@dreadnought:

Welcome to the board!

It seems your biggest sticking point is the use of the term 'cure'. In order to address that we have to agree on what the 'disease' is. Is it the propensity (genetic or otherwise) to become addicted to alcohol? Or is it the addiction itself? I believe that it's the latter, as that is what causes us to drink, further causing all of the fallout associated with the disease. If someone is genetically programmed to alcoholism but never has a drink in their life, are they an alcoholic? No sane person would think so! No, alcoholism is an addiction to alcohol.

Naltrexone is a mechanism for breaking that addiction. It doesn't prevent cravings - there is no pharmacological basis for claims that it can. Placebo effect perhaps, but nothing the drug does could be expected to reduce cravings.

What it does is deny you the reinforcement that drinking normally provides. Over time, "de-addiction" (or more properly, extinction) occurs and you are no longer addicted to alcohol. If, as I postulated above, addiction = alcoholism, then de-addiction = no alcoholism = cure.

So where does that leave you (the patient)? Well, it leaves you where you were before you became addicted. If you have a propensity toward addiction to alcohol, you'll still have it. That doesn't mean you're an alcoholic: it simply means you if you drink at all, it must be done with great caution and, as The Sinclair Method prescribes, you must take naltrexone to prevent re-addiction.

On a final note, why is it that alcoholism is absolutely unique in the world of addictions in that the people involved (both treatment professionals and the patients themselves) consider the addict afflicted for life? Nobody says the same of cocaine addicts, nicotine addicts, heroin addicts, etc., all of whom would also become re-addicted if they took up the habit again.

See thats what I dont understand. I get more than a buzz when I drink lots, like Im sure everybody here has. And if over time the Naltrexone has me not craving it, and what I crave is the euphoria and I know Im not getting as buzzed, I would probably stop taking it. You said before some people say its easier to get a buzz, or the same, or a little different. If Im getting buzzed, Im going to go further and get drunk.

I suppose I will have to try the medication myself and make a subjective judgement about it. What else besides taking the medication every time you drink do you have to do? Or is it just as simple as popping a pill an hour or so before I start drinking?


and No Ive moved on from the word cure. Some people are going to call it whatever and Im ok with that. Im not going to debate over and over a term like I have. Its pointless as people are going to think whatever they want, which Im fine with.

dreadnought: You still get buzzed. There's something missing, but not enough for you to stop taking the medicine. It's really hard to describe what's missing. It's very subtle.

As for the term cure - I see that it's not a concern but I hope my message helps some.

I will say this though, although Im not arguing about the cure word anymore. The disease is a genetical disease of addiction. Propensity it not the same thing as genetical. Those words are being equated and they are not the same. Respectfully, you are confusing the terms. Addiction is a genetic disease. The propensity to fully realize that disease in in the learned behavior, such as picking up that first drink. You are right, it is the disease of addiction, which is a genetic based disease.

I would argue that a person born with the genetic disease of addiction still has the disease even if he never picks up a drink. It is just dormant, and it does happen. There are people that I am sure are born with the disease who do not pick up that first drink. They do not suffer. But they have the disease nonetheless. The human brain is a physical organ and genetic markers are actually physical things you can see under the microscope. Its a lot like herpes. You can go your whole life and never have an outbreak yet still be a carrier of the disease. It just has not manifested itself yet, just like the person who has the disease of addiction who has never picked up that drink.

You bring up a lot of good points. I agree with the last couple paragraphs about the alcoholic being singled out. Heroine addicts are addicts too. Nicotine. etc. The same with Type 1 diabetes. Those people will always have the disease until a cure is found. Yet they are not stigmatized.

Thanks, and I just think Im going to have to try it and make a judgement about it. Its hard to understand over the interwebs an experience one has to try for onesself.

dreadnought - Respectfully - I think you are making assertions that the science is still out on. I don't think anything other than loosely correlated genetic markers have been found with respect to alcoholism.

How would you explain the fact that the vast majority of people who try nicotine or crack cocaine more than a couple times become addicted? If almost everyone becomes addicted is it still a genetic disease? Or are a few people simply genetically immune?

I think alcoholism is initially caused by a non-genetic factor. Stress, break-up (in my case), whatever. After a period of time, a physical addiction set in. I think anyone who drinks enough, often enough, will become physically addicted to it and become an alcoholic. I think some may be more prone to addiction and that propensity might be genetic. That might equate to fewer drinks and less time for the addiction to occur. I don't know.



Yes. It's hard to explain. It affects your 'buzz' but doesn't eliminate it (at all). At best it delays it slightly (maybe a one-drink delay) and then 'changes' it but I can't say how. It doesn't affect your cravings or urges in the beginning. Over time I started to have more days where I just didn't 'feel like' drinking. But it takes time for that to happen and even longer for it to become a regular and frequent occurrence.

Couldn't agree with you more RV. That statement nails it.

This is seen in Dr Sinclair's research and in the way many of us because addicted in the first place.

Fair enough, you make some good points. But the genetic markers associated with addiction are highly correlative and revolve around, so far, about 20 different markers. the AA allele(no pun intended) and GabaB are two, that in rat studies correlate highly with addictive behaviors. This is not in regards to TSM, but the general addiction industry that makes billions of dollars off of people actively suppress research into large scale clinical trials of studies that would lead to a cure. There is simpy too much money in it. Thats why we have little research in genetics or things like TSM, and much in the way of endless "treatment" and "12 step" stuff.

I would say the vast majority of people who try nicotine or crack have the genetic pre-disposition of the disease already. The majority of the human population might try a hard drug at one time or another in their life, but do not become addicted, because they dont have the disease. If it were true that the vast majority who tried drugs, and Im sure its true, became addicted, we would have a majority of the populations who were addicts of some sort. That isnt the case. Its odd, because we seem to be agreeing more than disagreeing. I think words and their meaning are sometimes confused.

You may be right, I may be right. If it is initially a non genetic factor, then that would lead credence that it the case was behavioral, or spiritual, or whatever. Remember without the physical 3.5 pound organ that is the human brain, there would be no behavioural or spiritual or whatever. All disease are physical/genetic in the most basic sense.

And I just read the last comment. If anyone who drinks enough long enough becomes addicted, they probably have the disease. Why would normal people who dont have the disease drink long enough and hard enough in the first place?

Because whether you're addicted or not, alcohol is an escape. Long before I was addicted to it, I occasionally used booze to temporarily shrug off a bad day. Anyone who at the end of a long day says, "I need a drink" is doing the same thing, even though they might not be alcoholics at all. When the "long days" (or other stressors) turn drinking into an everyday occurrence, alcoholism isn't far behind. Like I said, in my case it was a bad breakup. I was miserable for a couple years and started drinking myself happy(ish).

I'd like to discuss your points about research a bit more because I'm interested in what you know about that. But for right now, I'm sleepy. Long day. Need a drink but probably just going to enjoy a pillow.

G'night.

Oh and a little about myself and a drinking history. I have been trying to read also the other boards here. 34 male. started at 17 on a one time binge. runs in the family alcoholism. Was not drinking for a couple of years in my 20's then started up gradually at about 26. Steadily increased over the years as usual. Now daily drinker. 14 weekdays up to 20 on the weekends. Beer only drinker. No other substances.