Progress thread for ne

[kuya]

I see all sides as equally culpable in creating all this drama.

I have had SF on ignore for months, he adds the odd comment to threads I have participated on or started. I ignore them.

I do not hate him, nor even necessarily disagree. It is simply that ignoring a troll works.

I have seen it written that he MUST be responded to because of his misinformation about medications and personal attacks. His opinion is simply that, HIS opinion. Whether misinformation or even slander he was best ignored.

If you had left HIS threads alone he would have been talking to himself and any newcomer would have seen that he was a looney.

If none of you had responded he would have stopped.

You could also, as a group who care about the medication route, added to your signatures, something like...... "Spiritfree is ignored by long term members"

Instead you CHOSE to feed him.....and he grew bigger.

[Baclofenman]

I have had SF on ignore for months, he adds the odd comment to threads I have participated on or started. I ignore them.

I do not hate him, nor even necessarily disagree. It is simply that ignoring a troll works.

I have seen it written that he MUST be responded to because of his misinformation about medications and personal attacks. If you had left his threads alone he would have been talking to himself and any newcomer would have seen that he was a looney. If none of you had responded he would have stopped.

You could also, as a group who care about the medication route added to your signatures, something like...... "Spiritfree is ignored by long term members"

Instead you CHOSE to feed him.....and he grew bigger.

Not withstanding the above Kuya, some of which I whole heartily agree with, one must remember that not only does his rubbish appear on his own threads but on other members threads too - As such, to ignore and not correct would give the impression to the ill-informed that infact the rubbish he posted had some fundimental basis to it - which in fact, of course it does not.....

Regards


Bacman

[lex]

(The medical research backs up that the majority of people with Alcohol Use Disorders can, in fact, drink normally again. It depends on the person and the level of disease. But that is beside the point for the moment.)

NE- I'd love a copy of that medical research- so if decide to have a nice cold beer someday soon I can show it to my wife and tell her to chill!

[aihfl]

I did not find this to be true in FL. Yes, I found a doctor that would prescribe baclofen but not past 80 mgs. He also wanted me to be abstinent and to come off the baclofen and go on an antidepressant. I'm grateful he got me started and have sent him an update each year on the anniversary of my start.
I had to use Dr L and Lo0p to get enough baclofen until I stopped taking it. I'd also asked a doctor I knew if she would see me and write a 'script and she refused because she was worried about being flagged if I went over 80 mgs a day.
A, I know you found a doctor in FL that did work for you and I'm glad about that.

I was lucky that I had an open-minded enough doctor to give baclofen a try. My highest dose was about 120mg, I believe, and I came down to 90. He had no issue with prescribing these doses. Eventually he lowered me to 80, but then put me on 900mg Neurontin (gabapentin) in addition to the bac. I'm still at the same dose for both drugs, but he's since added three antidepressants, the SSRI Celexa (citalopram) and the cyclic antidepressants Remeron (mirtazapine) and doxepin, though the latter two are mostly for sedation at night.

(The medical research backs up that the majority of people with Alcohol Use Disorders can, in fact, drink normally again. It depends on the person and the level of disease.

Actually I do believe this, but I also believes it takes a whole hell of a lot of time. My father was an alcoholic physician in the United States Navy. While stationed at Naval Air Station Millington outside of Memphis, Tennessee, he woke up after a blackout in the Shelby County jail with no idea how he got there. So he just decided to stop. And he did. For over forty years. In his retirement he took up winemaking as a hobby and was able to return to moderate drinking. But he had over forty years of continuous sobriety before he drank again. And he did it without medication (this would have been in the 1950s), without psychotherapy and without AA.

It's not outlandish. My wife went to the Royal Alexandria in Paisley, Scotland, at the invitation of Mathis Heydtmann Ph.D. to be treated with baclofen. She was admitted in A and E and given a vitamin drip. She was put on a ward with other baclofen users but the ward doctor refused to administer baclofen "it's my ward" It took a while for Dr. Heydtmann to arrive and prescribe baclofen. The nurses refused to give it, having two doctors giving differing instructions so my wife went home. When her condition deteriorated I took her back to the same hospital and the emergency doctor refused to admit her, phoned me and told me to come pick her up. I then had to administer a detox dose of baclofen at home with help over the phone, did not have adequate help or support and the result was a personal catastrophe for my wife and myself. I called an ambulance and my wife was taken to another hospital where she was not only refused treatment but the police were called to take her into custody.

