http://www.originsrecovery.com/what-abo ... lair-metho

This topic merits its own post. It would appear that the for-profit, corporate recovery industry is being asked about TSM more and more these days. And its response is predictable: it claims that there is no evidence to support the efficacy of TSM, labels our self-help community "TSM drunks" and concludes that alcoholism is a spiritual disease, citing absolutely no scientific data in support of its conclusions.

As a preliminary matter, let's examine the possible motives behind the FOR PROFIT RECOVERY INDUSTRY (I'll call them FPRI for short) as opposed to proponents of TSM. FPRI is a long-established, multi-billion dollar industry that charges in-treatment patients thousands and thousands of dollars. ($50,000 for a single 28-day stint is not uncommon.) Billions of dollars and thousands of jobs are at stake in maintaining the AA model of recovery. In sharp contrast, we here on this board are not making one penny off of TSM. We have no profit motive. We are here for one reason: TSM works and we want to save people a life of misery and premature death. Draw your own conclusions about which side of the argument has credibility and which side of the argument has ulterior motives.

The "critical analysis" of TSM that follows is laughable. It claims that TSM does not work and that research on the subject has been going on all the way back to the 1980s. This is patently false. Naltrexone was around in the 1980s and there were many studies done regarding Naltrexone with abstinence. That is NOT TSM and Naltrexone with abstinence does not work. Alternatively, research on TSM is new and ongoing. Most of the studies are post-2000 and most of the studies -- none referenced in FPRI's attacks -- show that TSM has had a superb, 78% efficacy rate. The Cure for Alcoholism details 72 studies in support of TSM (mostly in Europe), as does the science behind the method section of this Board.

The article goes on to discuss AA's success rate. With empirical data? No. Because AA's own studies -- long since discontinued because of their pathetic efficacy -- conclude that AA has a 95% failure/relapse rate. Not surprisingly, this fact is not contained in FPRI's baseless attack on TSM. What is their empirically-backed, scientific "critical analysis" of AA's success rate? "We believe [that AA principles] have saved, many, many lives." That is their scientifically-backed data. "We believe." I'm convinced, are you?

The attack continues with a wildly inaccurate summary of TSM. The one blatantly faulty premise contained throughout the article is that drinking on Naltrexone removes the euphoria and thus incentive to drink. Anyone who ever has consumed alcohol on Naltrexone knows that this is false: people still get a buzz drinking on Naltrexone. The buzz is not as euphoric as a non-nal buzz, but it is very potent, nonetheless. Naltrexone does NOT wipe out the euphoria of drinking, it eliminates the effect of endorphins on the brain and occurs on a SUBCONSCIOUS level. TSM works without us being aware that it is working. This fact -- overlooked entirely by this bogus critique of the method -- completely undermines the biggest argument made against TSM, namely, that no alcoholic would adhere to the regimen. This claim has been proven to be entirely false both by the studies (which report a remarkable 90% compliance rate of following the regimen -- The Cure, page 72) and by the posts here of several hundred people. Of the thousands of posts here, you will not find a single person who claims they are not willing to take the drug because it will diminish their high. Not taking the medication is a complete non-issue on this board, other than a few people who report forgetting to take the drug. A handful of people have reported missing the euphoric buzz of drinking without Naltrexone, but not one person has given up on the method for this reason. The studies support this conclusion as well.

The article, laughably claiming to be a "critical analysis", goes on to throw out a bunch of absurd speculative conclusions, based not upon scientific data, but specious claims. Pulled out of no where, and conjuring up images of the 1950's movie, "Reefer Madness", the baseless speculation is clearly aimed at scaring people away from TSM. If TSM does really work, then we will inevitably turn to other, more lethal, addictive drugs. Really? Is this a scientifically-based conclusion or a fear tactic? There is absolutely no scientific data offered to support it so you make the call. And has a single person on this board reported that since they have regained control, they are now using Meth or other drugs? This is laugh-out-loud speculation based upon nothing empirical and completely refuted by the experience of hundreds of people on this board, not to mention the studies. It is also based upon the false theory that we alcoholics suffer some spiritual malady that causes us to want to escape. Where is the scientific data behind this laughable assertion? The dozens of people (over 40, as of this writing) who have regained control here and who have no interest in drinking or other drugs are proof positive this theory is false.

The article also discusses "upregulation" and the fact that TSM creates more opioid receptors in the brain and that if we drink off of Naltrexone even once, we are susceptible to wild binges. Really? Where is the scientific data to support this bogus claim? Hint: there is none. I drank off of Naltrexone for two months and all I got out of it was a very gradual slide back into over-drinking, just like pre-TSM. Hundreds of people here have drank without their Naltrexone without going on a binge. In fact, I don't know of anyone who reported drinking off of Naltrexone once, only to find it so appealing that they quit the method. That is pure fabrication, concocted by a desperate industry, creating false arguments to stir up fear in their potential patients, aimed at nothing more than protecting profits. The fact of the matter is that if you drink off of Naltrexone once, there isn't some wildly euphoric feeling. Personally, I felt the drug still working when I drank without it -- my urge to drink was SHARPLY reduced during the time I drank off of the drug because of pharmacological extinction. My return to unhealthy drinking was very gradual and took weeks. And it immediately went away as soon as I resumed TSM. Numerous people on this board who drank off of Naltrexone report the same thing: not some euphoric binge, but a reduction in consumption precipitated by extinction.

