Jeff070204

This week's Newsweek magazine's cover feature is titled, "The Hunt for an Addiction Vaccine". I read the article, and felt compelled to chime in with a comment on their website. Here is a version of what I posted:

I've noticed that articles like this come out once a year or so. My reaction to them is always something like, "Well, it's sure a nice idea, but...lotsa luck." This article has an interesting twist in that the central idea of much of it seems to be, "People will FINALLY come to view alcoholism/addiction as a 'disease' as soon as we invent a pill for it." Um, OK. Again, I'll believe it when I see it.

I had my last drink of alcohol in July of 2004. In the 18 months preceding that, I had been actively seeking treatment for my alcoholism. I knew that AA involved praying, God, smoking, talking at length about oneself, and people I wasn't sure I wanted to be around. It also seemed to me that if alcoholism was indeed a disease, then I'd be better off seeking help from the medical community.

While I was still able (meaning, before I lost my job and my health insurance due to my drinking), I went to pretty much every variety of health-care person that was accessible to me. They all said essentially one thing: "Stop drinking, go to AA." Never was there any mention from any of these people about Campral or Naltrexone, dopamine receptors or GABA, "delayed discounting", not even Antabuse.

A little baffled, I shrugged and began to attend AA meetings. Their effect on me and my emotional state with respect to my drinking ranged from none at all, to a marked increase in the depth and degree of my despair.

After months of attending AA meetings, stopping drinking entirely still didn't seem and had never seemed a reasonable or realistic option. Finally, I agreed to enter a "treatment center", it being obvious to me at the time that AA wasn't "working", and that I needed "treatment", not AA.

I then discovered what a "treatment center" really was -- a place where they throw you in with a dozen or so other nitwits and shove AA down your throat. After surviving 30 days at what I came to refer to as "jail lite", I left, and six weeks later I was drinking again, with increased fervor and urgency.

At that point, with my job and health insurance long gone, the question of whether I could find "medical treatment" for my "disease" was rendered academic. The only treatment for my alcoholism, I felt, was more alcohol, and I nearly died.

After a period of some months, I found myself in another "jail lite" facility. Again, AA was force-fed. Nowhere was there any mention of anything else described in the article. I spent the first few months of my "recovery" waiting to die.

I can't explain how it came to pass that I'm sitting here typing this today. My best guess is that I'm simply lucky. I do attend four to five AA meetings a week, and as much as I would love to profess that "the Program" is the reason I'm sober, it would be a half-truth at best. Again, I can't explain why, but at some point I simply decided that I had had it with the whole business -- that enough was simply enough.

nandm

I found the article interesting as well as your reply.

What I get from your response is that although you don't feel AA has helped you to stay sober you continue to go to several meetings a week. This confuses me. Why continue to do something you feel does not work? Have you worked the steps? Have you gotten a sponsor? Have you read and studied the first 164 pages of the Big Book? It takes more than going to meetings for AA to work. Meetings are a great place to start but that is all they are, they are not intended to be a means to an end.

I do hope you find a solution that works for you. AA is not for everybody, some people do not want to do the work that it takes to stay sober utilizing the program of AA. Some do not feel that the program is for them. There are many other recovery programs out there. There is a listing of many of them in the stickys at the top of the alcoholism thread.

Chino

I posted that article in the Family and Friends forum a few days ago; I thought it was educational. From an addicts perspective though, especially one in recovery, I can see where it might be different.

When my AD was in an outpatient rehab program a few months ago, I asked one of the counselors how come more people don't utilize the meds available, why more doctors don't prescribe them.

The first and most obvious reason is that everyone has to find their own way to sobriety. As far as doctors go, some are ignorant to new treatments and some think pain is the only way.

What I learned from a neurologist is that every brain is different. When you add in co-occurring brain disorders and/or brain trauma, some people will never find their way to sobriety without extra help from the medical community.

A friend of mine just buried her former AH. He had mental illness along with severe brain trauma from a motorcycle accident years ago. He finally committed suicide. Had some of the newer treatments been available back then he might still be alive.

She learned of the some of the treatments available through me because of my AD, but it was the week before he killed himself.

Jeff070204

Again, I only speak from my own experience.

My experience has been and continues to be that there is no such thing as my being alcoholic without my going to AA. They are two sides of the same coin. For a long time, I tried to do as you indirectly suggested -- I didn't go to AA because I believed it didn't work. But no matter how much I tried to stick to that, and to seek out these "alternative treatments" and "other recovery programs" that you and the Newsweek article and innumerable others talk about, I kept winding up right back in an AA meeting.

I've had three sponsors. Whether or not I've "worked the steps" depends entirely upon whom you ask, however I believe the same can be said for anyone at all in AA. I've read and studied the first 164 pages of the book (although I think the Doctor's Opinion and the testimonials in back are more useful and substantive), along with the book "The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions", and to a lesser extent the books "As Bill Sees It" and "Living Sober".

