I 've been on TSM since 2nd April 2013 and I'm currently enjoying a very happy retirement from drinking.

That's about it as far as summaries go, really. Nothing much else to tell.

On a personal note: I'm kinda half-relieved that I can't upload a photo onto my profile, given my chronic and incurable "resting bitchface" condition.

(The bane of my existence when it comes to online dating, believe me)

Yeah, I kind of have that face going on too, lol!

Welcome to the community Gary and thanks for taking the time to say howdy! I've paraphrased your "kill it" line many times.

I started in January and looks like I'm cured as of July. I've been supporting TSM'ers here, on Options Save Lives, Reddit and Patient.info since I started.

How long did it take to get to where you want to be with TSM?

Hi Joe,

Yeah, people don't realise just how disabling the phenomenon of "resting bitchface" really is! Hahaha

Thanks for the kind words - and well done you! Freedom is so wonderful, don't you think?

...Which sort of relates to my "kill it" statement in Claudia's documentary. What I think I was trying to put into words with that statement (but probably doing a very bad job of) was the fact that, as far as comparisons to other treatment methods go, TSM is the curative option whilst everything else seems to be the palliative option... that is to say that they work to help ease the cravings but not remove them.

So when an AA member or some other person who favours the 12 Step philosophy sarcastically references the "We tried to find an easier, softer way" line from the BB on internet forums my response is to immediately agree with them.

Why? Well, because I don't see why anyone in their right mind would actively desire "the harder, rougher way" for one thing; let's get real here: it's not a badge of honour - it's a badge of rank stupidity to approach a medical issue in such a way. Who in their right mind wants to be battling cravings all of their life when they can instead get rid of them?

Not that it goes against Occam's razor on the fallacious reasoning checklist, exactly... but just more that such chest-thumping machismo is badly misplaced in this context and contradicts all common sense.

When applied to medicine it's like this: It's pure and simple malpractice for a doctor to knowingly withhold a medical treatment that cures a condition in favour of one that only helps to better manage its symptoms.

It's as simple as that, really.

As for your question about how long it took me with my own journey - around 12-13 weeks. I'd post up my graph and drink diaries on here, but because I wasn't quite sure how I would be able to add graphics on here I have to apologise for instead resorting to posting a bit of clickbait that shows a breakdown of everything: https://freepigeonpress.com/2016/12/15/ ... k-diaries/

There's also the podcast interview thingie that I did with Roy Eskapa for Mike Dempsey's Recovering from Recovery website a while back that goes into some of the background behind my getting into The Sinclair Method if anyone is interested: http://www.recoveringfromrecovery.com/d ... ir-method/

(Again, apologies for spamming! Hehe )

Don't trust this guy for a minute. He's a rank and file fibber. Like elsewhere he's weaving for you his most deceitful web of lies. Sure, he was a portly chap in the film. Had a bit of powdered sugar under his nails if you will. But like most who adhere strictly to this system he's shed pounds and flourished with his life. So, yeah. Keep an eye on him.

Sup, Gary

Thanks for bringing your message of hope and strength. Err. Scratch that. Thanks for dropping a bit of science and sense...

Hahahaha!!!

Why... you anonymous scum, you!!!!!

(As always, it's a blast whenever I see you up to your usual mischief, Bardo - get 'em tellt! )

Sounds like you were one of the quick responders Gary, congrats!

"Why? Well, because I don't see why anyone in their right mind would actively desire "the harder, rougher way" for one thing; let's get real here: it's not a badge of honour - it's a badge of rank stupidity to approach a medical issue in such a way. Who in their right mind wants to be battling cravings all of their life when they can instead get rid of them?"

Quite so! I was just reflecting today that the 12 steps should be rewritten:

1. Detox.
2. Relapse.
3. Detox.
4. Relapse.
.............
.............
12. (if you haven't died yet) Relapse

Really, they should point people to TSM or another medical approach after the first significant relapse. For most of the people that attempt it, it's simply a recipe for long-cycle binging. Why they're still considered to be an authority on Alcohol Use Disorder when their (mostly relapsing) worldwide membership represents less than 1.5% of the 140 million people in the world with AUD is beyond me.

As Doug Stanhope said, “AA tells you to make up your own God if you don’t already have a God… I’m a drunk. I can’t even make up a good excuse for why I pissed in the sock drawer last night. This is probably not a good time for me to be creating omnipotent deities.”

"It's pure and simple malpractice for a doctor to knowingly withhold a medical treatment that cures a condition in favour of one that only helps to better manage its symptoms."

And only has a 10% chance (at best) of doing that much. That goes for detox and strict abstinence in general. Yet this is what is offered 90% of the time.

Fortunately, the word about Medically Assisted Treatment is spreading!

BTW, you might want to check out the forum at Options Save Lives http://optionssavelives.freeforums.net/, I'm sure folks there would get a charge out of hearing from you too!

Thanks for the food for thought!

I've been pondering this myself recently.

Good point. I think that a large part of the problem is that 12 Step orthodoxy has become woven firmly into the DNA of our film and television culture over these last eight decades thanks in no small part (credit where it's due) to ingenious public relations work by the likes of Marty Mann during AA's earliest years and then what I call an alignment of "the shared tyranny of the three act play structure" that both AA and and movies/TV share... meaning that television and movies are all about narrative, right?

..And oh boy, so is Alcoholics Anonymous. Face it: you hear someone's personal screenplay every goddamn time you're in one of those meetings.

The "I am ____ and I'm an alcoholic" ritual is like mana from heaven for a TV or film screenwriter. It's a great expositional mechanism. And hence why a TV writer likely wouldn't thank you if you were to suggest that they alter one of their scripts to remove the tearjerker AA confessional scene they've written in favour of instead depicting someone using The Sinclair Method in their dressing gown from the comfort of their own living room - it just aint gonna happen!*

"..Cos where's the conflict, people? Where's the struggle, dammit!" (to quote the hard-nosed J. Jonah Jameson types of this world)


*Though it does conjure a pretty funny image if it did!

Just on the whole 12 Step depiction in modern media: the most offensive example of this to me personally is the needy depiction of Sherlock Holmes in the TV show Elementary.

It's especially offensive to me not just because I really like Jonny Lee Miller and hate to see him misused like this, but because it just goes totally against the grain of the original haracter.... I mean, come on! You just know that if Holmes were really alive today and was really using heroin he'd give the finger to all the NA stuff and would instead be saying something like "Oh just shut up and give me some suboxone, Watson" every time he interacted with the good doctor.

But no: we instead have to endure a twitchy, needy bastardisation of the character that's far closer to a fictional detective like Adrian Monk than it is to a hard-minded character like Sherlock Holmes.

Grr.