THE SINCLAIR METHOD IN NOT FOR THOSE WHO ARE CURRENTLY ABSTINENT AND DOING WELL WITH ABSTINENCE.

THIS IS ABSOLUTE. WE DO NOT WISH TO DUPE ANYONE WHO HAS ACHIEVED ABSTINENCE INTO THINKING THE SINCLAIR METHOD IS AN EXCUSE FOR RETURNING TO ALCOHOL.


IT IS ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE CURRENTLY DRINKING... WHO HAVE RELAPSED BACK TO HEAVY DRINKING OR WISH TO REGAIN CONTROL OVER THEIR ADDICTION... WHICH IT WILL DO FOR ABOUT 80 % OF FOLKS. GIVEN TIME - 3 TO 4 MONTHS UP TO 6 MONTHS. IT IS ALSO INTENDED FOR EXCESSIVE 'SOCIAL DRINKERS' WHO WANT TO CUT BACK OR AIM FOR ABSTINENCE, OR CUT BACK CRAVING AND DRINKING TO SAFE LEVELS: ALL THIS FOR SOCIAL, HEALTH OR PERSONAL REASONS.

DR ROY

I make the following observation with great trepidation because of my great respect for Dr. Eskapa. Also, I realize that permitting alcoholics the chance to drink again in order to be "cured" of their addiction involves HUGE life and death risks for many people. But there IS a second side to this issue and to ignore it is to do a disservice to critical thinking. And it is my honest opinion and I'm offering it, for what it is worth. Please take it or leave it, I'M NO EXPERT, just a drunk lawyer seeking a cure who speaks his mind.

In my opinion, there are no "ABSOLUTES" when it comes to drinking, unless you buy into those they preach in AA, like the fact that I have an "incurable disease", suffer from a "spiritual disorder" and can never drink again and if I do I'm "incapable of being honest with myself." ABSOLUTE RULES that cannot be questioned accurately describe a cult. I have no interest in being in a cult. I ask questions and raise issues, no matter how controversial.

At what point is a person "abstinent"? I ask this for personal reasons. I hadn't had a drink for ten days when I started TSM, having vowed to finally address my addiction. Is this "abstinence"? Probably yes, by many people's standards. And if the answer to that question is yes, well then according to Dr. Eskapa, I should have stuck with that route and not tried TSM. Even though that's a route I've taken at least twenty or thirty times in my life, only to end in complete failure. And even though TSM is clearly a "miracle cure" for me.

And a note about "DOING WELL WITH ABSTINENCE." What does that mean, exactly? I friggin' hated my stints of abstinence. Was I awake, going to work and fulfilling my responsibilities in life? Yes. But I was already doing that as a HFA. Meanwhile, during those periods of abstinence, I was completely convinced that everything I enjoyed in life was over with, that I could never again sit down with my best buddies at happy hour and have a beer; or go to a great restaurant and enjoy some wine before the meal; or go to a game and toss back some brews with my pals; or go out and listen to music and dance without feeling self-conscious; or go to parties/BBQs/vacations, etc. and celebrate life with a few cocktails, just like everyone else. In brief, I COULD GO ON AND ON FOR PAGES ABOUT ALL OF THE WAYS ALCOHOL MADE MY LIFE A LOT HAPPIER AND HOW MUCH I MISSED IT during my many -- albeit brief -- times of abstinence. Do obsessive thoughts and feelings like these, namely, that I'll never be happy again without alcohol, meet the definition of "DOING WELL WITH ABSTINENCE"? Not by my definition!

Please define for me the terms, DOING WELL WITH ABSTINENCE and secondarily, ABSTINENCE -- how many AF days are needed to meet the definition before a person should not take naltrexone? What exactly does it mean, "doing well with abstinence"? When a few adequate answers are given to these questions, then and only then will I agree with Dr. Eskapa's ABSOLUTE rule that TSM is ONLY meant for those who continue to drink alcohol. It is my personal opinion that alcoholics who are not currently drinking, but who are at high risk for relapse because of ongoing compulsive thinking about alcohol, might do well to consider The Sinclair Method as a way to improve their overall quality of life.

Nick - I think the general concensus on this board is that we would never encourage anyone that is abstinent (by their own definition) to drink again.

However, many would recommend that the person should consider getting Nal as a back up plan in case they fail in their abstinence. If they slip and return to drinking, they will benefit from starting TSM...of course, anyone is free to do whatever they want and I doubt anyone would argue too much with a person who only had a week or two of AFs under their belt as that is not really representative of a real commitment for many (e.g. I had no issue going AF for a few weeks prior to starting - it was getting past the 2-3 month mark that presented a challenge).

It's easier to keep the rule simple: 'if you are abstinent, stay that way' (but have Plan B handy, just in case).

I liken this to telling your friend that you have a wonderful prosthetic leg. Would you recommend he/she cut off their leg just to try your new one?


But I do have split feelings on the topic. I have some friends who became sober through AA. He has been sober 15 yrs and says that the thought of drinking never enters his mind. His wife, on the other hand, has been sober for 6 yrs. and says she thinks about drinking all the time. In AA parlance, we call that "white knuckle" sober. Since the addiction forces are there in full force, might she be better off surrendering to the desire to drink and going forward with the Sinclair Method?

The question is rhetorical. You have stated your position numerous times but I just wanted to express that many people who are not drinking are not always doing well with abstinence. If they were, the failure rate of AA would be considerably lower.

A more accurate analogy would be this: I have a leg that has been broken several times and is still functional, but causes me great pain when I walk on it. In addition, there is an interior itch in my leg that is driving me crazy but I just can't scratch it and make it go away. Would I be better off replacing this leg that is causing me so much ongoing discomfort with a high-tech prosthetic? A prosthetic that has worked fully for at least 80% of the people who have tried it and perhaps 90% of the people who have tried it correctly?

I've been a "white knuckler" sober person before and was miserable. Like almost all of us, I've seen numerous "dry drunks" who rip people's heads off for no reason, are generally miserable human beings, and who are just serving out their life sentence here on earth as addicted people who never get to scratch their itch.

If you declare the simple, absolute rule, "Don't use the Sinclair Method" if you are not currently drinking, then you are issuing a life sentence of misery for a HUGE group of people. It also raises the question of the strength of the 80% cure rate (or more if you take the drug correctly) -- the risk might be worth it if you weigh the chance of success, right? And another issue, what about the plight of those poor souls who have been prescribed AntiBuse? If TSM is ONLY for drinkers, then the AntiBuse users -- who, by definition are abstaining -- are simply out of luck, right?

Sorry, the absolute rule does not add up in every case. Like everything in life, there is some gray area regarding this issue, whether the experts involved wish to discuss it openly or not. There is a risk analysis that must be done. There are many alkies who drink a lot but who are not in imminent danger from their habit. NOT EVERY RECOVERING ALKIE POSES A HUGE RISK TO THEIR PERSONAL WELL-BEING IF THEY DRINK AGAIN. Some of these people might be good candidates for TSM, IMO. It's a personal decision that they'll have to make for themselves, after carefully weighing the risk of harm they incur by drinking again against the potential and highly likely benefit of having their cravings cured, IMO.