Atlantic Article - Naltrexone
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Indiana
Posts: 503
Atlantic Article - Naltrexone
Just read an article in The Atlantic. It definitely supports the use of Naltrexone, but it is anti-AA so be forewarned! Definitely a good read, regardless!
The Irrationality of Alcoholics Anonymous - The Atlantic
The Irrationality of Alcoholics Anonymous - The Atlantic
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 211,456
Ok...
The rules in Newcomers forum are clear
so I've moved this thread to Alcoholism forum.
Altho the above rule obviously doesn't apply in this forum, rule 4 - no flaming - does.
Let's try and keep things civil and mindful of our community of mission here.
Thanks
Dee
Moderator
SR
The rules in Newcomers forum are clear
Please Read! The Newcomers Forum is a safe and welcoming place for newcomers. Respect is essential. Debates over Recovery Methods are not allowed on the Newcomer's Forum. Posts that violate this rule will be removed without notice. (Support and experience only please.)
Altho the above rule obviously doesn't apply in this forum, rule 4 - no flaming - does.
Let's try and keep things civil and mindful of our community of mission here.
Thanks
Dee
Moderator
SR
Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 109
Thank you so much for posting this. This anti-medication tone seems much less dogmatic than when I first started coming here. And if 12 steps works for you, great. But in my experience, 12 steppers tend to be closed minded when it comes to "different strokes for different folks" and they often fail to recognize are other ways for people to get sober. My anti-AA feelings boil down to one thing: would you want your family doctor treating your illnesses like it was still 1935? I'd rather have the benefit of modern CBT and psychiatry. And even if you are into AA, I'd look at it more as a supplemental therapy. In my experience, it was never an adequate substitute for psychiatry or therapy with an addiction therapist.
There is also a great documentary called "One Little Pill" made by American actor Claudia Christian about her experience with crippling alcoholism, Naltrexone and the Sinclair Method. A great view for the open-minded.
http://www.onelittlepillmovie.com
There is also a great documentary called "One Little Pill" made by American actor Claudia Christian about her experience with crippling alcoholism, Naltrexone and the Sinclair Method. A great view for the open-minded.
http://www.onelittlepillmovie.com
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 211,456
I feel the need to make some supplementary remarks 
This article has been posted before and it's generated some 'heat' so I'm not actually being hostile, I'm laying down some ground rules hoping we can have a civil and useful discussion here. That's my job
Mods are often on a hiding to nothing with these kinds of threads - if we allow them, some members won't like it...if we shut them down, some members won't like it.
Regardless, I'm usually prepared to give discussion a chance within the rules - like I said I hope this thread may prove useful.
It's really up to you guys.
Personally I wish Newcomers threads got the kind of attention these kinds of threads did...but whaddya gonna do?
You guys know the drill. Report anything you think breaks the rules - but I'm really hoping that won't be necessary....
see you all in about 8 hours
Dee
Moderator
SR
This article has been posted before and it's generated some 'heat' so I'm not actually being hostile, I'm laying down some ground rules hoping we can have a civil and useful discussion here. That's my job
Mods are often on a hiding to nothing with these kinds of threads - if we allow them, some members won't like it...if we shut them down, some members won't like it.
Regardless, I'm usually prepared to give discussion a chance within the rules - like I said I hope this thread may prove useful.
It's really up to you guys.
Personally I wish Newcomers threads got the kind of attention these kinds of threads did...but whaddya gonna do?
You guys know the drill. Report anything you think breaks the rules - but I'm really hoping that won't be necessary....
see you all in about 8 hours
Dee
Moderator
SR
Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by ScottFromWI 
This is most definitely an Anti-AA article that ALSO happens to have information about Naltrexone, not simply an article about Naltrexone as your thread title would indicate.
Forum Leader
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 16,945
Originally Posted by SoberAlky
And what's wrong with being anti AA? I tried it. Not saying AA is without value for everyone, but it was for me. Do I not have a right to voice my experience and opinion?
If someone wants to post an article that is Anti-AA, simply say so.
Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 25
I think the article pretty clearly states in several places throughout that it's intent is to put a spotlight on research and facts, which I think it does quite well.
My struggle with alcohol has always been a trifecta struggle--a struggle of body, mind, and spirit. Per AA, I do pretty strongly believe that there are spiritual roots to this thing (at least, that's definitely true for me.) Per this article, I also pretty strongly believe there are biological roots to this thing (also been true for me.)
One thing I'm trying to improve at on this journey is being able to hold two dissimilar, even opposing ideas in my mind at once without absolutely freaking out and trying to resolve them. To that end, I don't really see why the article should be interpreted as "anti-AA" or "pro-AA" and I don't know why someone couldn't find value and meaning in the research, science, and statistics spotlighted in the article without dismissing it across the board under the oversimplified headline "it's anti-AA."
