You're absolutely right, SR - there is no payoff whatsoever in those kinds of posts on this message board. I understand your frustration with Robert, as he comes on this MB with a different agenda and POV than most of us. It's my sense that he is eager to disseminate information, as he understands it. I will give him credit for his original podcast with the good Dr. Sinclair, and for his efforts to introduce TSM to addiction specialists. Why he feels compelled to 'warn' us that there's a chance the method won't work for us is beyond my comprehension, since the whole purpose of this MB is to encourage and support one another as we go through this unfamiliar process. His reference to the website where people who took Naltrexone reported bizarre side effects also were counter productive and non-pertinent to our situation, as well. I checked out the site, and most of those taking the Nal and reporting were opiate addicts - it would be understandable that they would have 'heavier' experiences on Nal than we who drink alcohol.

I suspect that, because Robert doesn't personally suffer alcohol addiction, he doesn't possess an intimate understanding into the dynamics and goals of this particular group of people. He has no horse running in this race, but tells those of us who do that he's an expert on the subject of race horses, and the chances of our horse winning or placing are more slim than we imagined, based on his analyses of the statistics - which, in fact, may be flawed. We've banded together for the purpose of mutual support in our struggle against a hitherto non-treatable, deadly, and sinister disease. The Sinclair Method, as presented to us by Dr. Eskapa, is the only real hope many of us have had for many years. Our resources are slender. . .the studies, the book, Dr. Eskapa - and one another. But the resources we have are enough to keep us hopeful, and practicing the method with some degree of faith that it will work. We now have an 80% chance of winning the race, as compared to the 5%-15% chance we had before. That's pretty damn good!

Now along comes an 'expert' on the subject who makes statements that pokes holes in that hope. . .and some of us get discouraged and contemplate pulling our horse from the race altogether. As alcoholics, our emotions tend to dictate our actions perhaps more than the general public, so Robert's posts may well discourage someone from attempting to complete - or even begin - the Sinclair Method of recovery. What a tragedy it would be for that person to leave here more discouraged than before. . .perhaps to die an unnecessary, alcohol-related death.

So I'm with you on this one, SR - let's keep emphasizing the positive, and trust we'll be in the majority of those who become successfully cured of this affliction.

I am not sure from wench you speak. The seminal podcast that I know of was with David Van Nuys, a gentleman I had the pleassure to meet. Dr. Dave hosts Shrinkwrap radio. Did Sinclair give another podcast?

But there are two points I am strongly trying to make.
first -
serious challenges to the Sinclair Method should be made to Dr. Sinclair or at least Dr. Eskapa. We are patients!! That is not to say that we can't assist each other with our own experiences and knowledge but Sinclair and Eskapa are the autorities that we have at our dispoal.

second -
those of us that have concerns and fears about the Method should use the same source. We are priviledged in that we have that access.

Not adhering to the practices above throws gravel into a piece of machinery that only seems to run fair at best.

~Q - I think he really was referring to Alcohol...Elfern asked him and he replied several times that the "deadly neuroinhibitor" to which he was referring was alcohol (Nal + alcohol being the basis of TSM). I would love to read the full study - can you just send it to me in a PM? If that is not possible, I will send you my email.

Everyone, please just take the studies and opinions with a grain of salt..I want to reach through this computer and shake some of you when I read people saying they are resigning themselves to failure or discouraged before they start. Don't do that to yourselves. Where is your spirit and strength? I know, it's washed down with the bottle and with failed attempt after failed attempt. I know. We all know. But you need to pick yourselves up and look for that strength again - I firmly believe a positive attitude helps your treatment. This is not easy for any of us ...but keep trying and push the negative thoughts away. Keep pushing yourselves to get the help you need and deserve. Odds are it will work for you so don't look for signs of failure - scrap the bottom of the barrel for signs of success.

And never let a man with a bird on his head dictate how you view your own success.

Thank you for not getting mad : ) - I know everyone is super sensitive this week (with good cause)...it was meant as encouragement.

And you will make it WTE. Hang in there!

