Eskapa's Book, The Cure for Alcoholism

[SpringerRider]

Eskapa's Book, The Cure for Alcoholism

A Work in Progress;534685 wrote: SR, with respect.... you say that, in four months, several of you will be ready to "report your results," and I am wondering how we might interpret those results... let's say that 100% of the "several" will be reporting (along with the person you mentioned) "significant reductions in consumption."

Surely all that we will report will be anecdotal but that is all you can hope for in an online forum. What you make of the data will be up to you. Yet there have been controlled scientific tests performed using Naltrexone. They entailed double-blind testing with placebo. It was with one of these tests that the Sinclair method was discovered along with pharmacological extinction.

Originally, the test members were to remain abstinate and take Naltrexone daily. 17 members were cheating and were continuing to use while taking the drug. Because they were providing daily urine samples, the cheating was immediately known but allow to continue so as not to compromise the overall sampling group. Strangely, they reported the most significant decrease in craving at the cessation of the test period. It was then that they began to ponder the idea of extinction.

Pavlov postulated the Stimulus, Response, Reward paradigm. We all know the story of the ringing bell and feeding the dog. If you train a dog that he will be fed after ringing a bell, the dog at some point, will salivate at the ringing of a bell, even when no food is offered. He is now condition. But if you continue to ring the bell and not feed the dog, he will eventually dissociate the bell with food and no longer respond. That is the process of extinction.

Old theories of alcoholism were based on the pleasure-pain relationship. That presupposes that alcoholics perceive drinking in a rational manner. But we continue to drink far beyond the point of pleasure so Sinclair concluded that another mechanism must be in place. Aversion therapy has always been short lived. I have met alcoholics who have drank on Antabuse.

I have a little background in the field. I have an undergraduate degree in psych from the Univ. of the State of NY, Albany. I attended the Navy?s IAAS (Inst. Of Alcohol Abuse Studies), did a practicum at the Betty Ford clinic and became a counselor for three years at an Alcohol Recovery Center. All this time I was in recovery. I have been in and out of recovery with runs exceeding 12 yrs. This is not a pompous litany of, ?I know more than everyone else?. Indeed, I am impressed with the intellectual acumen I have encountered in this community. I just want to emphasize that I am not entering this protocol as a blind lemming.

One of the points that Eskapa makes, as does Sinclair by proxy, is that this is not a program for those who are happily abstinent. Why bother if you are where you want to be?

Many users have Naltrexone have not given it a fair shake. I have read all too many say I took Naltrexone for three weeks and it helped me stay sober. Naltrexone used in that manner has failed completely in double-blind tests and did no better than placebo. The protocol is Alcohol + Naltrexone = Cure. To take Naltrexone without drinking is the same as not feeding the dog above without ringing the bell. You may starve the dog but so nothing as far as unlearning the conditioning.

[SpringerRider]

Eskapa's Book, The Cure for Alcoholism

Evie.Lou;534887 wrote: As long as I follow the MWO program of Sups, exercise and Cd's I can live happily in remission. To think that I am "CURED" in anyway could be very dangerous. In my case I believe that Alcoholism is in my very DNA and unless that was modified,I believe that I was born Alcoholic and I will die Alcoholic, in remission.

And no one says you need use Naltrexone. Eskapa and Sinclair both say that if you are successfully sober, then Naltrexone is not for you.

I do not believe I was born an alcoholic. For that belief to work for me, I would have to believe that I was born addicted to nicotine since I smoked until 1980. I would have to believe I was born a heroin addict as a crack addict though I have never used though substances, I am quite sure I would be addicted if I did so to any degree.

I believe that alcohol addiction is a learned state, not at a conscious level but at the unconscious. It is much easier to learn then unlearn though don't tell that to anyone taking Calc 4! Trying unlearning to talk, riding a bike, or simple math.

Alcohol effects all of us to varying degrees. In a sense, we addicts are ahead of our non-addicted counter-parts in that we learned the process better and quicker. Many of our non-addicted drinker friends would become addicted if they abused alcohol excessively.

