects. I also personally found the lack of long-term studies of Bac to be a bit un-nerving.

The lack of long-term studies is the foundation for my point. There isn't enough study at this point to say either way. It's all supposition. I'm merely pointing out the possibility that taking bac is not necessarily a life-long proposition. It's possible the effects continue at some point when it is no longer taken. I don't know if that's a reasonable possibility, and you don't know it isn't either. All we have at this point is (mostly) self-experimentation. Until there's enough experimentation to answer the question, or better yet controlled studies, I don't think we can make an absolute statement either way.

It's also not exactly true that nal is not a life-long proposition. If I were using TSM, and I wanted to drink moderately (a few times a week), I would have to take nal for life, yes?

The lack of long-term studies of bac does not mean it's not safe. People have been taking it large quanities for many years, and much of it orally, the same as how it is used for al. It was approved for use by the FDA in 1977 (from this site). 32 years of use, many many studies (not al craving related). It's also used to treat spasticity in children. It is surprisingly safe.

Bac hasn't been studied much (though it has been studied) for suppressing alcohol craving. It's effectiveness, best dosing, etc., haven't been proven using scientific means. That doesn't translate to it not being safe, or that one would need to be un-nerved by it. I'm just pointing this out for those who might stumble upon these statements and take them at face value. Also, mentioning bac in the same paragraph as Antabuse just didn't seem right.

The potential withdrawal effects are real, and not to be taken lightly. They are the same, by the way, as those of withdrawal of alchohol after chronic use. That didn't seem to deter most of us.

Your points about nal research are taken. It might be helpful for those reading (there are many more reading than posting) if you provided links to relevant studies.


No Cinders, being on TSM and finally having drinking in control or not drinking at - does NOT increase any receptors should you drink without it. BUT you will certainly go back to the "old habits" if you drink without Nal, and most likely pretty rapidly.

I may have misread (or misremembered), but as I understood TSM, nal binds to opioid receptors, blocking the pleasure response from drinking. When nal is removed, the receptors are for a short time (a couple of days?) overly sensitive, and during that time, the association of drinking with pleasure would be enhanced, amplifying the negative effect of drinking. Once the receptors have a chance to readjust to normal sensitivity, then you do indeed start at square one. Am I completely off base?

lenaleed, you wrote:

The only good reason not to try TSM is if, as with so many of you, you are entirely satisfied with your current plan and it is working for you.

I think that's a bit misleading. There are those who use one or the other method who haven't reached a point where they are entirely satisfied with their current plan. I think you would agree that until the plan is given appropriate time to work, abandoning it would just be a waste. There are also other reasons not to use TSM, the biggest one being that one is (and intends to remain) AL free.



Waiting, you thought your response to me was long winded.

Back to the original reason for this post for those of you who made it this far: I think we would all welcome input from any TSM followers who also use bac.

.

[lenaleed]

Strictly Sinclair Week 2

I didn't say that you should try TSM unless you are entirely satisfied with your current treatment. I said there's no good reason NOT to try . . . . Forget it, it's been a long day here.

[Zman]

Strictly Sinclair Week 2

Lena,

I am shocked and a bit hurt at the way people are getting so worked up at the TSM board over this issue, and the allegations being thrown my way.

As I explained initially, I am on Bac, and while I am not giving up on it yet, I am having a hard time coping with the effects at 150mg. If I cant continue with it, I would be heart broken and seriously depressed. Reading about TSM gave me hope that there may be something else out there that could help, if the Bac fails. But in my current state, thinking that Bac was the cure, only to find it didnt work (if it doesnt work) I just wanted to make sure that there was no apparent reason why TSM would also not work. Hence the questions about sweet tooth.

My only info on this came from a post by WTE on this thread who said one of the markers was someone who didnt like sweets. This was followed up by the article which said that 65% of alcoholics liked a sweet substance as opposed to only 17% of non-alcoholics. When I read this, i literally felt my heart drop down to my feet. Thats why I posted on the TSM boards. I guess I paniked, and hence , the multiple posts.

But the allegations on the TSM boards that I am simply trying to create controversy is not only hurtful, but plain idiotic. What possible motivation would I have for doing so? My posts were pleas for information, not posts which stated that lack of sweet tooth = TSM doesnt work, as a fact.

