But actually this is not a good idea. And even if you don‘t drink at all (teetotaler), it’s important you understand the physiology I am going to explain, because it applies to many aspects of our intake, not just alcohol.

Ready?

We’ll start with the alcohol deprivation effect (ADE). What it tells us is that abstinence is doomed to failure. It does not work and here’s why: animals (in this case lab rats) bred to be alcoholics will, of course, abstain if they are denied any further alcohol supplies. But only because they are forced to abstain.

The moment the supply of alcohol is restored to the cages, THE ANIMALS DRINK THEMSELVES SILLY! Glug glug glug glug… It’s making up for lost time. It reverses all the good done by abstinence.¹

This knowledge comes from the research work of Dr. John D. Sinclair in America during the 1960s. He later moved to Helsinki, Finland, to take his research forward using specially bred rats genetically predisposed to becoming alcoholic. The conclusion of Sinclair’s experiments? That alcoholism is a learned behavior and it can be UN-learned!

Dr. John D. Sinclair

It’s the reason abstinence fails. It’s only holding back the tide of drinking. Unfortunately it has given rise to the myth that an alcoholic cannot be cured. Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic is what Alcoholics Anonymous teaches.

What is observed is that—no matter how long a person abstains—if he or she subsequently takes a drink, it triggers the glug glug glug glug of the lab rats! The result is fierce heavy drinking, passing out in a coma, maybe violence, lost weekends… the whole nine yards.

If you are unlucky enough to have lived with an alcoholic you will also be aware there are other issues: like dishonesty and secret drinking (hiding bottles), always followed by deep remorse and self-hatred. It’s pretty difficult to love an alcoholic, frankly.

But it’s all nonsense!

As I said, the problem is with abstinence. It does not and cannot EVER work to the person’s good. That’s why Alcoholics Anonymous have such dismal results. Members are TERRIFIED of breaking their abstinence, because they know it will all go south if they do! Will power does not solve the problem of WHY a person is drinking to excess.

Not surprisingly, AA has a low success rate, which some critic put at less than 10% (it depends of course on what criteria you use for “success”). According to Lance Dodes MD, “There are some studies that have claimed to show scientifically that AA is useful. These studies are riddled with scientific errors and they say no more than what we knew to begin with, which is that AA has probably the worst success rate in all of medicine.”²

By the way, we don’t use the term alcoholic much these days. It’s very restrictive. A much commoner term, that gives us an understanding of how widespread alcohol abuse is, we call alcohol use disorder (AUD). 

Is there something better than abstinence? After all, the peoples of southern Europe drink a LOT and don’t get sick, are not alcoholics and can control their drinking on the whole. But a true Frenchman, Spaniard or Italian would not dream of giving up their drink anyway. He or she takes it almost daily and doesn’t come to harm. They rarely trigger the alcohol deprivation effect and so they can handle their drink.

Yes, the answer is to DRINK! Sounds crazy, doesn’t it. And there is an important caveat, which must be observed. Then we have a treatment which is 78-80% or more successful—not to achieve total abstinence, but to achieve controlled, moderate drinking. It’s called…

The Sinclair Method

After the above-mentioned Dr. John D. Sinclair. Unlike traditional treatments that require complete abstinence from alcohol, the Sinclair Method allows you to continue drinking alcohol at the beginning of treatment.

In fact, treatment success depends on the continued consumption of alcohol in combination with the prescription medication Naltrexone.

Naltrexone is at the heart of the Sinclair Method for Alcoholism. It is important to understand that alcohol triggers the same opioid reward pathways in the brain as does morphine. When a person takes Naltrexone prior to drinking, it blocks endorphins, the naturally occurring opiates in the brain, from being released when alcohol is consumed.

If the endorphins are blocked, there is no “buzz” or rewarding experience, and the alcohol doesn’t make you feel the pleasure that drives you to drink excessively. We call this pharmacological extinction.

But it won’t work unless the person takes a drink! Naltrexone must be taken at least one hour before drinking. Done right, the person gets less and less pleasure from drinking alcohol and may give up altogether, or drink only occasionally and moderately.