The US Navy has a station in the south pole that they man. There is a tour called "Wintering Over" where they stay for the winter and are nearly out of any contact with the rest of the world. The one thing the Navy insures them is copious quantities of alcoholic beverages. When not on watch, the frozen sailors drink and watch videos.

Upon return to the mainland in the spring, they are all sent to alcohol recovery. The percentage of alcohol addicted members is over 80%. Some chose to not drink at all while stationed there. If alcoholism is inborn, one would have to assume that there is a natural inclination to choose to go to the south pole if you are alcoholic. The problem is that you are not eligible if you have any record of alcohol or drug abuse. But maybe you are a subliminal alcohol addict except that these people are selected though they most have volunteered first.

I am not trying to argue with your constructs. If they work for you, and you are not drinking, so be it. I want you to succeed and from the tone in your writings, I am quite sure you will. Yet, you may benefit from other trying a different path. Remember, Bill Wilson and Dr. Silkworth went on their own way in 1938. Bill Wilson even tried LSD in the ?50s along with vitamin therapy and other modalities. He was a more scientist than charismatic charlatan. He would never stopped investigating until he found a cure. Nor will we.

[nancy]

Eskapa's Book, The Cure for Alcoholism

Hi springer rider,

You make a lot of interesting points. nice to have you here to offer your viewpoint.

I think though you still haven't answered the point that i brought up about why naltrexone might not address emotional/psch causes for drinking.

I recently read a book called Heart of Addiction (I wrote a review of it in Reading section) and they made similar points you did but implications are different. The author pointed out that people stationed overseas in the army (might have been Viet Nam) got addicted to heroin. but once back here, they got off it. But someone with a true cause for addiction would not be healed by removal from a particular environment.

The underlying psychological cause of the addiction, the psychological problem, would still cause an addiction. This explains cross-addictions, and people switching to new addictions.
That's why the book is called Heart of Addiction. We have a lot of people on this site who had gastric bypass surgery to correct problems with overeating, only to pick up a horrible alcohol addiction.

Seems like you take the point of view that it's the substance that causes the addiction, not some sort of underlying psych problem that causes it.

I am not asking these things as a challenge, but out of curiosity!

Nancy

[Evie.Lou]

Eskapa's Book, The Cure for Alcoholism

I wish you well Rider (love your bike...was a biker chick in my younger days). I pray this works for you!!I do know that there are DNA tests that can be done, even before birth, that show an alcoholic gene...or maybe several genes. This has a use, only if you can then convince the children not to drink alcohol...ever. i think the studies done in Sweden show that when the people with this genetic weakness drink alcohol...alcoholism is the result. I also think that research has been done on twins with this genie malformation and even when raised away from environmental influences, once they drink alcohol, became alcoholic.
That doesn't mean that I believe all people are born alke/not alke...But in my case, I do believe that i was and most of my relatives on both sides of my family were. The few that aren't alkie are diabetic...I believe that there has to be a connection there, as well. Something on how the body metabolises sugar.

[SpringerRider]

Eskapa's Book, The Cure for Alcoholism

nancy;534776 wrote: I am not a scientist, but the strategy sounded plausible enough to me. Naltrexone is often used in addiction so it's not coming out of left field.

As for the promise of cure, well I think that is a marketing spin. This website makes a lot of marketing promises too yet still has value. And as for my idol-- Alan Carr-- his Easy Way To Stop Alcohol-- what a misnomer, not easy at all. But his book is so worthwhile to read!

The drawbacks of Naltrexone from what I read are, first of all it blocks all pleasure receptors. It's hard to imagine how long-term or daily use would work. You have to watch out for doing behaviors that are pleasurable and want to continue while you are on it.

Second, I think it would interfere with emergency treatment, again, because it blocks all opioid receptors. Seems like it would be better to have something selective. This is overkill. Imagine you get in an accident and need drugs! That would scare me.

