I think these graphs, while interesting and worthwhile, are of marginal use for we pioneers. Just follow the formula and don't over-think it. BUT I think these graphs will be INVALUABLE once we have several people cured and we can compare and contrast the cure curves. Ideally we could categorize the cure curves by two huge factors: how long people have been drinking and how much people have been drinking. This would serve two purposes: (a) add evidence to our theory that extinction takes longer for those who have been drinking longer and drinking more and, (b) more importantly, to perhaps offer some new and more realistic expectations for newcomers about time frames for THE CURE. The NUMBER ONE issue that I see that needs to be addressed by both Eskapa's book (and the studies he summarizes) and this board is refining the rather nebulous conclusion that "extinction takes, on average, three to four months minimum." This conclusion is highly misleading based upon our collective experiences here and sets people up for potential failure/disappointment because everyone wants their three-to-four-month cure and they want it yesterday! Since the studies solely include cure rates for people who "only" drink 35 per week, I think it would be tremendously useful to publish our own "studies" where we show that if you drink 70 drinks per week for example, it's going to take you twice as long for extinction to occur (or whatever it is that we discover); and, if you've been drinking over 100 drinks per week for over 30 years, it will take you a hell of a lot longer than that. That's where I see the huge benefit of these graphs: by lumping them into categories of amount and duration of consumption to give some people some guidance about how long they can expect for extinction to occur. The current studies that we have been relying on, which include subjects "only" drinking an average of 35 drinks per week and which do not even address the length of time they've been drinking, would appear to be of limited value to our "real-world" group when it comes to predicting time necessary for extinction. Hopefully our graphs will provide new TSMers more realistic examples of extinction time frames and in the process prevent unrealistic expectations of a three to four month cure.

I have to disagree with you on this one, nick. While I think all the technical discussion has bogged this thread down, I think the graphs are a moving and compelling illustration of two things: While we're on the rollercoaster, our course is true toward de-addiction. Also, the progress comes right after the phase during which many of us have privately (or otherwise) entertained grave doubts about whether this thing works. If we've learned one thing here, it's that predicting the pace of the cure, thoug not the cure itself is futile. So long as people understand these graphs are historical and not predictive, they are golden in my view.

LoOp, how would you feel about a "clean up" of this thread so the graphs can shine, with perhaps a little explanatory narrative from you?

Hi
I'm new here so I don't want to rock any boats. But I agree with Nick to show the amount of time to the cure in respect to the amount of units we drink and the leath of time we've been heavy drinkers. For me it would help if or when I get to a place of discouragement. I've been a heavy drinker (50-60 units) for 30 years, and I can understand that the cure maybe coming to me a little slower and it would be encouraging to see ones before me taking the slow but steady train to the cure. Thanks

Lena: you may be right: these graphs may have more current use than I gave them credit for. But I do not think that predicting time frames regarding THE CURE is necessarily inherently unreliable. And in fact, Eskapa/Sinclair do not think so either because they explicitly offer their three to four month minimum estimate for extinction. The reason it has been futile, to date, to predict the time for extinction is due to insufficient data -- the studies are only based upon people who drink 35 per week and almost none of us here drink at that rate.

I think we may learn a lot about cure rates if we can show when people were cured, how much they drank and for how long they drank, as Cantspellsowell points out. If we have someone who fits her profile of amount and duration of drinking for example, we may be able to see some patterns regarding time necessary for extinction.

I think there needs to be a thread where the graphs are explained (maybe even a sticky?) otherwise this same problem will crop up again.

I would love to see graphs for all of THE CURED, which also include a notation of how many years each person drank heavily. As I said, I think we may be able to identify some patterns for how long extinction takes to occur using these variables.

Hi
Just a little off subject, I used " can't spell "oh" well", not "so" well. I love it, the sarcasum truned on me. That's it I'll never be sarcastic again.

I think most of us will be happy to oblige with our histories (if we can remember them).

Suggestion: On the Official Cured List post, would you kindly place the cure duration (Week "x") to the right of each name. It would make it an easy reference for everybody, especially new ones, to gauge how long it is roughly from starting TSM until we are cured. As we continue to add to the list, some of the ones who are taking longer will fill out this list to present a truer picture. Right now, it seems to be skewed toward the early to mid-range extinction folks. Thanks!

Bob

While I agree with what you said, Nick, about the length of drinking & the time it will take to extinguish (I tried to highlight & quote but gave up in frustration LOL)...reading & believing in the 3-4 month minimum thing is all fine and good until you've gone way past that and have felt nothing.

I am now at almost month 7 w/ no real changes in cravings or patterns. Those graphs drive me crazy. Dropping consumption by one drink a week or so, I will be 85 years old by the time I'm cured!! LOL

So with that said, my Dr. & I had a discussion today and he upped my dose to 100mg. I was thinking 75, but we talked, I came in with the article on the McCaul study...and he didn't blink an eye at my wanting "more". He also said he had treated gambling addicts w/ 100mg of NAL very successfully. I was SHOCKED he was just now telling me this...but anyway, I am going to go into more detail about this on my weekly thread (that I rarely update). But I think the realization needs to be voiced again, not to discourage newbies, but to make aware, this method may not work for everyone. Let's quit trying to sugar-coat it. Seriously, we all have hope, and I am renewing mine here, but it simply may not work for everyone. I'm hoping though, a double dose will for me.

So before you talk about going on forever @ 50 mgs., or anyone thinks about giving up, I suggest at about the 6 month point, talk to your DR. about upping your dose. I think 6 months is long enough to wait for a miracle - especially at my age! I was a little put off by Dr. Eskapa's comment about this very topic that "it undulates"...I was kinda like "HUH??!!" Ok - thanks for the information. The truth is, he DOESN"T KNOW!!! All of Sinclair's studies were on patients at 50 mg. We are in new territory, people. We want to believe, but the fact is, these studies only show that while many people were "cured"...many more did not respond to 50 mgs...and that's all we know. No follow-up. Who are these people and where are they?? I'm a true devotee of TSM, but there are also alot of unanswered questions along the way or sketchy at best.

That's why I love the McCaul study (it was a link in another thread - by Virgil, I think??) that presents fresh evidence that the success rate may vary due to the doseage. It also recommends a blood test but my doc said, see how it goes for 2 months...

I am excited once again - and am going to go 75 mgs for a week before I jump into 100 mgs. He did warn me about "gastrointestinal discomfort" LOL. Of which, I had none starting this method....but a little leary about it at this point.

I have always been a glass half-full kinda gal (philosophically speaking) and I want to be on that cured list!! I may be one who it doesn't work for, but I'm going to squeeze the life out of NAL before I throw in the towel that's fer dang sure!! LOL More comments on my personal thread as soon as I get there. I'm excited again!! :-)

Houtz, I posted to your progress thread too, but I wanted to say how excited I am for you that you're bumping up the dose. Yay, you! I really think the extra nal will make a difference for you. I never had stomach upset with nal at 50mg, but I took a couple antacids the first few times I took it. The higher dose might have made me feel a little spacey or tired, but not sick. 100 mg didn't seem to affect me more than 75 mg, so that's where I stayed dosage-wise. I don't think you need to be worried about taking the prescribed amount.