There is really no need to insult me. I have offered facts. Im also not interested in debating a spiritual/behavioral argument either. I have spelled out point by point, which is ignored here as well as the other site. Missing the forest for the trees is your problem, not mine, if you do not want to look at my points.

Who said anything about instantly being transformed? You are again missing the point bob.

quote who cares about how it happens unquote....tells me everything about denial

AJ and everyone else, he has zero interest in your experience or facts. He is the definition of the word "troll." I'm all for free speech and we'll let him ramble on as long as he wants, but he's full of **** and his motives are not genuine. Keep that in mind before you decide to waste any more effort in responding to this guy. The simple fact is this: if alcoholism is purely "genetical" (his misnomer) then there is no basis for TSM to work. The entire theory of TSM is based upon extinguishing learned behavior. So, if you think alcoholism is purely "genetical", quit TSM and go curse your parents for the poor bloodline. If, on the other hand, you are living on this planet, suffer alcoholism and are legitimately concerned about doing something about it, try TSM because it works for 80% who try it and up to 90% who follow the proper regimen: naltrexone plus drinking = cure.

I'm not trying to add fuel to the fire here or to bring my pie hole under scrutiny, but I would like to quote the book a bit, because I find the 'no it's not genetic' stance in conflict with what I've read in Eskapa's and other books...and because, if you can get beyond the sparring style of Dread, it is an interesting topic and deserves to be presented without anger, jabs, or ulterior motives (which I know others have tried to do).

Having a genetic basis also does not mean there isn't a component of learning to the disease, which I believe is what Sinclair & Eskapa are saying. We have a genetic predisposition to become alcoholics and are better at learning how to release our endorphins which, over time, reinforces our alcoholic behavior.

pg. 20 "Eriksson developed two lines of rats. The AA line was bred to drink large amounts of alcohol when they had a free choice. Over several generations, they eventually came to get nearly all their fluid from the alcohol bottle." These are the rats that Sinclair used - rats bred, not just taught, to be alcoholic.

pg. 33 "Drinking alcohol leads to addiction much more easily if there is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. Without the "right" genetic predisposition, it is possible but unlikely someone will ever develop a drinking problem."

pg. 84 "The scientific research from animal and human studies proves that loss of control over drinking, craving, and addiction happen for two major reasons:
1. You probably inherited a powerful genetic predisposition that enabled you to be particularly good at learning to drink alcohol. In other words, you have inherited a particularly powerful endorphin (opioid) system in your brain. Drinking alcohol causes the morphine-like substances knows as endorphins to be released in your brain. ..
2. You had considerable experience drinking alcohol. The genetic predisposition for alcoholism combines with drinking experience to produce addiction to alcohol. After you drink, the endorphins progressively strengthen the pathways wired throughout your brain that had recently been active, the pathways that are the neural circuitry producing craving and drinking..."


Hopefully I have not quoted out of context, I'm not much for quoting the book but felt it was needed here as it nicely supports both sides of what everyone is saying. I don't think any of the above statements mean that your parents had to be alcoholics, although mine were...perhaps other parents just needed to possess a dormant gene that they then passed on to you and you ran with it. I don't really know, but I do know that I react differently to alcohol than my husband does, even when we drink the same amount. Something completely different happens inside of me that makes (or made) me want to do it again and again, even after it was hurting me more than helping. And I've always been that way since the first drink. (I realize not everyone here has the same history.)

One more thing, then I will butt out...there is a very interesting book called "Under the Influence" by James R. Milam, Ph.D. that supports this idea as well. (I'm sure there are others, this is just a book that I bought years ago and I thought his views of alcoholism were very refreshing - everything is based on science and supports the disease as a physical addiction but doesn't stop there.) He goes into much more depth and distinction - a very good read if anyone can find it at the library. Touches on the ethnic differences brought up here as well.

This line of "discussion" brings back memories of the exhaustive line of back-and-forth over at MyWayOut with someone who wanted endlessly to challenge the science behind the method. SpringerRider and I, along with some of you, went back and forth in a seemingly endless series of posts.

I didn't know the motive of our foil, nor did I care, because it sure was a swell vehicle to educate people about TSM on the MWO board.

One of the first posts I read about TSM on MyWayOut was a dismissive review of Eskapa's book, by a member who claimed that it was snake oil or some such thing and that halfway through it she threw it in the trash to prevent someone else from getting their mitts on her copy. That post piqued my curiosity. I searched the board for more information about TSM and . . . .

So I hope dreadnaught posts to his heart's content, here and "over there." And I hope some of you continue to have the energy and patience to post accurate information.

Here's my two cents on the issues: No one denies there is a genetic component to addiction. No one can credibly deny alcoholism is learned behavior. Anyone who drinks hard enough for long enough can certainly become addicted to alcohol over time. I am an example of that. If I have the gene, it is so far back in my family no one knows of it. To me, it doesn't matter. The words "addicted" and "cured" mean very little to me.