My struggle with alcohol has always been a trifecta struggle--a struggle of body, mind, and spirit. Per AA, I do pretty strongly believe that there are spiritual roots to this thing (at least, that's definitely true for me.) Per this article, I also pretty strongly believe there are biological roots to this thing (also been true for me.)
One thing I'm trying to improve at on this journey is being able to hold two dissimilar, even opposing ideas in my mind at once without absolutely freaking out and trying to resolve them. To that end, I don't really see why the article should be interpreted as "anti-AA" or "pro-AA" and I don't know why someone couldn't find value and meaning in the research, science, and statistics spotlighted in the article without dismissing it across the board under the oversimplified headline "it's anti-AA."
Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: West Tn
Posts: 3,043
I have never heard anything bad about Naltrexone, even from a psychiatrist who is very 12 step program friends.
To the contrary, he is energized about the various anti-craving meds that are currently on the market and that are undergoing testing.
I have posted on the Atlantic article elsewhere.
To the contrary, he is energized about the various anti-craving meds that are currently on the market and that are undergoing testing.
I have posted on the Atlantic article elsewhere.
Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vashon WA
Posts: 1,035
The conspiracy theorist in me wonders how much of our attitudes about alcohol abuse and treatment are dictated by the alcohol producers. I know that they made a ton of dough from my out of control drinking years. Effective therapies would cut directly into the profits.
While I haven't ever been to an AA meeting I believe that they are a force for good and that the benefits of the program and all the other programs that it has spawned are literally immeasurable.
While I haven't ever been to an AA meeting I believe that they are a force for good and that the benefits of the program and all the other programs that it has spawned are literally immeasurable.
Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by ScottFromWI
Nothing is wrong with it. The original post has a subject of naltrexone though, and that's clearly not what the article is about. My response was in no way related to or directed at you or your experience/opinions.
If someone wants to post an article that is Anti-AA, simply say so.
If someone wants to post an article that is Anti-AA, simply say so.
EndGame
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,677
Originally Posted by SoberAlky
And what's wrong with being anti AA? I tried it. Not saying AA is without value for everyone, but it was for me. Do I not have a right to voice my experience and opinion?
I generally avoid discussions that include criticizing programs of recovery or treatments that work for some or many people, but that others don't like to the extent that they need to publicly criticize it/them. It's a pointless enterprise that helps no one. Discussing one's own experience with a particular program or treatment is not the same as program- or treatment- bashing. I do wonder, at times, why it is that some people feel a need to criticize methods of recovery that did not work for them while also promoting a plan with which they achieved sobriety.
Criticizing particular methods of recovery through which people have achieved sobriety stands in stark contradiction to the conviction and the claim that there is no "no one size fits all" recovery method. In this case, the person is essentially doing the same thing that they're criticizing. To me, this is a form of hypocrisy that's couched in a desire to "help." It doesn't take any creativity or gifted intelligence to describe a method of recovery as a "cult," "brainwashing," or "close-minded" if one has developed a bias against that method.
When abstinence and recovery are the goals, my bias is that the whole person needs to be addressed, no matter what means one chooses to achieve these goals. Some people are content with remaining abstinent alone, while others seek more for themselves. It's a personal choice that stands without a need for my guidance. Naltrexone, along with psychotherapy and psychiatry, simply would not have worked for me, and they are certainly not the handiwork of the Devil, but I don't endorse the notion that using these resources is not good for anyone else, or simply not good at all, just because they did not "work" or would not have "worked" for me.
It's neither my job nor my interest to decide for anyone else what the best way is for them.
Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by EndGameNYC
Being "anti AA" is not the same as commenting that AA was "without value" for you.
I generally avoid discussions that include criticizing programs of recovery or treatments that work for some or many people, but that others don't like to the extent that they need to publicly criticize it/them. It's a pointless enterprise that helps no one. Discussing one's own experience with a particular program or treatment is not the same as program- or treatment- bashing. I do wonder, at times, why it is that some people feel a need to criticize methods of recovery that did not work for them while also promoting a plan with which they achieved sobriety.
Criticizing particular methods of recovery through which people have achieved sobriety stands in stark contradiction to the conviction and the claim that there is no "no one size fits all" recovery method. In this case, the person is essentially doing the same thing that they're criticizing. To me, this is a form of hypocrisy that's couched in a desire to "help." It doesn't take any creativity or gifted intelligence to describe a method of recovery as a "cult," "brainwashing," or "close-minded" if one has developed a bias against that method.
When abstinence and recovery are the goals, my bias is that the whole person needs to be addressed, no matter what means one chooses to achieve these goals. Some people are content with remaining abstinent alone, while others seek more for themselves. It's a personal choice that stands without a need for my guidance. Naltrexone, along with psychotherapy and psychiatry, simply would not have worked for me, and they are certainly not the handiwork of the Devil, but I don't endorse the notion that using these resources is not good for anyone else, or simply not good at all, just because they did not "work" or would not have "worked" for me.
