Is it 12 or 14 hours? I thought 50mg was a 24 hour coverage?

This has drifted around, but the most consistent message I hear is 12 hours, so take a booster at 11 hour in.

Nal may indeed have a blocking effect beyond 12 hours, but my understanding is that it's not 100% coverage.

Again i continue to repeat that extinction is being mis interpreted. The extinction that happens is the extinction of envirinment associations and not the desire or craving to drink. Unless Dr. Eskapa is contradicting it self, in his book ge talks a lot about extinction and success, in fact the book title says "the cure", but, common guys, what is this:
"Even after de-addiction, patients may encounter stimuli they
associate with alcohol or drug use—and these stimuli or associa-
tions are so powerful that they may trigger relapse even after years
of abstinence. Therefore, all Sinclair Method patients—whether
they abused alcohol or (in the future) cocaine or amphetamines—
with or without cross-addiction to alcohol—should carry naltrex-
one or nalmefene tablets on their persons at all times. "
This sentence is on Page 171 of the book and said by Eskapa him self. Common guys, do you call this extinction?
Does Dr. Eskapa call this extinction? If i am afraid for the rest of my life of the possibility of being caught by an "uknown" trigger and relapse, was that ever an extinction? In one hand he says one can return to alchool if someone drinks again only without nal, in other he says here, that not only drinking again could lead you to misery, but also an unknown trigger you werent expecting. Common, what is this, a joke? I would not call this extinction, i would call this simply addiction, can someone explain this contradiction?

The fact that one must take Naltrexone before drinking (for the remainder of your days) is not news. Whether or not you run into a trigger in the future that makes you want to drink is kind of immaterial. What you are dealing with via TSM and mindful drinking is what largely makes you drink. If you encounter an infrequent trigger that induces drinking at some point down the road, then you have a method and practice to deal with it. If you don't use that, then you will likely return to unconscious and uncontrolled drinking.

But what I hear you saying is that since you might encounter a future stimulus that makes you want to drink, then TSM is no good and you shouldn't do it in the first place? Did I get that right?

I think we're getting trolled here. Just a warning.

Yes, I'm pretty certain that this is someone with an agenda.

The syntax of the writing and this whole game of "Twister" with logic (e.g. dishonest attempts to qualify his/her position by selective omission when citing Eskapa, etc) are all red flags.

If this were not so transparently obvious I may have actually been inclined to answer what makes for the germ of an interesting question, however I stopped being baited into "pushing buttons" for people after I went through my own process of extinction, so I have very little interest in being the object of this person's entertainment.

Some good responses by some of the other posters on here, though - I have to commend you all for your patience and generosity in responding to something like this. It makes me quite proud of the type of example that you all set, given how my own patience is so sorely lacking when dealing with this kind of thing these days...

Gary and Bardo i am not trolling anyone, i have more things to do than trolling people on forums about this. Gary, why do you think i am being dishonest?? Did i refer to something that doesnt exist? Did i said or refered something from a fantasy book of trolls??

JoeSixPack: Exacly, glad that you understood me.

I also believe that TSM can work, indeed it seems that it worked for lots of people. I am also not very good in english, because i am from Europe. I hope you can understand me, just try to be in my place as you read sentences and affirmations from the ones who best know this methods, what would a new guy reading this sentencens from the books and faqs, think? Unless they are all supositions? And they are not really facts? I dont know, tell me or ask who write the FAQ or Dr. Eskapa about it.

I didnt knew the sinclair method, i learned about TSM from searching in google and i found this site. I registered like anyone else, like you, and since then, i am researching more and more and reading the book of Dr. Eskapa. But most important of all, i want to be secure that this method is reliable, because getting in this medication has also risks as you know, and we must weight them and check if it is worth it.

Certainly you are aware that all the references i made, were from:
1º The FAQ from this site

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=19

Q: If a medication is used in the Sinclair Method, why is it a “psychological” rather than “medical” treatment? How and why is Sinclair’s discovery revolutionary? Why didn’t psychologists think of using a blocking agent to produce extinction long ago?
The answer for this question you can find this:

"This is because we want you to extinguish drinking in all situations in which you have previously found yourself drinking. Therefore, confining the treatment to a hospital setting would extinguish your drinking only in the hospital environment. Later, you might come out of the hospital and find that your craving and drinking levels have not abated when at home, at parties, or whatever situation you previously associated with drinking. Exactly this problem was demonstrated in studies in which heroin addicts took heroin in a hospital setting after getting naltrexone.

When you getting answers like this one "would extinguish your drinking only in the hospital environment", What? Only in Hospital? Wait, what is extinction? And if it is only in Hospital, should i call this extinction? Extinction for me means, dead, vanished, no more, but if something is dead only in hospital, and when on a party it ressurrects again? This makes no sense to me.

2º From Dr. Eskapa Book.

"Even after de-addiction, patients may encounter stimuli they associate with alcohol or drug use and these stimuli or associations are so powerful that they may trigger relapse even after years of abstinence. Therefore, all Sinclair Method patients—whether they abused alcohol or (in the future) cocaine or amphetamines—
with or without cross-addiction to alcohol—should carry naltrexone or nalmefene tablets on their persons at all times. "

Now look closely tho this sentence: "stimuli or associations are so powerful that they may trigger relapse even after years of abstinence". Therefore, all Sinclair Method patients ...should carry naltrexone or nalmefene tablets on their persons at all times.