Another, perhaps bigger problem is that you don't get the buzz so you drink less, and there is a temptation to not take it for a day or two in order to experience that buzz again. One of the people who came to this website a while ago had this problem. She started to promise herself one night a week off of it, something like that.

I also wonder if this could turn people into dry drunks or if they would resort to stopping taking it or get addicted to something else. You know, it's not doing anything about the psychological causes for drinking. You remove the high but not the desperate urges for release. But I could see huge value for those whose biggest problem is the social aspect of not drinking, the explaining why you can't have one, the feeling of being left out. I think that is significant and can be hard to overcome. The constant saying no to any drop of alcohol is, for me, really hard to bear. This option takes care of that.

I was really interested in it all for a while and still think it is a good option for some.

Hi Nancy,
I am doing Naltrexone and finding positive results. I am only past three weeks so I will not entertain you with unsubstanciated assertions. That will come at a later date.

The workings of Naltrexone are not fully understood nor is the endocrinal system. While taking Naltrexone, the world is still pleasurable and fun. What you might suppress is that ?rush? you might get from skydiving. It has no bearing on day to day enjoyments. Also, we on the Sinclair Method focus our use to drinking bouts. One hour before drinking I take a pill. Then I drink as I normally would. It is just that my ?normally? just seems to be less. If I don?t feel like drinking, I don?t take Naltrexone.

The drawbacks of Naltrexone from what I read are, first of all it blocks all pleasure receptors. It's hard to imagine how long-term or daily use would work. You have to watch out for doing behaviors that are pleasurable and want to continue while you are on it.

If you are the cautious type, you can were a bracelet or place a note on your driver?s license stating you are on Naltrexone. Though I can?t remember the name at the moment, there is a drug that immediately releases the effects of Naltrexone (open the receptors). Nothing comes without some risk.

Another, perhaps bigger problem is that you don't get the buzz so you drink less, and there is a temptation to not take it for a day or two in order to experience that buzz again. One of the people who came to this website a while ago had this problem. She started to promise herself one night a week off of it, something like that.

That is the most common fallacy about Naltrexone. We experience drinking just like any non-alcoholic drinker. We can still drink, get drunk, fall down with the rest of them. The difference is that the desire to do so is not there as strong and half way through a drink, I can say, ?enough?. Remember those weird friends who used to get up from the table, leaving half a glass of beer behind because they felt full! I have done that lately. You see, I still enjoy the pleasure of alcohol. I get a warm feeling, a little dizzy and woozy and a little funnier. It is just that I don?t crave to keep drinking once I start. Getting drunk for non-alcoholics is not a pleasurable thing. Most of them can count how many times they have done so in the last decade on one hand and will tell you about it in specific details. They remember it like a car-wreck and with as much fun. Losing control of your mind is not a desirable state for non-addicts. Naltrexone unlearns addiction.

I can throw a coin in a slot machine and get excited if I win or a little saddened if I lose. But I feel nothing when I walk away. I can play poker with friends and win or lose $20. I don?t think about playing poker or slot machines all my idle time. It can be fun but means little to me. I have a friend that cannot walk away after that first coin and will probably try to hit me up for all I have after his last. Is it the money he is addicted too? That is the exact parallel. He is addicted to the same substance as we are!

and there is a temptation to not take it for a day or two - So I can have those wonderful cravings back??

If you read the testimonials in the back of Eskapa?s book, you will see that most went on to abstinence. I call this natural abstinence since they are NOT in a white knuckled (dry drunk). It is just that once the craving was removed, they discovered they had very little interest in drinking. All had bad memories about drinking which no doubt played a role in their chosen abstinence. But everyone of them carry a Naltrexone tablet on their person just in case. In that sense, we get off a lot better than a diabetic.

I also wonder if this could turn people into dry drunks or if they would resort to stopping taking it or get addicted to something else. You know, it's not doing anything about the psychological causes for drinking. You remove the high but not the desperate urges for release. But I could see huge value for those whose biggest problem is the social aspect of not drinking, the explaining why you can't have one, the feeling of being left out.