Here's what does mean a great deal to me: I was drinking very unhealthy amounts, and found I couldn't stop drinking on my own, so I started doing TSM. After twentysomething weeks, I am drinking less all all the time, without effort, and AF days are coming more easily. I'm nearly drinking at safe limits as defined by the WHO. I was forced by illness to stop naltrexone for a while, and was not able during that time to abstain from alcohol. Nothing terrible happened to me, and I resumed my progress once I was able to resume TSM. Based on what I've learned, the experience of others here, and my own progress, I can expect that I will be at safe limits shortly and that my interest in alcohol will continue to decrease.

I have not read one single word on this thread that would convince any sane and sensible person that TSM is a bad idea, or that I should stop doing it.

But still. Keep posting. People are reading.

WOW Im glad I missed this one... Ill say 3 things:

1: Welcome to the boards Dreadnought!

2: If that diagram that AJ provided for you doesnt help I might be able to get my niece to draw you one with crayon on construction paper...even bigger maybe. (Im not trying to be mean its just too funny )

3: Go back and reread this entire thread, like I just did.

"I'm not trying to add fuel to the fire here or to bring my pie hole under scrutiny, but I would like to quote the book a bit, because I find the 'no it's not genetic' stance in conflict with what I've read in Eskapa's and other books...and because, if you can get beyond the sparring style of Dread, it is an interesting topic and deserves to be presented without anger, jabs, or ulterior motives (which I know others have tried to do)."

Happy, since this was directed at me, I would like to clarify something and explain something. First, the clarification: never once did I say that there is not a genetic aspect to alcoholism. If you re-read my earlier posts, I agreed entirely with you and other informed people regarding this point, namely, alcoholism is a learned behavior that anyone can learn; however, research has shown that if you have a certain genetic predisposition as indicated by immediate family members having the disease, you may be more susceptible to becoming addicted. My major point was that whether you have the gene or not, alcoholism is a learned behavior. Basically, it is just "easier to learn" if you are genetically predisposed to do so.

I thought long and hard about my "pie hole" comment and knew it would irritate some people and I apologize for it. But if you have read my hundreds of other posts, you will see that I have never once used such language previously. The reason I used it here is to reflect my anger. And my anger is genuine and it is based upon the fact that several of us here -- myself included -- spent a lot of time and energy trying to explain TSM to dreadnought. I did so out of my sincere desire to help anyone who wants to learn about the method. However, as I indicated in my prior post, it became obvious to me that he has no interest in trying TSM whatsoever. If he did, he would have done an honest cost/benefit analysis of his 110-plus drinks per week versus his concocted "concerns" about upregulation and would have voiced them sincerely and publicly. He never did that. That fact, together with the content and tone of his other posts made it clear to me that he is not here to learn, but rather, he's here to antagonize people with his baseless arguments. Once I realized that, I was angered by the fact that I wasted so much of my time trying to help the guy. Hence the "pie hole" comment.

I say all of that for the following reason: I WILL NEVER be sarcastic or biting with anyone who is genuinely here seeking help or to learn about TSM. If you want my help, I'll do anything/everything in my power to provide it to you. However, if it becomes apparent that your motives are not sincere and that your real agenda is to question the legitimacy of TSM (which is literally saving our lives as I write this), I cannot promise that words like "pie hole" may not resurface. I hope I didn't offend anyone (apart from dreadnought) and if I did, please PM me and I'll offer you more of an apology.

My best,

Nick

I was banned on the other sight (closed minds, I guess) and have no interest in even looking at it anymore. My mind is open, why would you say otherwise? Naltrexone is a generic medication, costing only $60 per month only for a few months, much lower after drinking gets scarce, compared with rehabs that cost thousands or even tens of thousands. AA "suggests" 90 meetings in 90 days, in other words 30 hours per month; at US minimum wage, that's $218 worth of time per month (not counting travel costs and time) for the first three months and then continued meetings for the rest of your life. Looking at these costs, I'll take the Naltrexone. Irony, indeed.

Bob

PS I forgot the doctor's visit - add $50 every six months for the Naltrexone prescription, unless you're going to see the doctor anyway for other reasons, as I do.

Oh Nick - my post wasn't directed at you...other than you were the last post I read before replying. I think the majority of people here were saying there was no genetic factor. I did think the response to Dread from you was implying the same thing but you are correct, I do not remember each line of your earlier posts.

The pie hole reference was there simply because I got a huge kick out of the expression, not because I found it offensive or because I was angry about it other than I thought it was funny that everyone was getting so upset over someone posting and that particular line was a perfect expression of the crazy anger and frustration generated by this thread. (It really just struck me in a funny way.)

My post was meant to show both sides and to correct something that I thought was a little misleading. Somewhere along the way I think the message got lost or skewed..and if I could misunderstand everyone's posts, I'm sure others could as well. That was my only reason for entering into this discussion....which my pie hole and I will now gladly exit. Sorry, I just love that expression ...along with Firebird's earlier suggestion that we use the word 'bamboozled' instead of cured. What are the odds that any other thread has produced two such wonderfully rich, lyrical expressions? You gotta at least love that.

Oh no H40, no one said that. Its all good though, the answers are already in these pages. Luv U.