Hey y'all -
I wrote a very important and significant response here (LOL) and then as I revised my signature I lost it!! :-( But basically - thanks to all for your input as far as not losing hope. I may have tripped the trigger here over the weekend with my sound-off to Mr. RR, but he really did upset me and sent my hope-factor plummeting. Thank you, Marbella and everyone else for rallying 'round the flagpole/campfire for not just me, but everyone who has had their doubts along the way here.

I do hope we will encourage all posts on this forum. Mr. RR has obviously stirred quite a bit of controversy... in my case, I had a HUGE, REALLY BAD plummet of the hope-factor due to his comments. I will continue on though, as I've said, in spite of not feeling or sensing any real changes in 2 months. I have "abused" alcohol for a very long time, so was into this method at the outset for 3- 6 months. Still, the comment that if no changes are felt after 2 months was a very bad "bada boom" moment...

So, if this works, I will be the first one to SCREAM it from the rooftops. And if not, I will continue to try and live a good life and seek other options...baclofen,etc.

Reading all of your posts on Mr. RR has made me feel better for attacking him in the first place LOL ... but I really do not think the man means any harm. He is interested in our progress, I think. I really don't mind being a "lab rat" either...it's about time there were more of us! So thanks so much for the support from all of you directly or indirectly. It has been a very important part of my life these last couple of months.

Thanks, good people! Feelin the luv! :-)

Hi Everyone!

I know we've talked about letting the old threads die, but this one is kind of close to my heart. I need a place to SCREAM without doing real harm to myself or anyone else. I see everyone has now started to attack Robert, and feel bad about it, but at least everybody is being honest about their feelings.

I still don't think Robert means any harm, but he needs to honor the purpose of this community. The ugly truth is fine, as long as it really IS the truth. If he isn't sure, or can't justify his viewpoint with real data, then he should say so. However, if he intends to spread the "good news" about TSM, we should listen without judging. If nothing else, it gives us practice in defending our experience against narrow-minded or uninformed individuals. If all goes well, we're going to need that. Robert might become a lab rat himself in that sense! All I ask is that we remain open to different viewpoints, despite inevitable diagreements. (Let's play nice)

I think frustration is a healthy thing when we can openly acklowedge and respect it amongst fellow soldiers. This road isn't easy, but at least we're not alone. Don't kick anyone off the bus, even if they're not headed for the same destination. Witnesses (especially the skeptics) will be our most valuable resource if we succeed. I think the 'more the merrier' is OK for now - we can take it, so bring it on! (Just politely stay in your seats when the bus stops along the way). The survivors will choose to ride along with us, and the non-believers can hop off whenever they like. We'll get better milage without the extra dead weight !

Y'know, SpringRider, it really is hard to upset me, but you've obviously given it your all. One of my listeners told Dr. Dave about my podcast, and I provided introductions between him and Dr. Sinclair. It would be kinda pointless for me to cut and paste from Wikipedia considering that I wrote and/or facilitated the authoring of most of their article on Alcoholism, and the first generation of their article on the Sinclair Method. I already have quite the pile of correspondence with Dr. Sinclair, thank you very much, and Dr. Eskapa is the guy who suggested I check out this forum in the first place.

But, really, I don't want to get into an argument about my qualifications, so I'll leave that to others.

If anyone would like to read the study I cited, it's available from the Intellectual Icebergs site as part of an informational packet that I put together for all of the people I've tried to introduce to the method. There's another interesting (and much more comprehensible) article included in that packet entitled "Evidence about the use of naltrexone and for different ways of using it in the treatment of alcoholism" written by Dr. Sinclair in 2000 for Alcohol & Alcoholism (Alcohol & Alcoholism Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 2-10. 2001). It's a good read. Here's the packet:

http://www.intellectualicebergs.org/dl/PE_info.zip

Q, you got me on misinterpreting the plateau. I was using it to support my statement that two months was a reasonable point at which you should be able to see some results. I think that the graph does support that statement, even though it obviously does not support the statement that the effects of the treatment plateau at that point. Thank you for catching that one. If I can't defend what I say, it deserves to be knocked down.

Marabella, I'm sorry to say that the entire Sinclair Method defies a lot of people's common sense. I'm glad that you all could overcome that bias and try it at all.