I’m sure this is good news for problem drinkers, for whom abstinence is very daunting indeed. Usually a person crawls to AA when he or she is so disgusted with themselves that they are ready to surrender. And the famous 12-steps are pretty rough and self-degrading.

I have never understood the purpose of making the person stand up in front of the group and announce: “I am an alcoholic.” It’s the wrong signal; bad motivation.

My idea of a successful cure is not abstinence but being able to (truly) control drinking. A person should stand up and say, “Alcohol used to be my master—but not any more! Yay!”

You can watch a lady explain how she benefitted from the Sinclair Method on YouTube

Naltrexone for Morphine Relief

As a closing note: You may have heard of naltrexone for morphine overdosing. It saves lives but blocking the opioid receptors in the body.

Low-dose naltrexone (LDN) has a place in fighting cancer too. Low dose means 4.5 mg per dose. The Sinclair Method uses 50 mg tablets.

According to a report in reported in the July 2011 issue of Experimental Biology and Medicine³, LDN was found to have an extraordinarily potent antitumor effect on human ovarian cancer in tissue culture and xenografts (that’s when tumor tissue is implanted into the skin of a test animal). By the way, ovarian cancer is the 4th leading cause of cancer-related mortality among women in the United States.

The strategy of LDN therapy in repressing cancer was first reported over 30 years ago by Drs. Zagon and McLaughlin (Science 221:671-673). But why should it work?

It blocks one particular endorphin, opioid growth factor or OGF, which results in reduced cancer cell proliferation.

Pretty neat stuff, huh?

Here’s to healthy and vibrant drinking, with all the documented health benefits, and none of that nasty alcohol use disorder, OK?

If you do suspect yourself of AUD, see your doctor and show him this piece or a web article about The Sinclair Method! You’ll need a prescription for naltrexone (50 mg).

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby

The Official Alternative Doctor

References:

1. Sinclair, J. D. and Senter, R. J. (1968) Development of an alcohol-deprivation effect in rats. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 29, 863–867.
2. https://www.npr.org/2014/03/23/291405829/with-sobering-science-doctor-debunks-12-step-recovery
3. Low-dose naltrexone: harnessing the body’s own chemistry to treat human ovarian cancer. (2011). Experimental Biology and Medicine, 236(7), viii–viii. https://doi.org/10.1258/ebm.2011.011f07

One of the big problems with so-called “scientists” is that they follow the scientific method but not the scientific speak. It’s so common to find that facts state a particular case and then the scientists contradict it—because they have some problem accepting the data.

So there is the pretense of science. People are fooled into believing they are being “scientific”, when in fact they are just resorting to personal opinions, at variance with the proven facts.

As an example consider this new study from Spain, showing that alcohol reduces death by heart disease by up to 54%–and that’s from HEAVY drinking. Yet they still insist that nobody should drink and “other studies” show alcohol kills. Why shouldn’t people adopt alcohol? If their science is worth a spit, drinking saves and enhances lives, for heaven’s sake.

This fanatical onslaught against alcohol continues, despite all common sense and scientific method. Spain and France, both very heavy drinking countries, where a bottle a day per person is almost the norm, do not have higher death rates than the rest of civilization. On the contrary, you have probably heard of the “French paradox”—meaning that the French drink HUGE amounts of alcohol and yet on average do not die younger than the rest of us.

Thousands of studies have shown that alcoholic drinks have an ameliorating effect on dietary excesses and seem beneficial. Papers on resveratrol and other polyphenols in red wine are coming out at the rate of about one a month. Yet born-again critics (many of whom I suspect are recovered drunks, from their ridiculous language) still rant against drink.

Most so-called alcohol deaths are from drink driving and alcoholism: in both cases anti-social and psychotic behavior is the problem, not the alcohol. If I drink a bottle of wine and DON’T go out on the roads and kill somebody but another person does go out and kill somebody, in what possible sense can the alcohol be the real cause of the second instance?

It’s just not logical.

Roaring drunks like Oliver Reed and Judy Garland had deep-seated psychological problems. Their self-destruct pathways killed them; alcohol was just the tool. Sometimes, like Mary Tyler Moore and Larry Hagman, the person doesn’t die physically but their life comes off the tracks and they are “dead” career-wise.

