Thanks again for your excellent rebuttal of the propaganda on the Origins website. Here's a link to my video about it, which has a link to both Origins and your post in the description:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlcrRGrhpAU

BenTSM
Sober for three months now, after just over a year of TSM.

Upregulation is not a problem for people following TSM, as you point out. My understanding of upregulation came from The Cure For Alcoholism which discusses that when TSMers start to have alcohol-free days, engaging in opioidergic activities like exercise off naltrexone causes upregulation, an unusually high level of endorphin reinforcement, which is desirable.

Where upregulation can be a problem is for people who use naltrexone the wrong way, meaning taking it every day while abstaining from alcohol. I did this on my doctor's advice, before I found out about TSM. I took naltrexone and blocked my endorphins while staying sober for a month and a half. When I began to drink again, I stopped taking naltrexone because I saw no point in taking an anti-craving pill when I was back on the booze. The resulting binge was a monster. My brain was flooded with endorphins when I began to drink off naltrexone and plus the ADE (alcohol deprivation effect discovered by Dr. Sinclair) kicked in. This binge was worse than my old ones and I landed in ICU for four days.

Not only is The Sinclair Method the only effective way for an alcoholic to use naltrexone, it can be very dangerous to use it in the way it is still most often prescribed by doctors ignorant of TSM. Just wanted to add that.

Excellent clarification. And I agree, taking Naltrexone every day with abstinence sounds like a terrible idea to me and a recipe for depression, with endorphins being blocked constantly, even for positive behaviors. Whereas once you regain control you almost never have naltrexone in your system because you drink infrequently.

Nick, I just want to applaud you for such a well written and dignified essay!! The other article is a (linguistically) poorly written, untoward, belittling, insulting, ignorant (of the facts), piece of unjustifiable scaremungering! It just isn't a shadow on what you wrote!.

It made me laugh, on the one hand, but also has me deeply concerned, because clearly, the person (were there more than one?) who wrote that essay has very little understanding and knowledge of TSM, if that was the best "critical analysis" they could come up with. They also clearly have little to no respect and understanding for the people who turn to them for help, their condescending attitude is ignoble and their intimidation tactics are shocking. It's despicable! Shame on them!

The part that really stands out for me and pisses me off (and believe me, a lot of things about this damn article do), is that they compare NAL to Antabuse!!! Antabuse is a drug designed to make you physically, dangerously ill if you consume it. WHY would anyone want to keep taking THAT? NAL, aside from initial side effects, simply decreases the cravings until you can regain control! Christ.

Thanks for the props, people.

The more I think about that article, the more it froths me. If I had it do over again, I would have pointed out the inherent hypocrisy of their very own mission statement when they state, "We are in the business of getting people well." EXACTLY. Business: as in defined by, first and foremost, a profit motive with its number-one priority of generating wealth for stockholders. As opposed to TSMers: no "business" here, just a genuine concern for people's well-being. I also thought it was very telling that they claimed that if there were a method that was proven to work, they would completely gut their program and start from scratch. That was another glimpse into their true motivation for such a propaganda-smear against TSM: they know they are obsolete if TSM works, which we know for a fact, does. That was very telling, as was their overall tone of contempt and disdain for the "drunks" they purport to serve. Question: what's the difference between an Origins' client and someone trying TSM? Answer: TSMers don't give them an insurance card and a virtual blank check for profits. What is it now, $50,000 for 28 days, with your average person relapsing multiple times? Page 65 of The Cure states The Betty Ford Clinic has a capacity of 800 people and generates $20 million a year. They care about profits at the expense of health and for that, well, I just hope it's true that "what goes around, comes around."

Excellent additional points, Nick. If you need a laugh, here is one of Origins' Youtube videos. These bozos would be hilarious if they weren't doing real harm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i5utPQXbiY

--Ben, the "Sinclair Method Drunk" (sober for three months today after a year of TSM)

[Edited thanks to Curi]

From a Sinclair perspective, this makes sense. They are attempting to replace the endorphin high alcoholics like with thrill rides. The problem is, after 28 days and 50k later, the craving for the endorphin rush remains. As Origins themselves acknowledge, once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. Which is why abstinence-based treatment has been a historic failure versus TSM, which removes the cravings by rewiring the brain.

The thing that impressed me the most about this site (Thesinclairmethod.NET not .COM) and you good people here, is how respectful and non judgemental of others, you are. You are visibly well educated, level headed people who place their skeptical trust in science and proven treatments.

