Banned from soberrecovery.com

dreadnought54321 · **Joined:** Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:08 pm **Posts:** 55

mclanet0326 wrote:

My opinion:

This guy from soberrovery.com is not looking for answers. He's trying to split hairs to validate his own prejudices. He's a 12 step Nazi out to refute TSM. Harsh words ? You're damned right. Let him keep trying - I am cured no matter what he or the other Nazis think, do, or say.

Tom
CURED WK 17

P.S. Notice I didn't sugget his IP address be blocked!

I will say this. I am not a 12 step nazi. I would not set foot inside another meeting of any stripe because I dont not look at addiction as spiritual. Whatsoever. Im not invalidating TSM, as I have said the science behind it probably works, but it is not a cure. It is still a form of treatment. I said I was interested in a cure, and genetics is where it will eventually be found. Closing minds is not good for seeing other points of view.

dreadnought54321 · **Joined:** Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:08 pm **Posts:** 55

minneapolisnick wrote:

Tom, I'm inclined to agree with you. When he first posted I got suckered into thinking he was looking for information about TSM so I was happy to offer some answers to his questions. However, as the dialogue continued, it became obvious his only agenda is to discredit TSM. And by the way if you are reading this, "Mr. Alcoholism is purely genetic", I suggest you read up on how rats (who have no alcohol gene whatsoever) LEARNED to become addicted to alcohol, thus proving your theory about alcoholism being purely genetic to be as entirely incorrect as the rest of your assertions.

Here is a good site that completely contradicts what you just said. There are plenty of others as well.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa24.htm

Not all the rats LEARNED to become addicted. In fact most walked away, as the vast majority of rats did in cocaine studies. I would respectfully suggest reading more about it, as it is in fact genetically based.

dreadnought54321 · **Joined:** Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:08 pm **Posts:** 55

soulbythesea wrote:

Hi dreadnought
I am curious about your apparent need for certainty and definition about this issue of whether you can be defined as 'cured' or not. Are you afraid to let in new possibilities? I know when one has been hopeless it is scary to let yourself hope for success because maybe you might fail again. I have decided to view your questions as legitimate rather than mischevious! My aunt was diagnosed 10 years ago with late onset diabetes(often arising from a genetic predisposition)- she was told she needed to drastically change her diet and lifestyle or face medication and serious complications. She decided to loose weight and exercise and within a few months her blood sugar levels went back to those of a 'normal' non diabetic person. But that didn't mean she was cured of diabetes- if she goes back to being an overweight sugar junky who doesn't exercise she will end up with severe problems again! But she has lived a healthy life free of diabetic medication.
anyway all i am saying is why not open yourself up to explore new ideas and follow lena's advice- lets face it either we are on to something here or its all one big mad cyber conspiracy :lol:

My questions are legitimate. Im not here to argue, but to debate. And yes, I am going to say that it is not a cure, but a form of treatment. I dont think its a big conspiracy anymore that other forms of treatment. It justhappens to be a form where one is allowed to continue to drink, which frankly appeals to me.

Diabetes is a disease/condition with 2 types:

Type 1 - autoimmune reaction against beta pancreatic cells (basically, the person's white blood cells destroy all insulin-producing cells, because the immune system perceives it as foreign). Starts early in life.

Type 2 - insulin resistance/insensitivity (cells do not respond to insulin at all) due to high insulin levels in the blood for the long term (in overweight/obese people).

The first may one day be cured by either vaccine or genetics. There are good arguments for both, and science isnt interested in finding out because there is no money in finding a cure. The second is a condition brought on by environment(poor diet/sendentary? and can be reversed. Same as high blood pressure.

dreadnought54321 · **Joined:** Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:08 pm **Posts:** 55

minneapolisnick wrote:

Tom, I'm inclined to agree with you. When he first posted I got suckered into thinking he was looking for information about TSM so I was happy to offer some answers to his questions. However, as the dialogue continued, it became obvious his only agenda is to discredit TSM. And by the way if you are reading this, "Mr. Alcoholism is purely genetic", I suggest you read up on how rats (who have no alcohol gene whatsoever) LEARNED to become addicted to alcohol, thus proving your theory about alcoholism being purely genetic to be as entirely incorrect as the rest of your assertions.

And by the way, the link I provided stated clearly that Naltrexone is a promising treatment for alcoholism, which is exactly is what is stated here. It does not mean that its a cure. It effectively treats alcoholism, which is the next best thing.

lena · **Joined:** Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:07 pm **Posts:** 929

You've impressed upon us that you have acquired a great deal of information about your perspective on alcoholism, and you feel some sort of need or desire to share it here.

Other than that, what's your point?

bob3d · **Posted:** Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:57 pm

RV,

I don't believe I saw a post to the sinclairmethod.com site while I was over there on Q's thread before I was banned, but maybe someone did and I didn't notice it. BTW, they never answered my PM; not a complaint, just a fact.

Bob

PS Welcome dreadnought. I tried to answer your question on SR, but my post never made it to the conversation because that thread was removed. Anyway, you can check my posts going back several weeks where I have stated that I never liked that term "cured". I preferred the term "under control" or that we have "choice" now.

dreadnought54321 · **Joined:** Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:08 pm **Posts:** 55

lena wrote:

You've impressed upon us that you have acquired a great deal of information about your perspective on alcoholism, and you feel some sort of need or desire to share it here.

Other than that, what's your point?

I dont know, other than to share what I know about it. Im not dissing your way. Im just giving my opinion.

dreadnought54321 · **Joined:** Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:08 pm **Posts:** 55

bob3d wrote:

RV,

I don't believe I saw a post to the sinclairmethod.com site while I was over there on Q's thread before I was banned, but maybe someone did and I didn't notice it. BTW, they never answered my PM; not a complaint, just a fact.

Bob

PS Welcome dreadnought. I tried to answer your question on SR, but my post never made it to the conversation because that thread was removed. Anyway, you can check my posts going back several weeks where I have stated that I never liked that term "cured". I preferred the term "under control" or that we have "choice" now.

Thanks. I didnt see those posts yet.

lena · **Joined:** Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:07 pm **Posts:** 929

You are welcome to continue to do that for as long as you can stand us. You might look at the board index and read up on the method and the science while you're here

bob3d · **Posted:** Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:12 pm

dreadnought54321 wrote:

Thanks. I didnt see those posts yet.

Nor will you see them. That thread was taken off and the post lost. But I stated what I thought a better word for cure was here already.

Bob

Banned from soberrecovery.com

Who is online