The secret psychological problem that we alcoholics carry is simply grandiosity and pretentiousness. Outside of the problems created by addictive drinking I.e. divorces, DUI?s, lost jobs, etc. we are statistically no more screwed up than our non-addictive counter parts. We just want to believe we are. Few kids clear adolescence without a nice load of issues to work out in the next few decades. It is called life! As we get older, we deal with it. Some of us find strength over-coming them. Others exploit their insanity and seek elective office.:H

[rv9]

Eskapa's Book, The Cure for Alcoholism

nancy;535236 wrote: I think though you still haven't answered the point that i brought up about why naltrexone might not address emotional/psch causes for drinking...

Nancy,

Yours is a valid point. I'm sure many alcoholics began drinking - or drinking heavily - as the result of emotional distress or other psychological issues. I don't think I did. I just drank a lot starting in college and it built from there. I'm just hooked on alcohol. My particular affliction seems quite simple from where I sit.

...Seems like you take the point of view that it's the substance that causes the addiction, not some sort of underlying psych problem that causes it.

Yes, of course it is the substance that causes the addiction. If you were stressed out and never drank, you'd never become an alcoholic. Likewise, a heavy drinker with no psychological issues can easily become an alcoholic.

In any case, whether or not there are underlying issues ultimately the "real" problem is that the alcoholic is addicted to alcohol. That's the part that can kill a person and that's what the Sinclair Method addresses: the addiction. If you still have issues after you're not drinking, then by all means go see a shrink or other purveyor of voodoo.

[SpringerRider]

Eskapa's Book, The Cure for Alcoholism

nancy;535236 wrote: Hi Springer rider,

You make a lot of interesting points. nice to have you here to offer your viewpoint.

I think though you still haven't answered the point that i brought up about why Naltrexone might not address emotional/psych causes for drinking.

Seems like you take the point of view that it's the substance that causes the addiction, not some sort of underlying psych problem that causes it.

I am not asking these things as a challenge, but out of curiosity!

Nancy

I used to believe that alcoholism covered some deep emotional troubles. You sit in any AA meeting and you hear issues upon issues that would make you want to lock the doors to protect the general public. But later on I joined "growth groups." These were groups dedicated to self-exploration to increase self-awareness. Many, as myself, were psych students, clinicians, healthcare and social scientists. If anything, the growth groups sounded much more troubled than the AA groups; partly because of their (our) aggressiveness to tear into their inner workings. I paid over a $1500 to attend a weekend intensive hosted by Dr. Nathaniel Branden in the Wilshire Hilton in Los Angeles. Trust me, I was going to get my money’s worth and not hold back one iota.

Also, I have seen a lot of “normies” participate in AA meetings, my wife and mother included. After spending some time in the meetings, they sound no different than the rest of us. Though my wife has no trouble with alcohol, her severely retarded brother was given away to the state by her parents when she was seven years old. She was not able to tell me this until years after we were married. She was crying so badly one day and blurted out that it was his birthday. After interrogating who “he” was, I finally learned the entire story.

We all have had crisis’s in our lives. The ones who haven’t are probably mental mush. We need to be tempered to some degree. The mistake we make in AA is believing in our uniqueness. Although we proclaim we do not tolerate self-pity, it is nearly ingrained in the program. Only an AA member could lament for an hour about a parking ticket.

All we suffer from is life and ain’t none of us getting out of it alive.


Seems like you take the point of view that it's the substance that causes the addiction, not some sort of underlying psych problem that causes it.

Partly answered above but I will simply ask, is a gambling addict addicted to the money?
Or to look at it another way… were heroin addicts addicted to heroin before they ever touched it? I quit smoking in 1980 but I am quite sure that I would not have ever become addicted if I had never touched a cigarette.
Without a doubt, I would have become addicted to crack if I started using it. The addiction rate is nearly 100%. Do I have predisposition to become addicted to these substances because of an underlying psychological shortcoming?

