Of course it is correct. Once again, for professional scientists among us:

On placebo: reduction of ~ 2 units
On naltrexone: reduction of ~ 3 units

Now, those who take Naltrexone are subject to placebo effect just the same as those who take sham control. Therefore, the Naltrexone-specific, placebo-independent effect is 3-2=1 unit. I.e., placebo effect of ~ 2 units is obviously higher than naltrexone effect of ~ 1 unit.

This is basic stuff... Now, you could argue that placebo and drug effects might not be simply additive. But the placebo and drug interaction is never antagonistic. It is either additive or synergistic (in the latter case the placebo-independent naltrexone effect would be even smaller).
See:
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/23/8053.abstract
(argues for pure additivity)
http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/11/1/110
(argues for a new mechanism of synergism)

No, it is absolutely not correct. No need to again walk me through the logic that brought you to make what could be considered a "confusing at best" statement, if it weren't factually incorrect.

There was not a group in this study that was on placebo alone. ALL study participants, including those on placebo were given "motivational and adherence-enhancing intervention to support them in changing their behavior and to enhance adherence to treatment." Treatment with a placebo PLUS MOTIVATIONAL BEHAVIOR TRAINING caused a drop in consumption, that by itself was of larger magnitude than the additional benefit derived from nal WHEN COMBINED WITH MOTIVATIONAL BEHAVIOR TRAINING. You may consider the difference between that statement and your original statement subtle. I don't.

I am not trying to be an argumentative d*ck despite how it seems. You have represented yourself as an expert, and then either misinterpreted or miscommunicated the findings of this paper. People will believe the words that you say because they believe you to be an expert, even though this is an anonymous forum. When you tell people "the placebo effect is bigger than the drug's effect," you could very easily cause people to lose hope in a treatment that WILL work for them, WILL give them some relief from their condition, but DOES take some time to work. Making statements that are factually incorrect (even if they are allllmost correct) that could cause people to lose hope at a critical point is irresponsible.

I very much doubt that we will be able to now have an honest and productive conversation, but in a way that's too bad. I see that you have discontinued treatment with nal. I'm extremely interested in why it stopped working for you. Like you, I believe that people often overstate the benefit that they are getting from nal, and that can be a very bad thing. I don't really believe in the promises of "the Sinclair Method." That said, for me, nal has indeed been a miracle drug. It has been a game-changer. It didn't cure me of my alcoholism like Sinclair promised or like a few other people have experienced, but it changed my relationship with alcohol enough that I could make changes in my behaviors that have fundamentally changed the course of my life. Of course I am concerned that at only a 1.5 years in, by 3 years in, it will have stopped working for me like it did for you. I'd love to know what you feel led to this decreased effect so that I can avoid it... Of course I've probably acted like too much of a jerk to get a decent response, but I feel that it's important people understand the study you shared.

Fine. If you want to nitpick, let's rephrase:
"Placebo plus motivational behavior training has a larger effect in this study than TSM alone."

Yes, I did lump motivational training together with placebo. Everyone knows that for all practical intents and purposes motivational behavior training does not work in the long term. If it did, there would be no problem with treating any substance dependence and vast amounts of sums would not be expended on funding pharmacological research. But I am sure that you already know that. Being scientist and all

I have actually resumed taking Nal. It seems to work exactly the same way it worked the first two times (i.e., there does not seem to be any long-term desensitization). While on it, I drink about 3-4X less but still firmly into ~ 4 units per day territory. And I absolutely have to force myself into making AF days happen. It probably is a dosage issue - taking 100 mg makes me slightly nauseated and further reduces consumption. But as there is essentially nothing known of long-term effects (years, not months) of high dosage naltrexone, I don't really feel it's a good idea to keep doing it for much longer if I cannot reduce drinking to a handful of days in a month. I am giving TMS another disciplined year and if it still does not work, will start working towards abstinence. It worked with smoking, it should also work with alcohol. Just more difficult.

Thanks so much to you both Nutella and generic for the discussion of the results. Very useful information. Like both of you my response to Nal has been less than the miracle that others seems to relate, but yes still a miracle for me in that it has tipped the scales enough for me to be able to focus my behavior on other aspects of life that can multiply that effect. Considering how minuscule the effect of say weight-loss medications are in light of their fda approval, I certainly hope this study will help move this drug into approval for a non-abstinence usage in the US. Simply put, the study seems to prove that nal reduces excess drinking.

Exactly right, catmattress, you clearly understand what the paper claims. Your summary is succinct and accurate.