Anyway, I cant seem to log-in now to TSM and answer the people thinking that my posts were somehow maliciously motivated. I guess I have been banned, which is sad, because if i ever do start TSM (which I most definitely will if Bac doesnt cure me), that board would have been very helpful and comforting.

[Lusus Naturae]

Strictly Sinclair Week 2

TSM board

Wow zman, what have you gotten me into?

For those reading this, fair warning, this is going to be a long post. Get out while you can.

I had lurked for some time on the TSM board, and had considered naltrexone the only viable drug based cure for AL craving. Due to a fortunate mixup with pharmacies, I ended up finding out about bac. I hope the tsm people who are here (and were here before bac became as waitingToExhale put it elsewhere: hoopla) don't get the wrong idea about me. I'm not against naltrexone, TSM, or anything else that works. I do, however, find some of the posts on the TSM board interesting. Again, zman, what did you get me into?

To answer your post, zman, I didn't see anything you posted on the tsm board that could be in any way objectionable. You were simply asking questions, same as you have done here. I also didn't see much in the way of zman bashing, though the response to your question was interesting. BTW, since your last post, I haven't seen anything that would indicate you were banned or even disliked. Despite my access problems on this board, and what I'm sure seemed like a misconfiguration on my part (it wasn't), I have to ask: have you ruled out your browser, config, or something other than banning that would account for your lack of access?

Back to the tsm board. I hadn't been there since I started with bac. I find some of the posts interesting, to say the least. I didn't have a look when people chimed in here in response to zman's apparent interest in people's progress with tsm. When I saw zman's post here, I became curious. My bad.

I took waiting's (and others) posts here at face value. I suppose I should be more suspicious. Looking for a reason for zman's post on the tsm boards, I found the following offered by waitingToExhale:

Agree Nick - and I cross-posted with you over there.

I want to see everyone get a handle on this beast, but I really fear the hoopla happening with Bac on that forum for the past month (s). I don't think many are really aware of what they are getting into with that medication.

IMO, TSM is harder to walk through, but it WILL be the final answer!
And this in response to a post from loOp:

Some guy just popped in and asked if you guys are being cured over here. I said yes, and tried to direct them here, but I'm a newbie here and there, maybe some of you know those people over there??

and the response from minneapolisnick:
Good heads up, LoOP. I just went over there and gave my best sales pitch after your post. I would hate to think that there are people over there who are willing to try TSM but who aren't, simply because they don't know about it or this site.

I know, you're thinking "give it up, Lusus". I couldn't. Curiosity being what it is for me...

Again, I have nothing against tsm, nothing against waiting, nothing against lena. I somehow got myself into this by answering waiting's assertions about bac. Again, my bad. I answered random posts I found while looking back a little to answer waiting. That's how I ended up with the quote from you, lena. Nothing against you, personally, or against tsm. Just a random post I read that was near to what I was looking for in waiting's post. Nothing more.

But, come on people! "Sales pitch"? "Hoopla"? wtf?

Maybe that's the only strange thing in posts there. Maybe I happened on it by chance in my random selection of two threads. I hope so.

Back to zman, in my random walk on these topics... The only thing I found in the threads that could be taken as allegations thrown your way is in this post from minneapolisnick:

I have to question the motives of someone harping on this BOGUS sweet tooth issue. If you are an alcoholic, desperately searching for a lifeline that will save your life, then I fail to see how you could possibly read Eskapa's 300 page book, its summary of a 90% success rate, and take a single sentence from the book out of context to create a phony issue that TSM might not work for a huge segment of the general population. TSM works for 80% who try it -- up to 90% who follow the protocol. There have been very limited studies and theories offered about the limited few who it does not work for, all contained in a few sentences on page 51 of Eskapa's book. This small group includes people who do not have alcoholism in the family AND who don't like a very strong sweet solution AND who have certain type of opiate receptors. This is complete speculation and unproven theory about the commonalities of the unlucky few who TSM doesn't work for and by no means leads to the bogus conclusion that TSM will not work for you if you don't have a sweet tooth. This is a wildly inaccurate theory not supported by the facts and I don't understand why it has been discussed eleven times in two days in two separate forums. Zman, are you trying to quit alcohol while considering TSM or are you spreading misinformation about TSM? Eleven posts in two days about a completely baseless theory tells me it's probably the latter.
Ok, I could see how this could be taken personally. There are, to be fair, a good number of posts actually answering your question from the posters' points of view. I did find the outright dismissal of your query (both there and here) troublesome. The final post by lena on the thread you started:

Well said. Enough said.

