Yes, we can

True.

However, our average here in this group is not 3-4 months. We have 0 people less than 3 months, a couple at about 4 months and most of us 4 months + and going. Mathmatically, our average is higher than 4 months and increasing (i.e, we still do not know when to expect a cure as most of us are still not cured 4+ months out). It is true that those who succeed will likely not continue to frequent this board. However, I have been here since before this site became active and I know of everyone who started TSM over at MWO and then came to this site. In fact, I was one of the first half a dozen posts here at thesinclairmethod.com and have personally kept in contact with those who started here, but are no longer involved.

I am not trying to cause conflict with my response here, but to clarify the results we in this new test group are seeing from The Sinclair Method. Dr. Eskapa's book states that we can expect a cure within 4 months. When those here in our group are not cured within 4 months, they will most certainly begin to doubt TSM, as I have, and perhaps stop. The very last worst thing that can happen is for a person to stop TSM because he/she thought it wasn't working because "The Book" said 4 months.

We need to be open and honest here about our experiences so that others coming in behind us can benefit from out experience. NONE of the clinical trials sampled a situation like we have here, therefore the results of these trials cannot be relied upon to predict what will happen in this group of people.

The experiences of this group so far are saying that most people are not cured at 4 months, but some time more than this. This time is yet to be seen as we are still all in the middle of our treatment.

Q

On pg. 118 of Dr. E's book he clearly states that a cure will take a minimum of 3-4 months. Minimum, people! The chart on the website provided by Stephanie, Dr. S's daughter, clearly shows there is ongoing improvement even at day 300, and steep spikes in drinking at every point on the way.

We've established that TSM research subjects were only moderately heavy drinkers, with an average of 37 upw. Members here who drank at these levels to start are having experiences closely reflecting those of the test subjects. Bravo! It proves that TSM does work as reported. Those folks were fortunate enough to be able to 'nip it in the bud,' and have successes at 3-4 months in. Some heavier drinkers are more sensitive to meds, and they also are reporting success.

What has not yet been tested, or reported, is how long a cure will take for those of us who drink two or three times as much as those people, and may not be as sensitive to the medication. It stands to reason it will almost surely take longer - perhaps much longer. Our brains are extraordinarily conditioned to anticipate that endorphine rush, and will be trying to demand it for a very long time. Think of our brains as similar to an extremely spoiled rotten kid - it takes awhile for the child to realize momma is really NOT gonna bring that baby bottle into the bedroom and coddle that spoiled 4 year old to sleep with it! (My brain on Naltrexone: "Waaaaa!!!! I want my bobba!!")

As for Lena 'censoring' the person who posted the link regarding women's metabolizing Naltrexone differently from men, she may have suspected that person was perhaps our old 'near and dear,' RR, posing as a different person. While that may not be so, the superior tone of the posts, and the quick defensiveness that cropped up, combined with the allusion to a possible negative factor regarding TSM sounded all too familiar. Pointing out that he is highly educated, and a 'philosopher' were red flags, as was the link to a potentially damaging, obscure research paper. Note there is no avatar associated with mciws, either. Since dear RR seems willing to stop at nothing to have 'his' say on this board - and many members become upset and discouraged by his posts - Lena was just doing her job trying to protect us from what may be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

BTW: Got an angry e-mail from said RR yesterday, chastising me for being 'stupid' after I refused to be a ghost poster for him here. Threw a few big terms around in an effort to dazzle me with his knowledge and intellect. I'm impressed. . .but not quite in the way he expected, methinks! I've come to the conclusion you all had him pegged correctly, and I was the naive' one!

G4M -- I didn't think it was RR but I do think it's someone who posted something, as you said, "obscure" that had the potential to alarm some of us. I went through that personally over the benzo issue, and hope to contribute to keeping discussion calm when a question crops up.

The guy's first post was a rather bizarre attempt to be condescending but I enjoyed reading the reply posts diffusing the situation with gentle humor. I chalked it up to the social skill set that Q described during our first board kerfuffle. At least this poster claimed to be following TSM, with remarkable results.

Q -- Your quote of my comment about averages/outliers was a bit out of context. I hope I clearly expressed that I believe this board is not a representative sample of TSM'rs; I suspect that many learn the basics and move on. We at the core of this community probably for the most part are the ones with challenges that might mean we're in it for the longer haul.