Yet in light of all of that, I still feel the way I feel about AA and alcoholism "treatment" in general, such as expressed in my original post. To coin a phrase, "I dunno."

nandm

Jeff, thank you for your honesty. I really respect that. I don't know exactly why AA keeps me sober but it does. I do know that for it to work for me I have to apply the steps to every problem or difficulty in my life. How I do that is interchange what ever problem I am faced with and the word alcohol in the step. I have found that by doing this I am not only able to stay sober but I am able to keep serenity when I apply this. As anyone I am not perfect and do wind up with bad days because I forget or am to lazy, or can't seem to get motivated to apply the steps to a problem or situation. Again thanks for your honesty and for the article

SpringRose

It's not as crazy as it sounds. The most effective method for beating the most addictive substance (nicotine) is Chantrix, which works in a similar way to Campral. I think working with body and brain chemistry is going to be more successful than the "spiritual disease" angle has proven to be.

nandm

I would agree if my experience were that spirituality had nothing to do with my alcoholism. But as I have found it to be a disease of the mind, body and spirit; I doubt any medication that doesn't address all three is not going to be more successful for me.

SpringRose

Does spirituality have anything to do with nicotine addiction or eating disorders? With the meds, they are discovering certain medications designed for one addictive behavior often work for another. Topomax (used to control cravings for alcohol) is proving effective in treating eating disorders. Chantrix (designed to end nicotine addiction) is also showing promise for controlling drinking.

It seems medicine is on to something. *****ooo!

nandm

I respect your right to your opinion. And ask that your respect my right to my opinion. My experience happens to be that spirituality has a lot to do with my disease of alcoholism. Yes, spirituality had something to do with my nicotine addiction as I quit smoking after 20 years at the same time I quit drinking all using the spiritual program of AA. I realize that you may not be able to understand or agree with that. I also realize that you are probably not an alcoholic as you drink moderately and for a true alcoholic that is playing with fire. I choose to utilize what works for me and that happens to be a spiritual path to sobriety. You do not have to agree with me.

Having been a nurse for the past 20 years and paramedic for 12 years; I have seen both the good and bad of medication therapy. Pills are not necessarily the cure all to beat all cure alls. Sometimes they do more harm than good. All medications have side effects. It would be wonderful if there were a miracle cure for addiction and alcoholism but so far none has proven to be that.

There are several points we do not see eye to eye on and probably never will. Good luck with your life.

nandm

One huge side effect of Topamax-----weight gain. So we could have a bunch of sober obese people who die of heart attacks and strokes rather than alcoholism.....doesn't sound like much progress to me.....

There are no negative side effects to a spiritual solution to alcoholism......

mike_mass

Well, when they come out with a vaccine for the seven deadly sins, count me in.

SpringRose

That's fine, but it's your personal testimony and, in my mind, every bit as reliable as any kind of "saved again" testimony. It's the Amway approach. What it is not is anything based on verifiable data. I'm going to put more trust in the activity in the medical community (hell, I'm doing backflips that they are finally moving beyond the whole 12-step thing) than on your personal testimony. That doesn't mean I do not respect your opinion. It also doesn't mean that I can't argue it and remain respectful.

SpringRose

Where did you get that? One of the most common (if not *the* most common) side effects is weight loss. What is your source?

Yes. Bill and Bob both died of tobacco, so there's that.

If it was effective at all, you might have a point. As it is, AA is every bit effective as nothing at all. 5% recover in AA; the rate of "spontaneous remission" is also 5% - that doesn't sound like progress to me. You can proclaim your success to Monday and back - and GOOD FOR YOU, but statistically, AA is no solution - it's an utter failure. Do you care about the 95% that do not recover in AA? If so, why are you arguing against possible solutions for those people?

nandm

Personal experience with the medication!


Your point???



It is easy to throw imaginary statistics around. It is impossible to obtain an accurate count from a group that is ANONYMOUS. Think about it!

I don't have the time nor the energy to play your game. I will not continue to argue with you. You have your OPINION and I have my EXPERIENCE. Wonder which is more valid?

AbsentFriend

Pills vs. Practice

For me, the issue is not efficacy at relieving symptoms, but because what we call "symptoms" are merely inadequate attempts to fill a core need, the issue is really the failure of medications to replace the symptoms with a different way of fulfilling our needs.

In other words, what we annihilate with medication alone, leaves only an empty hole.

I can get surgery to restrict what I eat, but I miss the experience of feeling whole and worthy through other means like exercise, and discovering that I no longer *want* to overeat. I can take a pill that makes me less anxious, but that doesn't teach me how to manage my worries or to see the world as inviting rather than threatening. I can drink to relax, but but it keeps me from learning how to live in a way that brings me peace.