Q, no, naltrexone is neither particularly deadly nor is it a neuroinhibitor. Naltrexone has an effective-to-deadly ratio of about 4000. For reference, that of aspirin is 400, for Tylenol it's actually only 38, and for alcohol that number is 10. So, no, naltrexone isn't at all deadly. Alcohol, on the other hand, is both deadly AND a neuroinhibitor (supplementing GABA, specifically), and TSM absolutely requires it. That's the whole point - naltrexone alone isn't enough. Personally, I have the fear that someone will take TSM as free license to drink themselves into a coma, so I tend to bring that up.

Fun fact: number of Robert's friends who have died of alcohol toxemia: 2. Well, ok, not so fun.


Q, there is no mention of these forms of alcoholism ANYWHERE. In the two and a half years that I edited the Wikipedia article, it was necessary for me to reconcile many diverse viewpoints on what exactly alcoholism is. What I discovered is that everyone was right, given an adequately small subset of alcoholics. Those who perceived alcoholism as a mental health issue found people for whom it WAS a mental health issue, and used that as proof that they were right. Those who perceived it as a moral issue, ditto. A couple hundred years ago, people figured out that alcohol caused physical dependence, and until the 50's (?) or so, they thought THAT was all there was to alcoholism. Even Dr. Sinclair's original set was self-selected as a group of people who accepted that they were alcoholics and wanted to get better, and as such were skewed towards those who had demonstratively beaten the mental health issue.

The problem is that alcoholism is ALL of these things, in varying combination for each person. All of them need to be treated for a person to be completely cure. The miracle of the Sinclair Method is that the endorphin addiction is the one category for which there was no cure before it came along.

All and all, though, you're right that my reason for being here isn't the same as yours. I'm not here because I'm addicted to alcohol. I'm not here to bolster my career as a doctor of alcoholism. If you really must know, I'm here because my older brother was arrested for selling pot in school, and because my mother was killed by a drunk driver. You'll probably have to figure out yourself how that adds up to me wanting to be involved here, because this board isn't about me.

Houtx and all, I'm certain that I owe you and everyone else an apology for the two month time frame. Six months is a perfectly good goal, and I'll happily support everyone's efforts to get there. Averages are just that, and attempting to apply them to everyone leaves half of the people out in the cold.

PLEASE!

Let's just get back to what this is all about, and what's important. While it's really impressive that there are so many intelligent contributors here, let's not let egos get in the way and turn something really valuable into a pissing contest between dueling intellectuals. Trust me - the rest of us regular folks are in awe and intimidated by your diaologue. Now what?

I'm at the point where I almost don't give a **** about the facts (because nobody agrees on them anyway) - what will satisfy your need to always be right? What we need right now is to support each other, learn from our collective experience, and analyze it later. If we must disagree - OK, but stop turning it into a personal battle between smart people who should all be working towards the main goal. Maybe start a new 'Arguments' thread? Just a thought, but it might be a good idea...

Agreed KK.

I wasn't planning on getting involved with this, but Robert, at the top of the board it does state it is 'A Community for Users of The Sinclair Method'.

I don't have any problem at all with non-users coming on board, for various reasons that they may have, but maybe you could respect the users, and don't try to pùll apart every single comment we may have made. We don't do that to each other, remember we all have a serious addiction which we are still indulging and we do quite a good job of understanding and empathising with each other. I am getting the feeling to watch what I post for fear of it being ripped apart.

I don't have anyone around me for support, not a doctor, no friends- I live with my BF but he would not understand AT ALL. Nobody knows I am trying this method, the only place I can come to discuss my thoughts, feelings and progress (or maybe lack of) is here. I and other users need to feel we can do that without having our opinions dissected to see if they match up with the 'facts'.

I would like to request that any/all non-Sinclair user(s) who come on our board respect our opinions, and observes from a non-judgemental space.

Marabella, I was fine with the opinions of this group right up to the point where those opinions became "Robert is a voyeur and a fraud who, at a cocktail party, would be known as a blow-heart at best but more likely regarded as a whacko." You have no idea the number of times people really have thought that about me simply because I was trying to explain the Sinclair Method to them.