It's neither my job nor my interest to decide for anyone else what the best way is for them.
I generally avoid discussions that include criticizing programs of recovery or treatments that work for some or many people, but that others don't like to the extent that they need to publicly criticize it/them. It's a pointless enterprise that helps no one. Discussing one's own experience with a particular program or treatment is not the same as program- or treatment- bashing. I do wonder, at times, why it is that some people feel a need to criticize methods of recovery that did not work for them while also promoting a plan with which they achieved sobriety.
Criticizing particular methods of recovery through which people have achieved sobriety stands in stark contradiction to the conviction and the claim that there is no "no one size fits all" recovery method. In this case, the person is essentially doing the same thing that they're criticizing. To me, this is a form of hypocrisy that's couched in a desire to "help." It doesn't take any creativity or gifted intelligence to describe a method of recovery as a "cult," "brainwashing," or "close-minded" if one has developed a bias against that method.
When abstinence and recovery are the goals, my bias is that the whole person needs to be addressed, no matter what means one chooses to achieve these goals. Some people are content with remaining abstinent alone, while others seek more for themselves. It's a personal choice that stands without a need for my guidance. Naltrexone, along with psychotherapy and psychiatry, simply would not have worked for me, and they are certainly not the handiwork of the Devil, but I don't endorse the notion that using these resources is not good for anyone else, or simply not good at all, just because they did not "work" or would not have "worked" for me.
It's neither my job nor my interest to decide for anyone else what the best way is for them.
However they fail to take into account the context of the dialogue thus far in this thread.
It is factual that someone stated this article should be rightly posted with the tag "Anti-AA article," which to me is a dangerous line of thinking. It is also factual that that really isn't the thrust of the article, nor (I think) the intent of the OP who shared the article.
EndGame
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,677
Originally Posted by QuickBen
I don't disagree with any of these sentiments.
However they fail to take into account the context of the dialogue thus far in this thread.
It is factual that someone stated this article should be rightly posted with the tag "Anti-AA article," which to me is a dangerous line of thinking. It is also factual that that really isn't the thrust of the article, nor (I think) the intent of the OP who shared the article.
However they fail to take into account the context of the dialogue thus far in this thread.
It is factual that someone stated this article should be rightly posted with the tag "Anti-AA article," which to me is a dangerous line of thinking. It is also factual that that really isn't the thrust of the article, nor (I think) the intent of the OP who shared the article.
...most people here are pro-AA, but is there no room for opposing opinions?
My anti-AA feelings boil down to one thing: would you want your family doctor treating your illnesses like it was still 1935? I'd rather have the benefit of modern CBT and psychiatry.
When one is endorsing a range of methods to achieve sobriety, and then states that those who don't appreciate this are, therefore, close minded, then the boomerang comes back twice as hard.
Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by EndGameNYC
I wasn't discussing the "thrust of the article." I was commenting on the OP's assertion that there is something useful in posting negative biases against any particular program or treatment, in this case, AA. "AA didn't or would not work for me," versus "12 steppers tend to be closed minded when it comes to "different strokes for different folks" and they often fail to recognize [there] are other ways for people to get sober." There are clearly two different sentiments being expressed here, regardless of the intent. If nothing else, the accusation of being "close minded" is, within the context of this thread, ironic.
There may be room for it, but what utility do such "opinions" carry, and where does the need to make them come from?
This is clearly a caricature and an exaggeration for those of us who've achieved sobriety with the help of AA, as well as for those who haven't. The notion that anything is not an effective remedy for certain conditions by virtue of the fact of its "age" is misguided. Aspirin, penicillin, psychotherapy...Again, this is a contradiction of the conviction or statement that "they [12 steppers] often fail to recognize [there] are other ways for people to get sober." There is essentially a disconnect between the statement that "[there] are other ways to get sober," and expressing "anti-AA" opinions.
When one is endorsing a range of methods to achieve sobriety, and then states that those who don't appreciate this are, therefore, close minded, then the boomerang comes back twice as hard.
There may be room for it, but what utility do such "opinions" carry, and where does the need to make them come from?
This is clearly a caricature and an exaggeration for those of us who've achieved sobriety with the help of AA, as well as for those who haven't. The notion that anything is not an effective remedy for certain conditions by virtue of the fact of its "age" is misguided. Aspirin, penicillin, psychotherapy...Again, this is a contradiction of the conviction or statement that "they [12 steppers] often fail to recognize [there] are other ways for people to get sober." There is essentially a disconnect between the statement that "[there] are other ways to get sober," and expressing "anti-AA" opinions.
When one is endorsing a range of methods to achieve sobriety, and then states that those who don't appreciate this are, therefore, close minded, then the boomerang comes back twice as hard.
That seems like a logical fallacy to me.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
