Hi, David! I hope this post finds you well. I have thought about your experience with the alcohol treatment counselor and her “malarkey” comment. It doesn’t discourage me. It actually saddens me to learn a psychiatrist, someone who was trained in medicine, would keep someone like her in his office. She has an agenda, based on her preset notions of what works without any scientific evidence.
First, 30 days of “intensive outpatient therapy,” but she won’t say what you will talk about? What is her plan of “treatment?” Examining your character flaws? Just how would she explain Dr. Sinclair’s rats? Rats aren’t exactly moral: they are animals. But rats can be bred to show the same traits as human alcoholics, so this isn’t a moral problem. It’s a genetic one. Without hours of embarrassing confessions and mind games, the rats quit drinking in the similar percentages as later humans who took naltexone. So, there is a chemical treatment to end this.
Second, what are her qualifications to make these assertions? Is she like the person who posted the following:
“I have been certified in Understanding Medications used to treat Alcoholism, and I went to the Sinclair Method page and read about it. While I know of nobody who has utilized this method, their claim of an 80% success rate seems far fetched. I guess it all depends on what they consider success, I would be interested in hearing from someone who has done this also.”
[url]
http://www.addictionsurvivors.org/vbull ... hp?t=23406[/url]
The person who posted that post, without even reading anything, is supposedly“certified in understanding medications used to treat alcoholism.” Therefore, she is asserting she is some kind of expert, or at least more capable than a layman. Yet, she believes anecdotal statements are somehow scientific evidence. Without reading the COMBINE study, which is hardly anecdotal, she is interested in “hearing from someone who has done this also.” I guess if she went to a meeting and someone stood up and said, “in this alcoholic’s opinion” she would be convinced, never mind 80+ studies reaching similar or supporting conclusions. I searched for the terms quoted in the first sentence, no direct match. I have no idea what “certified in Understanding Medications used to treat Alcoholism” means, but, after some dissection, it doesn’ t appear to mean much.
What is defined as success? Read the study and it describes the outcome. TSM describes success as control of drinking to safe usage. AA defines success as abstinence. I define success as not having negative outcomes from alcohol. AA wants to give it’s followers a new belief system. TSM doesn’t. The hours on end in “the Rooms,” aren’t about alcoholism as much as reinforcing that belief system. I define success as when I can go through a whole day and never once think of alcohol. That precludes AA, because they build their lives around avoiding alcohol. I simply wish to be indifferent.
Look at your empirical evidence, what does it tell you? The nal is working! Your wife has told you the progress. However small that progress may seem, she sees it, and so do you. I am so happy for you!
By the way, quitting smoking is so much easier than quitting drinking, or it was for me. And I didn’t do that by myself, I used wellbutrin and patches.
I do hope you will continue to post, and share as much of your experiences as you are comfortable with. Those of us who have found TSM must share it, as there are so many misconceptions for such a simple system!
Nal on!!!!