That is typical of treatment of anyone who would dare to tell a doctor in any UK hospital that "they" should consider treating with baclofen It is also true of virtually every other hosptial in the world.

I'll accept S's explanation that the UK's NHS is different culturally from the health care system (flawed as it is) in the United States. But the scenarios you describe I find difficult to believe would happen here.

1. Abruptly stopping baclofen can cause seizures. Thanks to our litigious society, an American doctor knows this is a multimillion dollar lawsuit (and unaffordable malpractice insurance) just waiting to happen. When I was admitted to inpatient rehab the second time, I was at my 80mg dose. My assigned psychiatrist informed me they typically used naltrexone in place of baclofen for alcohol cravings, but since I was already on the baclofen, he would continue that therapy.

2. I've never heard of anyone in genuine crisis being denied access to emergency care. They might not keep you very long, but again, were your condition not stabilized prior to discharge, I'm sure the doctors and the hospital are well aware that this is a major lawsuit just waiting to happen.

3. Police custody? Really? For what reason? Here the police might transport you to a psychiatric facility but to just be "taken into custody," as in the police station? That sounds farfetched.

[kuya]

Not withstanding the above Kuya, some of which I whole heartily agree with, one must remember that not only does his rubbish appear on his own threads but on other members threads too - As such, to ignore and not correct would give the impression to the ill-informed that infact the rubbish he posted had some fundimental basis to it - which in fact, of course it does not.....

Regards


Bacman

Actually you are too close to the problem IMO. Consistently ignoring him would have worked.

Any new person will read and easily interpret that no one talks to or respects him.

He he won BECAUSE you responded.

Now NO-ONE will benefit from your 'corrected' posts... because you will not be here!

[lex]

NE-

I can tell you that in a 500-man, 70-year longitudinal study of drinking behaviors, only a handful of alcohol abusers ended up drinking moderately later in life. To a one, the roughly 25% of the abusers who were "real" alcoholics (i.e., routine loss of control, increased tolerance, physical withdrawal) either quit altogether or got worse with time. As to the roughly 75% who chronically abused alcohol to the point of getting into one form of trouble or another, some portion did resume drinking in moderation again- but almost of these men did so before they were 30 or so, and as a result of a lifestyle change (most often, marriage). In other words, this portion comprised youthful singles who eventually settled down. Of the remaining abusers, very, very few obtained longterm (3+ years) abstinence and indeed not a single college-degreed subject did so. Instead, this 70-year longitudinal study revealed that nearly all of the "not-'real' alcoholic" alcohol abusers settled into a lifelong pattern of alcohol abuse. The most common patterns were a) 3-5 drinks per day (these subjects tended not to experience significant problems due to alcohol) and b) 8-10 drinks per day (these subjects tended to experience occasional problems due to alcohol, such as domestic arguments and DWI arrests).

It seems to me that most medical research would have to take a second seat to this well-known, well-respected 70-year study. It has it flaws, e.g. it just followed men. And the above results were published over 20 years ago, true, but alcohol abuse has not changed much since then.

Of course, you could argue that baclofen has changed all of this- that an alcohol abuser taking baclofen can indeed drink "normally" again. And maybe for some people this is true.

Nonetheless, the results of the 70-year longitudinal study cited above are hard to quibble with in my view.

But by posting this, am I not being "positive"? Not being "supportive"? Being "judgmental"? I guess this is a matter of opinion.

[lex]

aihfl-

but was your father a "real" alcoholic in the sense of routine loss of control, increased tolerance, physical withdrawal (as defined in the longitudinal study)? Probably not. In his case, I'm guessing, he was your run-of-the-mill young heavy abuser who, instead of reverting to moderate drinking upon getting into trouble, or upon getting married and settling down, decided for whatever reason to forego alcohol altogether. Indeed, maybe doing so was no big deal for him. Then, much later in life, he decided to engage in moderate drinking and, well, no worries.

I'm no expert of course- just offering my impression.