I hope this thread dies on the vine.

This was preceeded by various people saying they didn't think this was important, and essentially what lena summed up in her post.

Again, zman, other than the odd post by minneapolisnick (hmmm... where have I heard that moniker before?) I don't see anything directed at you, personnally.

There was one post in that thread that brought back memories of one of the things that left a bad taste when reading the tsm board:
NALTREXONE + DRINKING = CURE

That was the entire body of the post. Nothing more. When I was lurking on the tsm boards before, I found this constant evangalism offputting. Then again, I find evangalism in all of its forms irritating, to say the least. That's one of the things I like about this board, hoopla and all: the outright honesty. I don't see much evangalism here, and lots of willingness to discuss the good and the bad, whether real or perceived.

On the topic of lurking, I found the following at the top of the "general" section of the board (the section where zman's thread resides), and this posted by the board administrator no less:
For a couple of reasons, we are going to be shutting the forums to anyone who is not a registered member. Up until now, unregistered users have been able to see most areas of the board but not post. That is going to change in the next couple of days.

This is not because we have anything against lurkers, per se. It is mostly because there is enough personal detail floating around here that we don't want anyone who drives by to be able to see it.

So if you're interested in following things, please register. As always, registration is open to anyone and of course, costs nothing. Registered members will see absolutely no changes at all aside from not being able to see much before logging in.

Thanks,

admin

Again, I have to express an outright wtf? Waiting, Marbella, good for you in opposing this. I'm thoroughly amazed that such a thing would be considered, much less seriously. As lena pointed out later in that thread, this wasn't actually implemented. It is, though, a sticky that found its home at the very top of the general section. Again, I have to ask, is this representative of people's views on this board, or was my short random selection of posts there somehow totally skewed?

And again, I'm not bashing tsm, the tsm board, or anyone in particular. This is simply what I found in a small random sample of threads (a total of three) inspired by zman's post.

I think zman's quest for knowledge of this whole "sweet tooth" thing is understandable. The venues chosen seem valid, since the issue was mentioned by Sinclair himself. I find the opposition to the question (both on this board and on the tsm board) a bit disturbing. Why is simply asking the question so offensive to people? Again, the honesty and willingness to examine (perhaps to a fault) the issues surrounding potential "cures" for our mutual addiction is one of the main features I find so appealing with the group here.

I would have posted on the tsm board as well, but this whole aggression toward "outsiders" (and by admin, not just by members) feel put me off. In any case, I've spent way too much time writing this post.

One question for lena (again, I'm not bashing): I noticed that you deleted one of zman's posts because it was a "duplicate". Is this a normal thing on tsm boards? Can members summarily terminate another member's posts? I seem to remember having seen this when I was lurking on the tsm board.

Enough random thoughts on these subjects. I'm sure I've ticked off plenty off people with this post already. And zman, really, what have you gotten me into?

.

[Lusus Naturae]

Strictly Sinclair Week 2

And on a completely unrelated note, but something that might help us all chill out a little:

I ordered a camera (I told you it was completely unrelated) that is at this point very hard to get (it's brand new, and is quite amzaing), and managed to get one. It'll be here early next week. I can't wait. But that's not the relaxing bit.

Researching the camera, I found this that was made using the very same camera that will soon be in my hands. Make sure you watch in HD, and full screen (the icon in the lower right of the embedded vid), and with sound.

Enjoy.

.

[happy4once]

Strictly Sinclair Week 2

Lusus & Zman...

I hope we can just let this rest. You are both reacting to just a few TSMers posting and the quotes above do not reflect the 'nice' responses on the other board (one of which was mine). Also, the "well said, enough said" quote from Lena was in reponse to this, which seems appropriate:

" think that a person would be doing themselves a huge disservice if they decided not to start TSM just because of their estimation of one of these factors, be it degree of sweet-toothedness or any other factor."



I am a TSMer but also have Amieson's book so I have all options in front of me. I do not have any issue with people using baclofen other than I'm entirely glad, for myself, that I found TSM first. For me it was the answer. And whatever the final answer with Bac is, you do have to take it every day for long periods of time, at high levels. Rest of your life? Doesn't really matter to me - I am looking at how many pills I will need to take this year. And nest. I wanted a solution that would have a downward trend in taking medication and give me the option to take none, which nal does. I should qualify my statements with saying addiction is no where near as bad as many people on here and I responded very well to the Nal and quickly in comparison to others.