I have debated with myself for 10 years whether or not to seek medication for depression. When I verbalize this internal debate to other people, when I cry openly that all is hopeless, I actually open myself up to other possibilities, to hope itself.

When I tell my therapist I am thinking about a medical solution, or that I am feeling frustrated with my own progress, he allows me to be frustrated, and even to be angry with him. And miraculously, simply by embracing what I am really feeling, I shift from inner turmoil to faith in life.

I believe in medication in cases of organic physiological disorders, or when a patient is in grave danger of hurting themselves or others. But one should NEVER be medicated without concurrent therapy, 12-step program, etc.

I say again: What we annihilate with medication, leaves only an empty hole.

353

A pill or vaccination may work for some but I doubt I'm a candidate for that treatment. Alcohol is (or was) my solution. Remove the alcohol and I'm still there. I suffer from what I call the anti-promises. My problem is my self-centeredness. Left to my own devices, before long without alcohol I would become agitated and discontent because the world don't go the way I want it to. Without my program that keeps me focused on my real purpose, being of maximum service to my fellow man, I'd be doomed. What can I say, some are sicker than others.

SpringRose

Surely you do not believe that is the standard truth for anti-depressants, anti-anxiety meds, anti-psychotic meds, allergy meds, etc. Is it such a stretch to think that maybe something chemical is going on inside people who exhibit various addictive behaviors?

We don't really annihilate with medication. It can provide some comfort and clarity, but that's all it does (unless you get into kick as* stuff - like chemo: Then you're annhilating).

Jeff070204

I would have gladly and gratefully tried Chantrix, Topomax, Campral, Naltrexone, or any of the other drugs I see mentioned in these, um, "debates" -- had any of them been offered to me. By anyone. By any doctor. By any therapist. By any psychiatrist. By any counselor. My point is, and continues to be, that none of them were.

I can't be the only one who has had this experience.

I suffered from alcoholism, sought treatment from anyone and everyone, including several and varied members of the "medical community", and was told with unanimity, "AA". Not Topomax, not Campral, not Naltrexone, but AA.

And again, as I mentioned in my original post, as my disease progressed, I lost my job, and with it my health insurance. At that point, I would have had a hard time getting a prescription for penicillin. A prescription for a state-of-the-art experimental gluconate inhibitor was out of the question.

I honestly don't know where we're finding all of these bottomed-out, desperate alcoholics and addicts whose Kaiser or Blue Shield premiums are all paid up.

nandm

Thank you Jeff. I needed that today!:rof

AbsentFriend

SpringRose: In my original response, I did not deny the existence of chemical problems in any of those cases. I in fact said, "I believe in medication in cases of organic physiological disorders, or when a patient is in grave danger of hurting themselves or others. But one should NEVER be medicated without concurrent therapy, 12-step program, etc."

The difference between a problem that, in my opinion, should be medicated versus one that doesn't have to be, is whether or not behavioral changes and therapy or a 12-step program are effective first. Behavioral changes have been proven to impact brain chemistry - isn't that amazing? If you change the thinking that makes you depressed, you can actually change the chemical activity in your brain. Isn't that what the program does for addicts right now? Don't cravings get reduced over time? Isn't that hole inside, which used to be filled with a substance, now filled with spirituality and genuine human connection instead? Just as we can learn to manage stress in order to lower blood pressure and reduce heartburn.

And really, isn't addiction just a form of self-medication? We use such substances for the same reason other people use anti-depressants. Both are bandaids, not solutions.

Psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia are "organic," i.e., arising from the brain's own structure, and almost always require medication. Still, therapy should always be involved, because dealing with any illness takes a great deal of adaptation and education.

Re: allergies - interesting that you threw that one in there. Allergies can be related to an UNDERexposure of the triggering allergen as a child, leading to underdeveloped defenses later. By gradually exposing oneself to more and more of the trigger in a controlled way, some allergies can be lessened or cured. As a parallel to alcohol, look at the incidence of alcoholism in France or other countries where children learn early how to drink responsibly. As the article says, it is a bio-psycho-social disease: you can't do anything about the biological factors (yet), but if the other contributing factors (family life, community, education, etc.) are controlled, that may be enough to have an inoculating effect without a physical vaccine.

One more interesting thing you mentioned, which made me think: "comfort and clarity." I would use those exact words to describe my lifelong addiction to books. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with reading excessively. But when used to avoid real people, or escape real life, or replace my own emotions (which I didn't know how to handle) with the emotions of the characters, it becomes a problem. I sought comfort from loneliness and clarity of thought - which I thought would ultimately rescue me from my circumstances. Books filled both of those needs, but I had to put down the books and confront my fears of real life in order to heal. I annihilated my loneliness, but I didn't work through it, and as soon as I put down my "addiction" it was still there, waiting for me, asking, "Are you ready to talk to me now?"