[aihfl]

aihfl-

but was your father a "real" alcoholic in the sense of routine loss of control, increased tolerance, physical withdrawal (as defined in the longitudinal study)? Probably not. In his case, I'm guessing, he was your run-of-the-mill young heavy abuser who, instead of reverting to moderate drinking upon getting into trouble, or upon getting married and settling down, decided for whatever reason to forego alcohol altogether. Indeed, maybe doing so was no big deal for him. Then, much later in life, he decided to engage in moderate drinking and, well, no worries.

I'm no expert of course- just offering my impression.

That I don't know. It was over a decade before I was born; before he was even married. He never spoke about it. I only heard about it through other extended family and then only in passing. I am not aware of any hospitalizations, but the medical community was much less informed than it is now and did not treat severely acute alcohol intoxication as a medical emergency (hell, they barely do now) but I do know there were several alcohol related arrests involved.

[YouKayBee]

Oh yes the old occupational thing;

Drs
Surgeons
Accountants
High flyers
Chefs
Kitchen staff
Teachers
Fallen women (prostitutes)
Solicitors (lawyers)
Politicians
.......housewives at home alone.............
Merchant navy
Servicemen
Artists
Writers
Musicians
Journalists

Yep all high drinkers/alcoholic professions.

[Otter]

I was lucky that I had an open-minded enough doctor to give baclofen a try. My highest dose was about 120mg, I believe, and I came down to 90. He had no issue with prescribing these doses. Eventually he lowered me to 80, but then put me on 900mg Neurontin (gabapentin) in addition to the bac. I'm still at the same dose for both drugs, but he's since added three antidepressants, the SSRI Celexa (citalopram) and the cyclic antidepressants Remeron (mirtazapine) and doxepin, though the latter two are mostly for sedation at night.



Actually I do believe this, but I also believes it takes a whole hell of a lot of time. My father was an alcoholic physician in the United States Navy. While stationed at Naval Air Station Millington outside of Memphis, Tennessee, he woke up after a blackout in the Shelby County jail with no idea how he got there. So he just decided to stop. And he did. For over forty years. In his retirement he took up winemaking as a hobby and was able to return to moderate drinking. But he had over forty years of continuous sobriety before he drank again. And he did it without medication (this would have been in the 1950s), without psychotherapy and without AA.



I'll accept S's explanation that the UK's NHS is different culturally from the health care system (flawed as it is) in the United States. But the scenarios you describe I find difficult to believe would happen here.

1. Abruptly stopping baclofen can cause seizures. Thanks to our litigious society, an American doctor knows this is a multimillion dollar lawsuit (and unaffordable malpractice insurance) just waiting to happen. When I was admitted to inpatient rehab the second time, I was at my 80mg dose. My assigned psychiatrist informed me they typically used naltrexone in place of baclofen for alcohol cravings, but since I was already on the baclofen, he would continue that therapy.

2. I've never heard of anyone in genuine crisis being denied access to emergency care. They might not keep you very long, but again, were your condition not stabilized prior to discharge, I'm sure the doctors and the hospital are well aware that this is a major lawsuit just waiting to happen.

3. Police custody? Really? For what reason? Here the police might transport you to a psychiatric facility but to just be "taken into custody," as in the police station? That sounds farfetched.

This was back in 2010 after seeing Dr. Chick. I tried to use Ameisen's book to figure out an appropriate dosage based on weight but he doesn't say anything, nor did Chick, about how to take baclofen so I was putting pressure on my wife to take 90 mg at a time in three doses and it was not working. At lower doses it worked but the side effects were too much at high individual doses. I was referred to Dr. H and he explained the importance of level, low doses, because this is a brain medication and the brain doesn't deal well with ups and downs in chemicals.

I tried to level the doses throughout the day over a period of a week, after being forced out of the hospital the first time. It worked well in stopping the drinking but we reached a point where she was dry for a few days and able to take the medication herself. As we were at home and I couldn't force her to take the pills, and we had no understanding of withdrawal symptoms, she got herself into a state of extreme anxiety and began freaking out. One thing led to another and I called the doctor, and emergency services trying to get some medication and eventually got an ambulance to attend.

Of course, they weren't up to speed on anything to do with baclofen or withdrawal so they just saw a "drunk". The policy in Glasgow in these cases is to dispatch police to protect the emergency workers and if the behaviour gets out of control and is too much for a nurse, then they just treat it as a drunk and disorderly and lock the person up at a police station. Baclofen, becomes an irrelevance in those circumstances as baclofen withdrawal just looks like violent out of control behaviour.

