Do you reckon extinction can take place naturally if less effectively than with NAL ?
I tried moderating alochol consumption for a good twenty years . Using the classic techniques of taking AF's and trying to do things that precluded the use of alcohol .
Maybe there's a two way process of learning and extinguishing at the same time, the efforts of the mind to impose control over the brains learning curve does limit the widening of the neural pathways .
Well anyway if there was such a battle the neural pathways still managed to widen to six lane motorways and moderation became less effective with time .
So a few years ago I then switched to abstinence remaining largely abstinent (with brief relapses ) for a year and half . Yet again was this a further natural extinction?
The reason I ask is that after all this self flagelation I did manage to get my intake down from some 100 units to 40 odd . What about the craving ? Well that's still always there but not so strong as to prevent AF's .
People always insist it's the first drink that undoes the drinker and Moderation Management claims that for many a problem drinker can cut off much more easily after drink number 3 or 4 if you go past this you're more likely to go the full whack.
I never had 100 percent success here but did manage say fifty percent of the time to do this . How can this be possible were there not a sort of natural extinction in play ?

Eskapa says extinction DOES NOT take place naturally -- which is why it is a lifetime struggle for alcoholics to remain abstinent. Eskapa, p. 33. We will no longer be alcoholics when we complete TSM and we wil not be re-addicted so long as we follow the Golden Rule and take nal one hour prior to drinking -- permanently.

I want to make an observation here. We will help one another if we stick to reliable sources. For those of us who , that is Eskapa's book. Sinclair ardently supported Eskapa in using that book as a vehicle to get the word out. Dr. Eskapa has dropped in and fine-tuned from time to time and for that we are fortunate. In addition to the book, we have on this board some downloads of chapters and additional chapters from Eskapa that were not included in the book. These are a treasure trove of information on TSM. I find it useful to get back to basics from time to time and re-read the book and these posts. Of course we who are doing TSM need to personalize the method, but there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

I hope everyone is reading Eskapa's book or at least the writings by Eskapa on this board. Sinclair and Eskapa are the experts. They base the information they share on sound science, and we are fortunate to have access to the fruits of their labor right here.

I really enjoy posting w/ cites to Sinclair or Eskapa when I notice a query in the post and can recall where they address the question. I did that ad infinitum on MWO. If someone asks a question and you can remember reading it in Eskapa, that would be great if you would take a sec to cite.

Canadian , I don't get your point sorry . My consumption went up because I have not yet attained extinction either naturally or through tsm yet . I never assumed I had I just thought it was in process .

Many of us had our #'s go up before they started to go down. Eskapa says this is normal. Sorry Elfern I got caught up and forgot to "get your back" in my last post. You're doing TSM and you'll be just fine.

I so much appreciate Sinclair and Eskapa's work - life saving strategies for escaping this deadly condition. Their contributions to the treatment of addiction are invaluable. Most of the folks on this board are pretty savvy, and may have insights outside the scope of the original work. That's how progress is made. . .people build off of one another's work, and learn from one another's knowledge and experience.

Does Dr. Eskapa himself object to outside observations, links, articles or research?

As to this topic, I was abstinent (for the most part) for 20+ years, while raising my children. On the very few occasions I drank, the compulsion to over-consume was always there - no natural extinction took place at all. When I began to allow myself to drink again, it was only a matter of a few months before I was consuming a bottle of wine every day. Again, no natural extinction.

From my point of view, the ONLY way to completely become un-dependant on alcohol is to follow The Sinclair Method to a 'T.' Eskapa's book is my Bible!

No one objects to outside sources. We do need to heed the credibility of the sources. My son did a lot of online research about nutrition when he was twelve. I still use some of the valuable links he found. But he never started holding himself out as a nutritionist. And, not all of his links were equal in quality of information.

We see several types of posts here: posts by those who are doing TSM; posts by the experts (Sinclair, Eskapa, credible links, articles, etc.); and posts by those who, while not experts, enjoy sharing information and observations. For the latter, am leery of random musings without attribution. Noone is going to prevent anyone from posting them, but we need to give information the weight it deserves. Caveat emptor and all that in the internet age.

Thanks Lena. Informative reply. We do need to be careful. . .and of course Sinclair and Eskapa are always our 'last word on the subject.'

Isn't there also a difference between the loosing the desire to drink that some people get almost from the outset and the real extinction that sets in no sooner than after two months ?
They maybe perceived as similar but it's not the same thing going on ?
Just as in the same way in most people's drinking path's there are periods where their drinking goes into abeyance they have less desire . Classic example is after doing 30 days abstinence ( after bumping off the wagon ADE ) you
go back to drinking at a lower level , this is losing some desire but it could never be called extinction with its nuance of permanentally dead .

i agree, sorry i was not criticizing anyone or any ideas, i was just asking.

sorry.