Hi

Thank you SR I found your post here very useful - as well as the reply from Dr Sinclair, although he did'nt exactly answer your specific question. Nonetheless, I believe Dr Sinclair always focuses on success rather than failure and that is surely the way to go. I am one of those 'high unit' people struggling as you have outlined. I have begun to ask myself if I am addicted to two things - alcohol and the habit of drinking alcohol. I am on week 20 and have religiously taken Nal before every drink. I did that thing of just drinking when I wanted and indeed my levels went up to start with. I have been on about 70-80 units per week for some time. I do have the odd AF day but only infrequently - never two at a time. I still find it hard to stop once I start drinking. However, and this is important, when I decide on an AF these days it is MUCH easier to do. I had an interesting experience recently when I was at a dinner party after a day out gardening in strong sun. I had incidently taken 100mg of Nal instead of 20 (I don't know if this had any affect as Ive never had side affects and have occasionally taken 100mg since with no affects). I had a few glasses of wine at the party and then, suddenly during the starter I felt nauseous, turned green and had to leave the table to go to the toilet where I wretched and threw up. I could not touch the main course or the wine. For the remainder of that evening I experienced what it feels like NOT to be addicted to alcohol. I guess it was sunstroke but, it gave me a little insight into the feelings I have around alcohol and why they are 'abnormal' most of the time.

The above experience has caused me to evaluate the feelings that come up when I contemplate doing two AFs in a row (like today) and find I experience discomfort and panic at the thought of it. But, this is only dysfunctional thinking after all - amazing the power it seems to have over me. I really like what you say SR about the fact that once you started getting AF days things really started moving for you. Also, the fact that you consciously decided to use delay tactics with respect to a first drink or even another AF day. I believe there is something in the need to apply our conscious minds to the task as well as trust that stuff is happening at a subcounsious level.

I now look forward to the day when I see alcohol as I did on the night I described above. Then I will know I am cured.

Dr Sinclair its good to hear that fMRI studies are in progress. It will be very interesting to see before and after results following Nal treatment or placebo.

Thanks to you all

Camelia

Hi Camelia,
Well, in a sense Dr. Sinclair did answer my question quite accurately but it was the question that I only asked implicitly. The struggling to not drink and delay drinking had been part of my pattern pre-Naltrexone. I would drink heavily, possibly Friday night and Saturday and then maybe dryup on Sunday and if I was still feeling bad, not drink on Monday. Of course, by Tuesday the desire would peak again. At times I would swear off for a week and even up to a month. This normally followed some internal melt-down like a threat of loss of job, marraige, etc. So what I was doing with the protocol was actually following a portion of my drinking pattern and an important one of that. Identifying that trigger was a break through for me.

Keep pushing ahead. It is always darkest before the dawn. Accept set-backs as progress. It may sound crazy but what we are calling a set back is actually the discovery of deeper triggers. When I woudl defer my drinking, I would always return with a bang. But that was discovery. Just be sure you take the Naltrexone before you drink.

It will work for you. You happen to be at the time frame where I had doubt. And our expectations are up by then so every little drink looks like failure.

You are doing it right and I will see you at the checkered flag.
SR

Hi Sr

thanks for that encouraging message. These boards are a phenomenal source of support for those hiding a 'dark secret'. I am travelling ++ for next few weeks but should get a chance to drop by from time to time. My Nal is packed of course!!

Cheers

Camelia

It may be worth researching, but I have read of the need for further research on women and naltrexone because women appeared to respond better to 100mg rather than 50. I cannot find the reference at the moment, but it might be something worth looking into or asking the good doctor.

I've never read any such thing, and I've read a lot. Unless you have a credible source, I don't think it's useful to discuss. The primary goal of this board is to give positive support to one another. Unfounded suggestions that we may be on the wrong dose do not advance that goal.

Dr. Eskapa makes clear in the book that, according to Dr. Sinclair, 50 mg is the dosage to block all opioid receptors. On this board he has made exceptions in individual cases. We would be wise to follow the protocol established by Dr. Sinclair unless we hear otherwise from a credible source.

I believe I saw it through a PubMed search on "naltrexone and alcohol treatment," which yielded 900+ results. I read many, many of the abstracts and papers, but I do not now intend to spend any time trying to relocated it given the response. I did not suggest anyone should up their dosage (which Cam already did, if you read her email...so I was trying to be supportive), but that it might be something to look into and "asking the good doctor."

Good luck to you.

I lied. I looked it up anyway. It was from an article by the American Council on Alcoholism. "Finding Effective Treatment for Alcohol Dependence" By Lloyd Vacovsky Executive Director, American Council on Alcoholism. (so this article is supportive of the choice of some women using 100mg...but "asking the good doctor" is always best...good luck)

Below is an short excerpt. Follow the link for full article http://www.aca-usa.org/pharm2.htm

"It is increasingly clear that issues such as dosage and length of treatment can vary greatly from individual to individual, and what may be appropriate for a man, is not necessarily so for a woman. A recent article published in THE SCIENTIST 16(6): 29: March 18, 2002 entitled THE INEQUALITY OF DRUG METABOLISM describes how the same medication and dosage often have different outcomes for men and women. Our experience has shown that a 50 mg dose of Naltrexone, when combined with therapy is usually effective for older males (40 and over), and usually ineffective, even with therapy for older females (40 and over). We have found that the most effective dose for most females is a minimum of 100 mg per day or even higher. It is interesting to note that much of the initial research on Naltrexone was conducted at Veterans Administration facilities, whose subjects were mostly older males."

Hmm . . . the study is from 2002 . . . seven years ago. Yet neither Sinclair nor Eskapa seem to have suggested adjusting the protocol.

The link you provided was very interesting. I notice it was dated today, which would be after your original post on this topic.

You raise some interesting questions. We have been burned on this board by distortions, so forgive those of us who are beyond skeptical and on to downright cynical.

It doesn't help when the source is a poster who says, "I lied."

I agree with the Original Poster. There is a real issue with how Dr. Eskapa presents the results of The Sinclair Method in his book "The Cure for Alcoholism."

First, I want to say that I think of Dr. Eskapa's book as "The Bible" with respect to The Sinclair Method. The book is just packed with facts, direction, and encouragement. Very good book!

However, I believe The Cure For Alcoholism does not do a very good job of reporting "Real World" results of The Sinclair Method. Most of us who read the book come away with the impression that within 3 months, 4 months tops, we'll be cured of our addiction and will basically care very little about consuming alcohol.

To date, the majority of those in this community who are actively following The Sinclair Method are not cured within 3-4 months. In fact, most of us are very near our pre-sinclair drinking levels 3+ months out. A very few have been cured withing the 3-4 month window (Spring Rider is one), but this is not the norm. Most of us simple are not cured at 3-4 months following The Sinclair Method.

At this point; we are all sailing into uncharted waters, looking for that point when we consider ourselves cured. Maybe it's 6 months out, maybe it's 8. I don't know. What I do know is that The Sinclair Method IS working. It is just a matter of time.

I do think it is important that we continue to report our experiences (positive and negative) with this method, so that others will not be discouraged when they do not achieve the results reported in Dr. Esckapa's book. Again, most of us here simple are not seeing results as quickly as reported in the book, but we are seeing results.

Q

Oh, lena, I think the poster meant he or she "lied" meaning they were not going to "look it up" and then did look it up and posted the results...At least that's how I read it. Just a confusion in the terminology.