There is no litigation culture when it comes to doctors in the UK. They are beyond reach for the most part. They are all upper class as are the lawyers so the attitude is unsupportive of victims of malpractice. UK doctors are not as well educated, having no undergraduate degree. They are trained more like one would expect a "tradesman" to be trained and most of them see the job as a status symbol and aren't particularly motivated when it comes to going the extra mile for people they "look down on" socially.

I can say that because my parents were English so I speak from experience of the "class system". It's a real impediment to social progress, although there are, obviously, lots of very intelligent people in the UK.

[Otter]

During the week at home I tried to re-admit my wife to hospital but the emergency department said that they had never heard of Dr. H, refused to get in touch with him, questioned why I would think anyone could be admitted to the liver disease department without a referral for liver disease. It was essentially a case of "look, come and get her or we will call the police and have her removed from the hospital".

Some years before, at another hospital the doctors, upon being told my wife was in Emergency, dispatched an orderly to sit and talk to her. He got her on her feet, walked her to the door and across the street to a bus stop.

That is typical of the UK treatment of alcoholics attending at emergency. You don't hear about this kind of treatment because no one but me would be stupid enough to think that a doctor in the UK, apart from a few, would have any kind of compassion for an alcoholic or addict or waste their time on this stuff. They are much more interested in golf. One GP who I pleaded with to listen to what I was saying about baclofen simply said he thought the answer was NLP, neuro-linguistic programming. The UK left me feeling utterly desperate, until I finally got the right prescription, and transferred our family's care to a very kind and caring GP who got stuck into the situation and agreed to get in his car at a moment's notice, come to the house and alter the drug regime to give my wife whatever we all felt would be best. After that, she really did begin to thrive on the treatment but finding doctors like that, and who will prescribe baclofen is nigh on impossible. By that point, we had decided to pack our bags and leave town because in a place like Glasgow, you really are up against a wall of stupidity when it comes to alcohol. It is a massive problem but everyone has a drink problem or a related health problem such as diabetes and no one accepts alcohol is addictive even at senior levels in the law enforcement sector in which I worked.

[Baclofenman]

Hi Kuya

Having said I agreed with much of your previous post, there is much to the latest that I dont agree with:

Actually you are too close to the problem IMO. Consistently ignoring him would have worked.
Any new person will read and easily interpret that no one talks to or respects him.

In my experience, people come to Forums for one reason only - To look for answers - People do not initially come to Forums to give accurate and factual answers to those in need - This just is not the way it works - People can then give advice they have researched and gleened from the subject matter - These people will have initially come to the Forum as beginners but thier passion and drive has made then offer advice as a result of thier "journey"

With this in mind, people join a Forum such as an Alcohol Forum, not because they want to empart advice - No, they are looking for answers to their own issues - Many are desperate, as I was when I rocked up at the end of 2015 - I was desparate but not desparate, fortunately for me I stumbled on posts from (what I now now know to be learned) posters describing how Baclofen this and Baclofen that - I decided that "this was for me", having seen some of the medical papers posted and ordered my first batch of Baclofen


Now like I say, I was desparate not desparate so I invested time to spend time reading the stuff (pro' and con') of the intake of Baclofen

I would like to say, that I am a fairley inteligent sort of guy, however Alcohol does not choose its victims - Just because I invested time into my subject matter, DOES NOT mean that everyone does, will, is inclined to or able to

How does a Guest know what Spirits background is - Hell, I thought he was a regular guy when I joined - What was to stop me and more importantly the less interlectual thinking Ibogaine (amongst his other claims) is a good thing for alcohol if no one had brought Spirit to task? - It only take one less informed sole to be the next statistic - Putting him in a "box" would not stop this - With his egotistical unaccountability it will increase the threat that he omits

.

He he won BECAUSE you responded.