Make no doubt that a certain percentage of society have a proclivity to becoming addicted to alcohol more than others. Big deal! We are all wired different. But if 100 normal people drink abusively for a sustained period of time, a very high percentage will become addicted. Alcohol is an addictive substance (or more accurately, triggers an addictive process). Learning is addiction – try unlearning to swim!


I know you guys are not attacking me and I am not trying to sound defensive. I do believe I am on the cusp of a new frontier. What if it works?

[A Work in Progress]

Eskapa's Book, The Cure for Alcoholism

Whoa!! I don't think anybody here is attacking you, and I am quite sure that everyone hopes you will find relief from your alcohol problems. Whether "it" works or not remains to be seen... If this problem is as simple as classical ("Pavlovian") conditioning... then maybe extinction will work... hell, aversive therapy should work, too, right? How about some ammonia ampules, anyone?

Sorry you are feeling attacked... I do not want anything bad for you... I just think that your (Eskapa's, Sinclair's, etc.) reasoning is way, way too simplistic. Although, I hasten to point out, I happen to agree with you about the "underlying issues" question... I don't think that's a causative factor, certainly it hasn't been demonstrated to be a factor, in the slightest. Genetic factors, exposure to repeated heavy doses of alcohol in the blood/brain, environmental/social factors.... they seem to be foremost. Not classical conditioning...

[SpringerRider]

Eskapa's Book, The Cure for Alcoholism

lushy;534754 wrote: I find it interesting that you are on a website that already has a program in place and yet you want to sit and debate the Sinclair Method. I think it is one thing to discuss the process of the method but when threads are started saying you can only "strictly" talk about this method and nothing else, then I think it is time for you to start your own blog or website.

Just my .02 cents.

Where did you read this? I am quite sure I did not write it. Of course a thread dedicated to a topic is simply that. Isn't that how forums are managed? If I had a thread for Fords, I would not excpect to discuss Hondas there, except in relation to Fords.

Maybe I am misunderstanind something.

[houtx770]

Eskapa's Book, The Cure for Alcoholism

SR - I have LOVED reading your posts. You, RV9 & WiP are so right-on. Analytical, thoughtful, scientific. Maybe it's a testosterone thing LOL - but I am just getting the feeling all of us here are waiting for the other shoe to drop...b/c it always has. There has never been a magic bullet. It's been a white-knuckle, abstinence is the only way thing for us. Moderation??Ok - maybe for awhile - when we had the flu!! Or some other awakening that sobered us up for 1 day - 12 years - or more...

What made you "fall off the wagon" after 12 years?? I have read your posts with great interest...my heart goes out to your wife and the trauma of losing her retarded brother. I know we all have stories. I do - I became the alcoholic of the family, my older sister is just the wacko one, my younger sister seeks solice in food. We all have our demons..

Thanks for your input and your questioning whether or not this works, yet being a part of it. I continue to be curious about your story. Wife standing by her man inspite of the rough wagon ride, etc.??

In spite of the research, the word "cure" is a stretch...maybe "relief" would work...

Go Cardinals!! (I always root for the underdawg!!)

[SpringerRider]

Eskapa's Book, The Cure for Alcoholism

[QUOTE=A Work in Progress;535392]Whoa!! I don't think anybody here is attacking you, and I am quite sure that everyone hopes you will find relief from your alcohol problems. Whether "it" works or not remains to be seen... If this problem is as simple as classical ("Pavlovian") conditioning... then maybe extinction will work... hell, aversive therapy should work, too, right? How about some ammonia ampoules, anyone?
QUOTE]

I apologize for the typo. I meant to type “aren't” rather than "are". My wife was nagging me to hurry up so I failed to proof my work.

But to go on to another point, aversion does not work because you are going after the wrong beast. For years, alcohol addiction was looked at from the pleasure/pain paradigm. We are motivated to seek more pleasure and seek to avoid pain. And this may be true in a rational world but addition seems to exist below the rational level.