Do you call this extinction? For me extinction, is extinction of everything that as to do with the addiction targeted, including ... TRIGGERS. If it doesnt include triggers and you might have one in the future, then for me, your addiction is not extinct yet, if it was, you would not have triggers anymore in the first place, this is common sense, anyone can conclude this, by reading it. I also saw some signatures of sucessfuly people in this forum who considered them selfs cured and some in their signature, they say: "cravings eliminated on month X and year Y". But what Dr. Eskapa says here is that you might have a trigger again before you know it". Common?!! This is what a common guy like me understands upon reading this books and faqs.

My best bet is that i am not interpreting this well, or Dr. Eskapa was referring to something else, i dont know.

Notice the word abstinence, that is a word that i think was said wrongly said, in my opinion, because what does TSM have to do with abstinence? Didnt Dr. Eskapa said numerous times that nal only with abstinence doesnt work? So what i think is perhaps Dr. Eskapa would not mean what he meant on writting this? You tell me.

I am only looking out of the box, and trying to make sense on every sentence based on this method from the authors and not looking only for the answers that make me feel good about this. Finding answers like the ones i found and refered, are not good indications for the new comers. I wish i would not found this answers, in fact, i think they are not well explained and are a missunderstanding?

The problems with some people is when they buy a medication they only want to see what it does good and ignore the bad things written on the blackbox of the medications. What i am doing here is reading the good, but i also have a great attraction for the bad things written. Perhaps a defect, i know or perhaps i am too carefull.

For example, why is that the authors dont invert the thought written? Instead of saying "stimuli or associations are so powerful that they may trigger relapse even after years of abstinence", why dont they say this: "Extinction is so powerful that even before stimuli or associations they will not have a trigger again". But unfortunately, it was not me who wrote the book, or the FAQs, right? Thus, as a newbie on this i would interpret it like this:

"stimuli or associations are so powerful that they may trigger relapse even after years of abstinence" = IN ADDICTION

"Extinction is so powerful that even before stimuli or associations they will not have a trigger again" = EXTINCTION

I am searching for help about this, and i thought this forum is the right place...

https://goo.gl/images/xwzVI4

Hahahahaha.

...Aaaaw bless.

(You know what? I think I'm having a 'Dr. Evil moment'... I'm suddenly feeling quite inspired to set up a weekly awards ceremony on my website just for the funniest sock puppets I've encountered on social media)

I just found that a member from this forum named Virgil also had this concern about triggers in the future. In this same topic, were he made a question about triggers, i found a much more logical answer from a member in the same topic named minneapolisnick wish he based on a podcast from Dr. Eskapa that, unfortunately, doesnt exist anymore on the link posted then. The topic is from seven years ago though, i hope it is usefull for everyone who might have this concern.


The topic is:
Extinguishing Triggers - What Does This Mean?

minneapolisnick answered:
I'll briefly re-phrase what I have already said, but after listening to Dr. Sinclair speak, I'm correct regarding this point.

http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/1571068

This process of un-learning behaviors is called extinction. By definition, when we drink on naltrexone, the pleasure is blocked, and we un-learn the connection between whatever we are doing or thinking at the time of drinking (the former trigger) and pleasure. This is extinction -- unlearning the positive association between triggers and drinking on naltrexone when there is no endorphin release, which is blocked by naltrexone.

This issue is discussed in the interview, above. We are extinguishing triggers when we drink on naltrexone. That's the definition of TSM.

I am glad that i found this answer, wish made more sense to me. Extinction = Extinction of triggers. Nevertheless, i still wonder what Dr Eskapa was thinking when i wrote that sentence i already mentioned. Perhaps, someday he can see this post and answer, or someone here could ask him.

Here is the link for everyone to check, this answer is in the 7º reply from minneapolisnick.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=594&start=0&view

It's the same thing as if you suffer from say, schizophrenia for example. If you take your meds then you are fine but if you don't then you will revert back to your ill state. You are not understanding what is meant by 'the cure'. I don't take that language to heart either. I do practically consider myself 'cured' but I'll never actually fully make that statement. But what they mean by cure is that you will become less obsessive about alcohol and the reason why is because you have gone through the process of de-learning how to become an alcoholic. Just like Pavlov's dog's who stopped drooling at the presence of the ringing bell you stop craving alcohol when you drive by your old favorite bar or liquor store.

I, and many many others, am living proof and a text book example of this as truth. Since the very first day I started TSM I have not once hidden alcohol and sneaked drinks. I have not once stopped by my favorite convenient store to pick up a 12 pack of cheap beer, drink 3 on the way home, and leave the rest in the trunk so I could sneak out and grab one when I needed it... Not once!

Am I still an alcoholic? Yup you bet I am. TSM doesn't cure alcoholism it only cures the learned behavior associated with it that triggers one to continue drinking to seek the reward to their opioid like addicted brain. Once that is gone, through the process of extinction, people either just stop drinking or continue to drink for what ever other reasons they like to drink. In my case I continue to drink because I have always enjoyed beer and wine, it still makes me 'feel' good on some other level and frankly it's part of every social institution I belong to. Only now instead of pretending to have one glass of wine with dinner but really sneaking off to the bathroom to take huge gulps of vodka I only have one or two glasses of wine with dinner and then go on with my life. That's what is meant by the cure.