Kuya, Mate (yes I know you are a girl) - This is too serious to be a game - Its not about who won and who lost - It is about doing what is right for the good of the fellow man
Ok I admit that threatening to reveal Spirits posts to his associates is not a very nice thing to do but it is not illegal OR against the rules of the Forum when I signed up - I did this to stop his harrassing of Ne - Maybe this has not worked but I would expect the Lawyer he saw yesterday will have also informed him of the legalities
However I stand by the posts I have made regarding his crass, offensive and down right incrorrect information - He has miss-interpreted his sources in almost every case and should be chastised for this

Now NO-ONE will benefit from your 'corrected' posts... because you will not be here!

I am going nowhere Kuya - Yes I will concentrate my attentions to Eoma.org but I (and the others I guess) will be on hand to correct the rubbish he posts

I will bring you back to one other comment

Actually you are too close to the problem IMO

I am not sure what this means - To me it is saying that as a participant in the responses to Spirit, I am somehow not able to see the issue as you do?
I hope from the response above you can see that while I admit to being childish at times I am commited to the offering of sound, considered and accurate advice
If this is not what you meant, I am sorry for miss-interpreting it

Thank you for your time Kuya

Respect



Bacman

[Ne/Neva Eva]

First time in a long time when I thought there was some really healthy, proactive discussion on MWO. Thank you all for your input. I doubt many of you will read this, because it's endless, but wanted to respond thoughtfully, regardless.

Ne, I'm still on the clock so I don't have time to write much, but THANK YOU for taking the time to say this because there just seems to be so much overt hostility toward twelve step support around here.

You're welcome. And I meant what I said. You're more than welcome over there if and when you feel the inclination, by the way. But don't get me wrong, aihfl. I don't believe the 12-steps consistently helps people get and stay contentedly sober and I know that some things about AA did me wrong--leaving me with a lot of self-blame and self-recrimination. I've done the 12 more than once, and outside of treatment, I've never had 30 days consistently sober in more than 20 years. (Before taking baclofen.) My first AA meeting, and program, was about 20 years ago, too. (I started to go into it in specifics, but that's for a different time and place. Definitely not on this thread, and maybe not even on MWO, given the difficulty of having these kinds of discussions here.) That said, I love AA more than I loathe it and I absolutely believe, and the research proves, that peer support is almost unparalleled in helping people achieve significant and difficult goals.

Because medicine has given us a hand in recovery a forum discussing the medicines and as Ne says, peer support for me is essential.

She was accurate in naming this site MWO because we each had an opportunity to practice our own way out. The end result is what is important. I cringe at
some of the posts here by one indiv b/c it's the last thing she would have anticipated or tolerated and this website, etc. has saved lives, allowed people to improve their relationships, educated and allowed strong friendships to be made. I personally think it's a travesty that RJ's intentions and achievements should be soiled, in my humble opinion.

My Way Out is the best name EVER and I'm very jealous of it. lol
And I totally agree that it is a crying shame how different this forum is than the one she participated in and the one she envisioned and made happen. It's not just one individual either. Or rather, it may be now, but there have been others and it's been years in the un-making.

Still, I love MWO and owe it and the people here, who helped me get sober with baclofen and reach 4 years of indifference to alcohol, more than I can ever repay. Ever. That said, it's a train wreck now.

Not withstanding the above Kuya, some of which I whole heartily agree with, one must remember that not only does his rubbish appear on his own threads but on other members threads too - As such, to ignore and not correct would give the impression to the ill-informed that infact the rubbish he posted had some fundimental basis to it - which in fact, of course it does not.....
Regards
Bacman

Absolutely agree, and thank you bacman for expressing it so well.

NE- I'd love a copy of that medical research- so if decide to have a nice cold beer someday soon I can show it to my wife and tell her to chill!

That may take me some time, lex. I'm just freakin' busy right now and sorting through what I've read to find that (factual) information could possibly take some focused hours. I should know better than to quote something as fact and not source it. I hate it when people do that because it so often leads to misinformation or misunderstanding.

Which may be the case with what I said, given your response.

(The medical research backs up that the majority of people with Alcohol Use Disorders can, in fact, drink normally again. It depends on the person and the level of disease. But that is beside the point for the moment.)

The majority of people who suffer from AUDs are not people who end up with serious repercussions related to how much and when they drink. So in no way should what I wrote be misconstrued and interpreted to say that people who have suffered real consequences and have chosen to remain abstinent in order to avoid those (or worse) consequences should just go ahead and pop a cork. Uh-uh. Not at all what I meant or what I said.