After 4-5 months on Nal, I have only had to take a pill a handful of times (less than 5) in the last month, which is why I like this solution for me... if I were at much higher starting levels I would likely be looking into Nal + Bac or just Bac. This is not to suggest that taking pills for long periods of time instead of drinking is not a good thing - the meds are better than the drinking. I am just entirely happy there is an option and that I am able to be free of both my addiction and pills (unless I choose to drink).

These unfortunate posts cloud the good that TSM has done for many of us that are cured and give the wrong impression of many of us who are using the method.

I would hope that people know there is a choice now, which is so incredibly good for all of us...and that choice may likely end up being a combination as Zman & Lusus were trying to find out.



As to the TSM tag line, nal + drinking = cure...that's the moniker. It doesn't say it's the only cure, it's just to remind those following the method that you have to take your pill before you drink. A little mantra to help you through the 4+month process.

Please understand that the stray acrimonious posts do not reflect the opinions of everyone on that board. I just chose to ignore them because I thought calling them out (which I am backhandedly doing now) would only prolong the discussion...

If you have further questions please feel free to post them. There are plenty of TSMers who would be happy to answer. As to BAC+NAl -- Oceana Ocean uses both (she is on this board) and ASHL on TSM uses both. Marbella (here) went from Nal to Bac but did not combine.

Best of luck to you both as you look for help out of your addiction.

[Anna B]

Strictly Sinclair Week 2

Hi all,

I think Lusus said something poignant:

"I didn't want to start (and don't want to ignite) a my drug vs your drug war"

Personally, I don't want to be in a my drug vs. your drug war either and I worry that this may be part of what this thread is turning into.

We all just want to be healthy and happy and get AL off our backs. I worry that we end up overly-defending our treatment of choice--whether it be bac, TSM, etc etc etc--b/c either it's been working for us and we want to help others or b/c we want to justify our choices to ourselves and others. For me, it's certainly a bit of both. But I could be the only one who feels that way and I'm perfectly fine w/ owning up to that.

When you take a step back from things, it's incredibly awesome that a bunch of alcoholics who've been struggling with their addictions for years can be going back and forth about different treatments that are actually WORKING for them.

--Anna

[Lusus Naturae]

Strictly Sinclair Week 2

Sorry people. This wouldn't be the first time my clumsy attempts at humor fell flat. What I wrote was in large part tounge-in-cheek. This 'aint about us vs them, and indeed, the vast majority of the posts on the tsm thread were thoughtful responses to zman.

Zman, it's probably time to take a hint. The "sweet tooth" thing doesn't seem to be much of an issue, and people have approached that from a diversity of angles. I don't think you have much to worry about there. Keep pluggin' away at it. You'll get there.

I do find the admin's view (and it wasn't just admin) of "outsiders" troubling.

.

[lenaleed]

Strictly Sinclair Week 2

I think we're supportive of one another and that will continue. Aside from some ancient history before we started another board, I've never seen criticism of one method vs. another. Lusus, I mentioned the admin thing on your TSM and baclofen thread. It was just as we were starting the board and some members approached the admin about hostile spouses/exes "spying." It was a clumsy proposed solution and he never banned lurkers. I forgot it was still up there and it doesn't look good. So thanks for mentioning it; I'm going to ask him to take it off. BTW my sense of humor doesn't always translate well into posts either and I'm always getting myself in trouble for that.

I think we, ahem, have some other cleanup to do on the TSM board and we'll get to that right away.

While we do have our own board, many of us remain active members of this community and are so grateful that it is here.

So it's all good I hope.

[Zman]

Strictly Sinclair Week 2

All,

I'm someone who innately shies away from any sort of confrontation or controversy, so having started this little storm does not sit well. But its true, in that I think it was just that one post on the TSM board that really upset me. It was, also, upsetting that no one objected to it, so it seemed like everyone was tacitly agreeing to it.

But lets just let this die. As Lusus says, while it was a rather tortuous route, i got my answer - the sweet tooth thing is a non-issue. That makes me feel a lot better, as I feel I have another viable option in the event that Bac doesnt work, or I cant continue titrating up because of the side-effects.

I hope my inability to log into the TSM boards is just a computer issue. And I hope that the "outsiders" issue is just a tempest in a teacup. Banning unregistered members makes TSM look kind of cultish.