There are lots of different methods for attaining abstinence: there are AA and 12 step based programs, there are non-12 step programs, there are different drugs available- Campral, Naltrexone, Antabuse, various antidepressants and antianxiety medications, there are diet based methods like Seven Weeks To Sobriety, there are a host of psychological therapies like CBT and ACT to mention but two, there are internet sites like Rational Recovery and Smart Recovery, books like Carr's Easy Way or Lance M Dodes' The Heart of Addiction, there's lots of Quackery, the list goes on and on....

There are several methods to moderate alcohol consumption; Harm Reduction and Moderation Management to mention but two,

and then there is TSM.

To the best of my knowledge, TSM is the only method that encourages people to continue drinking as usual (initially), and that gives people the choice of moderating or becoming abstinent.

It's a bit like saying to someone allergic to nuts: take this pill and eat nuts, or that a diabetic can eat as much sugar as they want.
It contradicts people's beliefs and as (I believe) we are what we believe, it touches therefore on people's sense of self. That's a biggie, it's highly personal. Telling an AA follower that alcoholism is a biochemical irregularity and not a spiritual malady and telling them to continue drinking is like telling them that there is no Higher Power, naturally, that kind of assertion will provoke emotional, gut reactions, and that's what that Origins article was; a knee-jerk.

They presented absolutely no scientific or statistical data, they very clearly didn't even understand the method, so how can they analyse it critically? So they did the only thing they knew how to and that was to insult, ridicule and lie about the people following TSM and to patronise alcoholics in general... there's a name for that kind of behaviour...

People here don't need to mock AA and other 12 step organisations or the people who follow them, you guys are above that, you guys know that mockery and condescension only alienate people, people who might otherwise be willing to listen and try TSM. You have the science, all you need to do is show the facts, show and explain the method, show the trial and anecdotal results, TSM will do the rest

Curi

GREAT points, Curi.

Thank you for reminding us that this debate should remain dignified. I find it very hard not to be contemptuous, because there is, in part, some real evil going on: a small percentage of people are making money off of the For Profit Recovery Industry, are aware of alternatives that work better, yet are actively seeking to conceal the efficacy of TSM. However, the vast majority of AA members and its proponents are their unsuspecting victims.

I do not use the word "victim" lightly as I too, was once one of the victims. Back in 2004 I spent a month in AA, going to a meeting almost every day. And I really, truly wanted it to work. My life was miserable and AA was the only alternative I had heard of. I did spend a great deal of time and effort trying to suspend my disbelief, accept the fact that I was suffering from a spiritual malady, was selfish in my acts, was inadvertently hurting others, needed to make amends, yadah-yadah. I took solace in the fact that no matter what words were being spoken in those meetings, the sense of fellowship was definitely therapeutic. In the name of not being a hypocrite, I went to those meetings for a month, white-knuckled it the entire time, and didn't drink a drop, no matter how much I was thinking more and more about alcohol because of the scientifically-proven Alcohol Deprivation Effect. I have absolutely no malice towards the vast majority of AA members as they are just like I was: desperately seeking a way out of a miserable life.

That being said, I do have a great deal of contempt -- which I know must be tempered -- for those who argue that AA, with its abysmal 95% relapse rate, is the only way to get sober. To me, it is no different than a health care community treating a disease with a 5% survival rate, and turning around and saying there is no use in searching for alternatives because there are none. Everyone in the recovery community -- from addiction specialists to AA veterans and newbies alike -- knows that the chances of relapsing after one's first AA meeting are overwhelming and their long-term prognosis is poor.

In light of these FACTS, everyone should be open to the notion that there are alternative methods, IMO. And if scientists were coming up with theoretical ways that a pill could make people better and had nothing to show for it either by research or anecdotally, I could understand why TSM would be rejected by society. But we know that's not the case. I -- and over 40 others here, not to mention tens of thousands in Europe -- am proof positive that a pill can make you regain control and eliminate the craving for alcohol. No spiritual awakening and no therapy were needed. In light of these FACTS, and in light of the FACT that the stakes in this debate are literally life and death, it is very hard not to maintain a tone of contemptuous ridicule for anyone opposing TSM. But thank you for this very helpful reminder, Curi. You are spot on in your assessment, IMO. I will try to temper my anger and ridicule in the future, but it will not be easy.