... Consistently ignoring him would have worked.

Now NO-ONE will benefit from your 'corrected' posts... because you will not be here!

We tried ignoring. It didn't work. Made it worse. He LOVES the attention and will do anything to get it.

Also, not planning on going anywhere anytime soon, Kuya.

NE-

I can tell you that in a 500-man, 70-year longitudinal study of drinking behaviors, only a handful of alcohol abusers ended up drinking moderately later in life.
...
And the above results were published over 20 years ago, true, but alcohol abuse has not changed much since then.

Again, original post:

(The medical research backs up that the majority of people with Alcohol Use Disorders can, in fact, drink normally again. It depends on the person and the level of disease. But that is beside the point for the moment.)

The results of that study is one of the reasons that the definition of "alcoholic" and "alcoholism" have been replaced with Alcohol Use Disorders. There is a very great big spectrum.

And yes, 20 years ago is too long for research related to alcoholism (or AUDs or whatever...). Too much has happened since then. Beginning with a MUCH better understanding of the way brains work, to the fact that we know (now) that medications work really, really well for some people. And that abstinence does not work well for some people. And that current treatment is stuck in the 1930s-1950s for many reasons.

That said, your point is taken. There are also some of us who must maintain abstinence in order to keep our disease in...remission...for lack of a better word.

Of course, you could argue that baclofen has changed all of this- that an alcohol abuser taking baclofen can indeed drink "normally" again. And maybe for some people this is true.

Yes, I could and would make a convincing argument for the fact that continuous treatment with baclofen means that some of us can drink without negative repercussions. In other words, some of us can drink like normal people who do not have the disease of alcoholism. (This is based mostly on anecdotal and personal experience, but backed up by the very little research that has been done.) You can choose not to believe it, and that's fine. But it doesn't change my experience of 4 years of being contentedly sober, drinking only when (rarely) and when (usually out with friends) and how much (not much) I wanted.

There are several people who have had this experience with naltrexone, too. And some of them continue to drink "normally" and some of them choose abstinence. Whether you believe these facts to be true is, again, moot.

But by posting this, am I not being "positive"? Not being "supportive"? Being "judgmental"? I guess this is a matter of opinion.

I think it's a worthy discussion. A deep one. Nuanced and with many facets. I like it a lot, in fact. I do not believe that we are on "opposing" sides of this issue. Or we don't have to be, anyway. I believe that there are many new, very thought-provoking aspects in the treatment of addiction that deserve discussion, and perhaps even reasonable debate.

Though it's impossible to imagine this debate happening here, for many reasons. I would never attempt it! Still, I thank you for bringing it up, backing it up, and allowing me the opportunity to respond. Much appreciated.

Last thought:

...but was your father a "real" alcoholic in the sense of routine loss of control, increased tolerance, physical withdrawal (as defined in the longitudinal study)? Probably not.

Very, very dangerous to start wandering into territory where we label people "real" alcoholics or not. I have had debilitating alcoholism, without question, since the beginning. But the repercussions in my life are not necessarily evidence of that. (Though, of course, there are many negative examples that I can personally see that are directly attributable to my disease. There are many, many, many people in my life, throughout the history of my drinking, who didn't think I was alcoholic "enough". They were very wrong.)

[Otter]

I would like to emphasize your use of the term "spectrum". I think that sums up AUD, that it represents a very wide range of conditions and outcomes for people, none of which should be minimized by talking about "real" v. "unreal" alcoholics. The problem is that the term "alcoholic" is not a medical term at all and we need to be looking at this as a neurological condition first, rather than last. Any illness needs medical attention first and then support which has to tie in with the nature of the condition and the type of treatment needed.

We are a long way from clarity on alcohol treatment and its support and what I did not want to do a while back was to create an argument about who was and who was not a "real" alcoholic because, imho, that is a false and rather pointless argument.

[SKendall]

Ne, regarding doctors who are cautious about malpractice suits, there is now torte law in some states. I was diagnosed in the E.R. with a sprained ankle. In reality it was broken in several places resulting in a mostly titanium foot. I went to see a lawyer and in TX with torte reform I needed $75K to start one and the judge leaned towards the plaintiff and damages were capped at $250K. And 250K was rare even in a death. The only person who won that amount was a young man who was castrated.

What say you Lex?