Alcoholics often report that they drink even when "they do not want to". Actually the pleasure threshold for drinking seems to be the same for alcoholics as it does not non-alcoholics. We drink the first couple and acquire a warm glow but after that we are feeding a craving - while our normal drinking friends are paying the tab and heading home.

For us, alcohol seems to be an endorphin delivery vehicle. We release an inordinate amount of endorphins from alcohol. Naltrexone does not stop the release of endorphins. It blocks the receptors for that chemical. The biological process is spelled out in Eskapa’s book and elsewhere.

Interestingly enough, I remember learning about how it was discovered that cocaine was addictive. In the 70’s cocaine was thought to be non-addictive (physically) and therefore safe and vogue. Yet so many were getting hooked that the med profession started looking closer. They knew that cocaine caused the brain to be flooded with endorphins but that was considered a “natural high” since we have endorphins in our system and all it was doing was increasing the release. So where did the addiction process come from?

Well as it turns out, when so many endorphins were released, the body began shutting down the re-uptake receptor to protect itself from the deluge of endorphin. After awhile, atrophy took place and the not-needed receptors went away. Now the user tries to quit coke but now he cannot even experience the normal day to day endorphins that are released and therefore, he goes into withdrawal. The mechanism is somewhat different for alcohol addiction in that we do it backwards. What we do is block the receptors before we drink to frustrate our system. When we drank, we produced endorphins which were then bound to the opioid receptors but now we simply block the receptors with a “left-handed” opiod molecule so that the endorphin cannot bind. So the mechanism that releases the endorphins is frustrated and quits. It is retrained. Pavlov’s dogs are denied their “nibbles and bits”.

As I have said, anyone doing well with their own program should not even pay attention, except as a curiosity. But there are some who may benefit.

[rv9]

Eskapa's Book, The Cure for Alcoholism

SpringerRider;535674 wrote: [But to go on to another point, aversion does not work because you are going after the wrong beast.

SR - actually Schick-Shadel in Seattle has been having good luck with aversion for something like 70 years. I'm friendly with one of the owners who himself was treated there 15 or 20 years ago (it's partly why he bought into the hospital - to keep it from going under).

They use an emetic and supposedly have success rates in the 60-70% range. There are a bunch of studies linked from their site.

I was chatting with Sinclair last week and he's really interested in finding out more about Schick-Shadel's method. He too said aversion wasn't thought to be effective but was intrigued with Schick's numbers.

I'll say this: My buddy ate some sour cream and whether it was the cause or not, he puked his guts up for hours. That was 20 years ago and he won't touch sour cream.

[nancy]

Eskapa's Book, The Cure for Alcoholism

Hi all

I sent a PM to Springer thanking him for posting all this stuff about Naltrexone. I wondered so many times why we didn't see more posts on it. Then a while back, a member posted some info and I looked into it, read about drawbacks, and got disappointed.

Springer Rider has pointed out to me that the book was published this month, which would explain all this new interest. I think we had some preview interest much earlier. Leave it up to MWO to be ahead.

Anyway, I am really enthused we have a group of people here trying it and reporting back really for the first time I have seen on this site (aside from maybe one isolated case report) since joining in 2005. It is a drug proven to work in addiction and I think we should welcome this first-hand experience with it. Roberta included Naltrexone in the site language long ago so obviously was aware of it though her book promotes Topa.
The use of medication is controversial in the US but worth exploring.

Nancy

[SpringerRider]

Eskapa's Book, The Cure for Alcoholism

rv9;535697 wrote: SR - actually Schick-Shadel in Seattle has been having good luck with aversion for something like 70 years. I'm friendly with one of the owners who himself was treated there 15 or 20 years ago (it's partly why he bought into the hospital - to keep it from going under).

They use an emetic and supposedly have success rates in the 60-70% range. There are a bunch of studies linked from their site.