The article goes on to discuss "Sinclair Method drunks." Really? Is that what we are? Because we don't subscribe to the AA model, we are ridiculed and mocked? If that's a "spiritual awakening" -- ridiculing people in dire need of help -- I'd prefer to be in a coma. The fact that we are a large, self-help community, who have not benefited from AA and are desperately searching for life-saving alternatives, should not result in our disparagement. Can you imagine any other patient being ridiculed for seeking alternative treatment? Imagine the cancer patient being told they have a month to live, only to be ridiculed for seeking alternatives. And the ridiculing tone of the attack underlies the irrefutable fact that the FPRI actually has disdain and contempt for the very patients they claim to be serving. How, exactly, are "TSM drunks" any different than the patients the FPRI claim to care about? There is only one reason for this type of disdain: a profit motive. The FPRI knows that if TSM works, they are out of business. There is no other incentive to attack us. And at what cost? Thousands and thousands of people are not being given access to this life-saving treatment. It's nothing short of a disgrace.

Personally, I'm ready to fight these liars. I am willing to go public with my identity to do it. If anyone here has any ideas on how to fight the FPRI or would like to join me, please let me know.

{stands up, throws hat in air, claps wildly}

Bravo! Hear hear, sir! Hell yes!

Amazing post Nick! We should sticky this.

As far as fighting them though, I'm not sure if that is necessary. I almost feel that any press about TSM is good because it gets the word out. We kind of have to weigh it out though... how many people will learn of TSM who never heard of it before versus how many people will be deterred from trying TSM because of this article?

I was one of those desperate alcoholics who was deterred from trying Naltrexone (I hadn't heard of the Sinclair Method yet) by an addiction "specialist" who prescribed to the 12-step model. It definitely prolonged my suffering by roughly a year. But maybe I would have abandoned AA sooner if I had known about TSM?

I think somehow getting the word out about this forum would be the best way to fight them. But how do we do that? I know it sounds selfish of me, but until I get more regained control time under my belt, I'm still reluctant about breaking anonymity. No one trusts an alcoholic who has been recovered for only a few months. People don't really start believing you have recovered until you have at least one year under your belt.

No, that's not selfish at all, wanting to wait. The fact of the matter is that because I too, drank off of Naltrexone this past winter, I am open to the allegation that TSM somehow failed me. But it has not. I report the truth and the truth will set us free. I also am open to criticism because I continue to drink, although at a tiny fraction of my former addicted self and within healthy levels. For that reason alone, I have considered going AF entirely. If there ever comes a time where I'm publicly in a position of supporting TSM, I may very well go AF entirely, just to take away that argument from opponents. "Yeah, but he STILL drinks... No one can be recovered and still drink, even if at healthy levels." Yadah-yadah.

Nick, you know my stance here. I just need to come through the other side and "regain control" and I will help put together a presentation/production that will feature a handful of speakers/TSMers and some medical professionals and then we are taking it on the road.

I just need more time.

But if you put something together I will join the tour de force in the future.

Love that the lawyer in you is ready and preparing to defend us all as well as The Sinclair Method.

I feel safer beneath your wing!

Believe me,

Ketchikan1

Aw, thanks. Yes, I know you will be a warrior for the method. And I understand completely -- I kept my mouth shut about the method until I knew for myself that it was legitimate. Once you discover that for yourself, you will fight for the method like a tiger defending her cubs.

What complete sleaze bags these people are; claiming to care about alcoholics and labeling us "TSM drunks." Gee, thanks for the help. Sounds to me like they might be missing something from their "spiritual awakening."

Hi Nick- I appreciate that you are willing to post topics and articles for discussion like this. I think it helps the forum as a whole to keep TSM and all aspects of recovery in perspective. I'd like to add my two cents on the article in how it relates to my (admittedly new) view on TSM:

-They are taking a very narrow view on who an alcoholic is. To try and say that an alcoholic is unable to prescribe to "the proper medication regimen" is completely asinine and I was actually offended by it. It's part of the overal tone of the article that paints a picture of an alcoholic as "one of those people" when in fact they walk among us everywhere. They are your kids teacher, your mailman, your checkout lady, your lawyer.

-The part about it leading to harder drugs was just stupid.

-TSM isn't just about a biological change as they say. It is slowly reinforcing a new set of behaviors and habits- the two actions of biology as well as behavior are working together.