Virtually every one of us has experienced some improvement. Even if it's not a reduction in consumption, it's something difficult to articulate that keeps us confident that we are on the proper path. No one has pronounced failure and quit. Okay, houtx, but only for a day!!

When I read Kris saying she is getting her life and her family back, G4M welcoming a bright, clear-eyed future, Nick and ART writing of conflict reduced in their relationships, etc. etc., to me those are precious things. The promise of those sort of things are why I suspect most of us are here.

I too received an e mail from RR though it was not addressed to me personally in the opening line , I'd imagine others had it too .
As RR is unable to represent himself I think it fair to saythat He maintains that he did reply to N101CS by PM , any busy person could by oversight
not pick it up .

Greeting Friends,

I just have to respond to something. I am NOT you dear friend RR. My ego would just not allow this suggestion to go unanswered, as I am familiar...

I obviously stepped out with the wrong foot (words) and I apologize if I came across as condescending (it certainly was not an attempt to do so, as "I jus knows I can do betta"). There are a couple of other minor points I would like to clarify.

Re: naltrexone and women. Camelia indicated she increased dosage --> I relayed information that some addicition professionals believe this is appropriate (particularly the author of the article I provided later, who is the director of a rehabilitation center (not the paper cited in the article)) --> this may be something Dr. E or S. could address. The scientific record on naltrexone and gender differences is rather limited. This does not mean that 50mg does not provide adequate blockage of the opiod system, it is just that with limited data it may be worth exploring with the Drs. My intent was to be supportive of her choice.

Also, I am not a professional philosopher but I was trained in philosophy (with a concentration in bioethics to precise) and I work in biomedical research (drug development, clinical trials). I made this point about my background as I noticed many people on this board are high functioning individuals, intellectual. I do not know what this says about us or TSM, but I do think it is a an interesting (and relevant) and point. I will not explain further here, but as a "lurker" this drew me to TSM whereas I have been turned off by some AA groups for the opposite reasons (sometimes difficult to relate).

I must say first that I am a believer in TSM and naltrexone, it is truly working for me. But I must also admit that I recognize limitations in the data regarding the use of this protocol. It is possible that there may turn out to be some negatives, such as it may take 1-2 years to be effective in some populations. I appreciate some of the concerns expressed regarding that lack of real world results, but would just emphasize that many drugs ( and protocols) that reach the market are often refined after it has been administer to tens of thousand of people.My point is stick with it, we are the early stages of this game. And if nothing else for me, naltrexone has personally made a huge difference in the way I drink and the way I react to alcohol. Even if I am never "cured" I will continue on with naltrexone for good.

Peace,
MCIWS

I like the way we are portrayed in his manifesto as being just a "bunch of drunks" (twice, in fact). Apparently, the fact that we are generally HFA (High-Functioning Alcoholics, in case he is reading this), we belong to a less privileged class of individuals than the greater-than-thou non-addicted ones who have all the connections and wisdom to be doled out to us lesser humans. I guess since we ourselves are addicted, there is no way for us to be altruistic in his mind. I truly feel that he thinks once we are cured we will scatter and not extol TSM to others because us "bunch of drunks" are obviously only looking out for ourselves, so the world needs renaissance-fair wannabes to champion the cause.

I have set my spam filter so I don't receive anymore of his tirades, I suggest others who are disheartened by his emails to do the same.

Bob

PS The above post is My Opinion and therefore is not "legally actionable".

To be fair to RR......I don't think he does see us as a bunch of drunks his statement is phatic and intends to indicate that that is how we are seen by others.
It's very like :

" Never mind what anyone else said darling I thought your performance was wonderful "

or : "there is no truth in the rumour that ......"
Either way it is not nice to have it rubbed in . I don't like it .

phatic: of, relating to, or being speech used for social or emotive purposes rather than for communicating information.

Thanks elfern! I learned a new word today. And yes, he probably was using the term as you have described because it angered me (emotive purposes), thus my uncharacteristic acerbic retort.

Bob

G4M and Lena,

Point taken!! We are all on the same page.

I think the one thing that it very easy to overlook is this fact that many of us were drinking twice the levels of those in the trials when we started TSM.

It will be interesting to reflect back on our progress a few months from now. I have no doubt we'll have some real results.

What continues to be difficult for me is how "bumpy" of a ride this is. As many have pointed out, TSM is very much a roller coaster experience.

Q