Jump to content
The End of my Addiction

some people on reddit saying naltrexone vs baclofen success rates are higher...


Recommended Posts

idefineme

I know I'm being more than a little simplistic here, but what if bac works for two people out of 100, and nal works for one person of 100, and a combination of the two works for one person in 1000? The only people that it really matters to are the people that it's helping.  So, who gives a shit about comparing one to another?  If one helps 10 people and another helps 2 people, wtf?  Why does there always have to be a "us vs. them" kind of mentality on these forums?  If AA works for you, that's great, but don't tell everybody that it's the ONLY way and if you can't make it work, then you're not working it and it's YOUR fault! If baclofen works for you, that's awesome!  But don't tell the person that's sober or who has drastically cut their drinking down by using Nal that Bac helps more people!  Who gives a shit?!?  If you have a problem with alcohol, the IMPORTANT thing is to use whatever means that fits with who YOU are and that YOU can be comfortable with.  No shame.  No righteousness. If it works for you ... it works.  And that is good!  Period.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
joesixpack

More choices that are effective. That's good. Then it's dialing in the right one for the patient's circumstances and that's between the doc and them. Thank the Great Stanhope that it ain't just AA "Sober or Die" anymore. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It really doesn't make sense to compare them because tsm and naltreqxonee or Nalmafene are commercial products whereas Baclofen isn't.  The problem this gives rise to is that people will be drawn to Nal and TSM because of advertising and not because of any comparative studies between it and baclofen.  They will then report something, reduced drinking or abstinence.  This won't be a scientifically verifiable report but since it is part of a commercial operation involving a drug that is already approved, there is no need for them to be scientific. They can say pretty much anything they like subject to laws relating to misleading advertising.  

Because it is commercial you will also get professional bloggers putting a favourable spin on the drug.  

I wouldn't have put Naltrexone in the name of this forum because you are talking Apple's and oranges.  I got hold of Nal years ago. It didn't work and cannot work for serious alcoholism but that is a matter if degree. I've yet to hear if anyone posting on MWaO or here who has had as serious a problem as my wife. As a consequence I get upset to hear the two medications o n.a. compared because one is hyped based on a different and less rigourous test of its success in a less patient base whereas baclofen is attacked because of side effects by people who aren't as seriously ill. The effect is a skewing of results which makes it appear that the two drugs are both ok.  

 

This isn't the point, though.  It's a question of getting the science right and providing a public health to alcoholism which is based on  the correct understanding of the illness.  If, for illustration purposes, we say that cannabis is used by some alcoholics and a small percentage stop drinking, that might be true and a good thing, but it doesn't make this an explanation alcoholism.  Nal is a "method" of reducing drinking.  Tapering off is also a method of reducing drinking.  Neither is a scientific explanation of alcoholic addiction and Mal in particular plays a role undermining advanced e s towards a cure because proponents are commercially uninterested and opposed to development of a cure because it undermines their position and profits. Also by styling itself as a method which allows for counselling it plays into the "alcoholism is a will-power issue" school of thinking which has stood in the way of the development of a medical cure for alcoholism. It's actually a failure of hope and of reason and signals an acceptance of the status quo, that alcoholism isn't a medical conditions and it offers only a gimmick which is lining someone's pocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites
joesixpack

"It really doesn't make sense to compare them because tsm and naltreqxonee or Nalmafene are commercial products whereas Baclofen isn't."

Nalmefene is patented, but oral Naltrexone and Baclofen are both out of patent. There are some extended release injections/implants, but they can't be used for TSM.

 

"It didn't work and cannot work for serious alcoholism but that is a matter if degree."

?????

"It didn't work and cannot work for serious alcoholism but that is a matter if degree. "

Most TSM posts are on TheSinclairMethod.com or http://optionssavelives.freeforums.net/

 

Your last paragraph shows a complete misunderstanding of TSM. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that this thread, and comparisons in general, are not productive. They work very differently. 

Otter, you are wrong about naltrexone being a "commercial product". It's generic, just like baclofen. It helps people with all levels of AUD. It's both naive and confrontational to suggest that it doesn't work or that people are making money from the sale of it. It's okay with me if you don't think it works, but it's not okay with me if you tell other people it won't work for them. That's infuriating. Please don't do that again. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Ne1 said:

I agree that this thread, and comparisons in general, are not productive. They work very differently. 

Otter, you are wrong about naltrexone being a "commercial product". It's generic, just like baclofen. It helps people with all levels of AUD. It's both naive and confrontational to suggest that it doesn't work or that people are making money from the sale of it. It's okay with me if you don't think it works, but it's not okay with me if you tell other people it won't work for them. That's infuriating. Please don't do that again. 

NE

I don't think that will stop Otter. I had thought this website might genuinely be a place where all things are considered. I have my doubts about a variety of methods, but I don't slag them off and if it works for others brilliant.

Unfortunately Otter has brought whatever agenda drives him on here, stuff from other forums and it's totally turned me off. I know Otter doesn't classify me as a proper alcoholic, and that is exactly the attitude I had in latter years from the NHS, as well as from others who just didn't see the power alcohol had over me. Yet time after time my GP sighed when I turned up defeated, depressed, shaking, I'm not even going to start going into trying to 'prove' myself here because it's gotten me down as much as the healthcare 'system' has, and has done equal amounts of damage.

I don't go around trying to prove one way is better than the other, and I don't know why some people here do it. I don't care. I mention a variety of things to other people, and if they need my support and guidance I'll give it, but I won't carry on being beaten down by someone who wants a society doped up on baclofen and I'm not interested in being in a battle with them.

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
joesixpack

I see AA members saying that if someone quit drinking without abstinence, they weren't real alcoholics to begin with. AA has a membership of about 2 million and there are 140 million people with Alcohol Use Disorder in the world. I don't know where these guys get off saying who's an alcoholic and who isn't, when they comprise less than 1.5% of people with AUD in the world. It's like saying that sober exclusively means abstinent. You can say someone is sober if they are exclusively abstinent, but not the other way around.  I can see where twisting the definition like that might be useful in the halls of AA, where almost 100 years ago an alcoholic was abstinent or they were relapsed and drunk. Black / White. But to carry that outside of AA and use it in the real world where there are actual treatments (as opposed to abstinence only social support groups) is not helpful. They're two different worlds. 

That being said, if someone can get the job done with AA or similar, more power to them. But if they relapse, I'm going to be asking them if they've heard about MAT. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2016 at 8:45 AM, phoenix said:

Unfortunately Otter has brought whatever agenda drives him on here, stuff from other forums and it's totally turned me off.

Unfortunately, @phoenix , I don't think the moderators noticed the comment, and I know I didn't, and no one reported it. The other disparaging comments were reported and removed. 

That kind of stuff, in fact this kind of thread, aren't really cool and shouldn't really be allowed if they're going to make people uncomfortable. 

@joesixpack, I heard a brilliant podcast with one of my heroes, Maia Szalavitz. She's a reporter and author who writes almost exclusively about addiction. I'm going to start a thread about it, so won't go into it all here. Suffice it to say that she is very skeptical of traditional treatment, makes a very good case for alternatives, and is very proactive about it. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin2 locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...