-I agree with what AA tries to do, I really do and for some addicts it can prove to be a way out- ecspecially if you are a church going christian. But, I think the philosophy and method is far far too atiquated. People come to addiction for many different reasons: because it helps lesson their anxiety, because they're bored, because they can't handle stress, because they regret a decision to marry a man and it's not working out but they have two kids and just bought their first house and they have and unfulfilling career....oh.. ahem. Basically it comes down to an inappropriate coping skill to problems. And that coping can go on for years and years making it harder and harder to change.
And so, I think, people can leave the addiction in different ways. For some it's going to be AA, for others it will be the My Way Out forum, and for some it will be TSM. I don't understand why any method should be denounced if it can work for some people. I agree that TSM will probably not work for everyone, but it should not be labled as wrong. It's just another tool in the toolbox to fix a life.

-The part about not really alcoholics but heavy drinkers was rather uneducated. Yes, I am a heavy drinker but I gaurantee you that if I take any of those "Are you an alcoholic?" questionnaires (many of them supplied by organizations like them!) I would be labled as alcoholic.

-Lastly, did you notice "Most Insurance Accepted" right on top? Might as well say "Show Me the Money"!

Whew! Okay thanks for letting me rant. And guess what? I was waiting for the hour to pass after the Nal so I could dive into the wine and got on this forum instead. Now it's been nearly two hours and I haven't poured a drop. Little steps to changing a big habit.

-dragonfly

Nick,

Thanks for the heads-up about these clowns. Your post is excellent and I need not reiterate your points. As soon as I read the direct reference to me at the end of that shameless propaganda piece on the Origins site, I replied to them by identifying myself as the "gentleman" who swills beer and smokes on his videos, or used to, since I have been sober for three months now, even though I can have a drink any time I want one as long as I take naltrexone an hour before. I corrected them on each claim they made about me and added a link to my new Youtube video and dared them to report honestly on it.

These guys accused me of calling AA people "weak-minded" and "evil" when what I actually said is that AA is a form of religion disguised as medical treatment. They didn't use my name, but I have never seen a video on TSM featuring any other guy who was smoking cigarettes, drinking beer and flashing his copy of "The Cure For Alcoholism" on camera. These jackasses also accused me of claiming to be a doctor.

I sent a link to the Origins propaganda as well as a link to your post to Dr. Eskapa. I am about to make a brand-new video especially for these bozos.

Here's my latest video, made before you let me know the score about Origins. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdKS0qUVwik

Feel free to write directly about what they said about me in your post, if you want to. I was once incarcerated in a lockdown 12-step center after being declared a danger to myself in a court of law. I was locked up there, with gangbangers and meth tweakers for five months. Believe me, these country club punks don't scare me. Let's bring it to them with tongs, Nick.

BenTSM

I'm with you Ben. Or should I say, "Doctor Ben"? I noticed they made up a story that you called yourself a doctor in your video. I was surprised by that because I watched all of your videos and you never once said that you were a doctor! Nothing like mixing in a complete lie on top of an entirely fabricated and inaccurate assessment of TSM. I copy and pasted my post and sent it to them in an email, not that it will do any good. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

My best,

Nick

This has been a very helpful discussion for me. I said before how the article struck me: They feel threatened. AA is shrinking. The solid information about it and its founders are all over the internet.



It is very helpful to know that. I think there are medications out there that drastically affect brain chemistry in ways that are destructive. When I first read about “upregulation,” it started to spook me because I could see a part of my boozer brain that would like to play with that. I really don’t want to play with anything or be on any medication that is playing with me! I just want to be free from the crutches of alcohol. That was the one part of the article that concerned me. Thanks for clarifying it, Nick.

I don’t know how to legally fight what they said. Maybe Ben could since he was unwillingly used for their purposes. They intended to profit from deriding him publicly, so it seems to me that there may be something there to work with. Good job, Ben, on writing to Espaka too. Again, there may be something legal there too if they are telling lies to cut into his income. There is a commercial site out there too (thesinclairmethod.com) that might be interested. I don’t know who they are or how people here feel about them but, again, it’s money on the line. That seems to me to be the sort of thing that litigation is made of.

I do think it is fair, and even necessary, that every form of recovery (and every subject in the world) be scrutinized and critiqued - with no punches pulled out of fear of hurting someone’s feelings. But I also believe that the criticism should be accurate and based on fact rather than dogma. The article was very inaccurate and based on dogma.

As to getting the message of TSM out there, social media is a good way to do that. A website might help too. I hate to say it, but a lot of people, especially younger people, are accustomed to seeing pictures, an intro page that explains in simple terms what it is all about, with the following pages going into more detail. I have a hunch that many of the social media generation might not be moved to explore a text-only forum site just because they are accustomed to more eye-candy.

That’s my thoughts anyway. I am very much enjoying the discussion.