I was chatting with Sinclair last week and he's really interested in finding out more about Schick-Shadel's method. He too said aversion wasn't thought to be effective but was intrigued with Schick's numbers.

I'll say this: My buddy ate some sour cream and whether it was the cause or not, he puked his guts up for hours. That was 20 years ago and he won't touch sour cream.

Hi RV9,
I was aware of Schick-Shadel as a recovery center but knew little about its method. I did know of a Canadian study done in the '70s that failed miserably. It seemed that members were attached to electrodes in a pseudo-bar and re-taught to drink. When they drank too much they received increasing shocks. I don't know how long this went on but when they were released, the follow-up was very poorly structured.

Many lied about their drinking for some time on since they felt like they "failed" the process. There were reported suicides among the population and upon a closer scrutiny, it turned out to be an unmitigated failure.

Of course, any protocol needs proper structure and follow-up and that could have been what is lacking.

But your sour-cream example is a perfect analogy why I am not onboard with aversion therapy. I have puked my guts out, brought my blood pressure to the brink of a stroke, did and said things that made me feel so humiliated and guilty that I felt suicide was the only solution. All were directly and immediately related to drinking of alcohol. The pain was so great that I can't imagine a greater gift in hell. The only thing I had not yet done was kill someone but I know those who have and yet continue to drink. I remember a young lady that had just buried her daughter she killed in a car accident. After the funeral she went to an AA meeting and then to a bar.

I'll say this: My buddy ate some sour cream and whether it was the cause or not, he puked his guts up for hours.
There was a time where if he was drinking while he puked up that sour-cream, and I had nothing to drink, I would have ate his puke. Is this not enough aversion for you? :nutso:
You get the point. Sour cream is not alcohol.

And every time, I swore I would never drink again and sometimes I could stay away from alcohol for a sustained period of time.

Aversion is based on the pleasure/pain principle and a rational approach to the world. Even alcoholics know that drinking will bring about pain i.e. loss of job, loved ones, health, etc. but are driven by a stronger force. We receive little pleasure from drinking after the first couple. We are compelled because we can't stop!

Sinclair addresses this in appendix B when he speaks of the homunculus paradigm of rational behavior. Maybe he is modifying he views. I am open to this but a little perplexed.

I am impressed that you are in contact with Sinclair. You sound very well read and are obviously very well educated, either formally or self taught. Your posts are well written and you do your homework. I wish I had the time to do likewise.

Many of us are hanging on to your every word. You are months ahead of us which is lifetimes in Nal years. Is that enough pressure? But honestly, we have little close up information. Studies in Finland and abstract statistics are one thing but direct contact with someone that is in arms length to where we are, is another. Maybe Nal is over-rated. Maybe it will do nothing. Maybe I will be worse off in six months. Until I learn otherwise, I will take my chances.

Thanks for your time.

[SpringerRider]

Eskapa's Book, The Cure for Alcoholism

nancy;535713 wrote: Hi all

Springer Rider has pointed out to me that the book was published this month, which would explain all this new interest. I think we had some preview interest much earlier. Leave it up to MWO to be ahead.
Nancy

I was wrong. After seeing RV9''s post, I realize that the book came out in 2008. I am reading another book that has a copyright of 2009. I got them mixed up. But still, it is recent and I became aware of it from a TV ad.

I am going to go out on a limb and say the bad press is coming from the wrong use of Naltrexone. I mean, can you imagine your MD to sit down and say, "take one tablet and drink as you normally do."? Not on this planet!

I have a closer relationship with my physician (a D.O.) since we share a common grad school but even he said, "you never heard that from me". Nor does the drug circular ever say, take tablet and drink. But that is how it works.

There is a recovery center nearby that uses Nal to the tune of $5 to $7 grand, but from what I heard, they use it during detox and but then prescribe it while you stay abstinent. That is not the Sinclair method.

I suspect that many, if not most, were going abstinent and taking Nal. Won't hurt but does not help either. What is does do is get bad ink for Naltrexone.