Hi all,

I Saw this response on the faqs, leading me to suspect that sinclair method is not extinction at all and that people here are being fulled? Dont get me wrong, i am saying this because of this response in this same site faqs:

"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."

What the ...? This means we are not extiguishing alchool craving at all, we are in fact only extiguishing the environment learned alchool intake. If you change environment, the craving can appear again, and you go back to misery, this means people here are on a loose loose fight. If this is true you will be chased forever from the fear of changing environment and the bomb environment ticking at any moment. You will never be free. Nal would be waste of time. Sorry for being soo discouraging, but it is not what i am saying that is discouraging, instead, it is the true written on this same site on the faq, above. Unless someone here can prove me wrong, or you might say, ok, if you change environment and crave, just take nal before. Bad answer, because if that happened in the first place, then you never extinguished nothing at all, the only thing you extinguished was the environment at least, but never the cravings or desire to drink again.

Not entirely sure what you're getting at here. Environment has nothing to do with extinction. Perhaps you should read Dr. Espaka's text, "The Cure for Alcoholism".

https://www.dropbox.com/s/60fs7gmvbyzs1kk/Cure%20for%20Alcoholism.pdf?dl=0

You'll note that the inpatient period was rather short. It would take a lot longer to get to extinction. So far, I haven't seen anyone post that they drank in a different situation and immediately went back to their old way of drinking. I think you're misreading the information there.

Were you actually going to use TSM or just engage in hyperbole?

What FAQ's are you reading this from?

Environment definitely does have a lot to do with the psychology of drinking but that's another of a whole other set of variables and factors in the drinking equation. That's why DR. Sinclair's method includes time off from drinking and building up your own personal experience and developing the skills and acquiring the tool sets necessary to carry on alcohol free by doing the normal things in life that you used to do drunk all the time without alcohol.

The faq is on this site, and it says what i mentioned, anyway i started TSM, with low dose naltrexone to see how my body reacts to it, the funny think is that i only started to get a little nausea after 2 hours. So my question is, does this mean that nal should be taken after two hours before drinking, im am saying this because everyone is diferent and perhaps instead of one hour i should wait two? Still felt the cravings, is it normal to feel cravings after one hour and while drinking? Or does this mean it will not work?

I you're using Nodict, it's suggested to wait 90 minutes, all others only require an hour's wait. Side effects (like nausea) tend to vary from person to person. Some get no nausea at all, some the next morning, some shortly after taking the pill. No need to wait for the nausea before you begin drinking.

How many mg are you taking?

No it is not Nodict. Its another form i got here in europe. I started very low only for precaution, 0.5 mg in liquid LDN form. I know its to low, and barely had side effects on this dose, counting 3 hours now since i took it with a spoon and a full glass of water. But i feel more secure now and will be upping it gradually. Next time i will go to 1.5 mg or 2mg, will decide. I know that LDN has the same effect wish is blocking, the only problem here would be coverage time wish is not a problem for me, since i would only need 1 hour or two for coverage. If i see that a damn bad craving appears after that, i just take another dose and wait one hour. But what about the craving, i suppose the sucess cases here also continued to feel cravings while on nal and drinking in early stages? If not perhaps dosage to low? Should i up until i feel no craving at all after one hour? Or feeling craving is expected?

The studies were done with 50mg, but some have managed with less (and some need more).

" since i would only need 1 hour or two for coverage."

Consider the amount of time alcohol is your body too, before it is broken down. 50mg should give you coverage for 12 hours.

what about craving while on nal, normal?

Never mind, from Eskapa book:

This is important. The medicine itself did not reduce the rats’ craving. When the alcohol bottles were put on the cages, the rats all
came running up to the front of the cage and began drinking rapidly.
The medicine did not have an effect until after the rats had drunk
the alcohol, the alcohol had been absorbed and gone to the brain,
and endorphins had been released.