Well, with all that off my chest, let me talk more about this interesting Spanish study. Dr. Larraitz Arriola, MD, a researcher at the Public Health Department of Gipuzkoa, San Sebastian, evaluated 15,630 men and 25,808 women ages 29 to 69, all free of heart disease at the beginning of the study, following them for a median of 10 years (half longer, half less). That’s 41,000 people in all: a MAJOR study.

Dr. Arriola considered a “drink” as an alcoholic beverage with 10 grams of alcohol, the U.K. standard [In the U.S., a standard drink is equal to 13.7 grams of alcohol, according to the CDC].

The study’s definition of drinking levels was not scientifically-based and just made up “off the wall”.

But she chose to set it as follows:

• Light drinking was up to 5 grams a day — or about one glass of wine, one and one-half beers, or less than a half glass of hard liquor.
• Moderate drinking was 5 to 30 grams a day, or about two glasses of wine, two or three beers, or a half to one glass of hard liquor.
• High and very high levels of drinking were 30 to 90 grams a day, or about five or more glasses of wine, seven or more beers, and one to one and a half glasses or more of hard liquor.

What Dr. Arriola found was that:

• Light drinking reduced risk by 35%
• Moderate drinking reduced risk by 51%
• High and very high levels of drinking reduced risk by 54% and 50%.

Even former drinkers had a 10% risk reduction. As I keep pointing out, teetotalers don’t do so well on life expectancy. That might be counter-intuitive but it is an uncontestable fact.

One of the things that frustrates me with studies on alcohol is they rarely distinguish the types of drink. In my opinion (I’m labeling it an opinion) wine is far safer and more natural than either spirits or beers. So when all drinks are lumped together, it often masks the benefits of wine, which are quite clear when it is examined alone.

But in this study, I note that all drinks were counted and the conclusion was that beer, wine, or hard liquor all reduced the risk of heart disease in men by up to 50% or more.

The benefits showed up mainly for men. The researcher found no statistical benefits for women drinking alcohol but Dr. Arriola concluded this may be because of the relatively low number of women in the study who developed heart disease. That in turn could be because the drinks benefited them greatly. But it cannot be stated as fact; we just don’t know on these figures.

Cheers!

If they’re crushed and fermented into wine – studies show they can.

The Power of Antioxidants

Produce is healthy and beneficial for your body. Over the last few years, scientists around the world have discovered just how good it is for you.

However, as healthy as fruits and vegetables are to add to your diet, some are even better for us than others are – and researchers have the data to back it up.

The skins and seeds of grapes are a rich source of antioxidant compounds known as polyphenols. Long known to help combat autoimmune disorders and strengthen your bones, polyphenols also have been proven to have amazing cancer-fighting abilities.

The Free Radical Fight

The scientific community now recognizes long-term, free radical damage as one of the leading causes of cancer. What exactly is a free radical?

Free radicals are formed when your body is attacked by an invading force such as pollution, cigarette smoke, even radiation from the sun. These harmful forces cause damage to your body’s molecules, literally breaking them apart.

Seeking to maintain the natural balance and harmony of your body, these molecules will do whatever is necessary to reform, even if that means stealing an electron from neighboring healthy molecules to do so.

As you can imagine, over time, this produces a cascade effect. The damaged molecules begin to disrupt the cell they are bonded together to form. Once the cell is disrupted, it may begin dividing uncontrollably which is the process that leads to cancer.

Can this be prevented with a glass of wine?

When wine is fermented, the polyphenols in the grapes are dissolved into it. This creates a liquid antioxidant.

Red wine contains more polyphenols than white due to the fermentation process but white wine – even champagne – also contain high levels of polyphenols and other powerful antioxidants.

Wine – Cancer Fighting in Moderation

Scientists have said for years that wine is good for your heart and wine prevents cancer. Now there are studies coming out every day proving that vino can also keep you cancer free.

A paper published by the US National Library of Medicine in 2003 speaks of wine consumption lowering the risk of several types of cancer including colon, lung, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

A more recent study by the Northeastern Ohio University Colleges of Medicine and Pharmacy showed further conclusive evidence that resveratrol, a polyphenol commonly known as a plant antibiotic, has anti-cancer properties that are simply astounding.

With man-made antibiotics, the human body adapts to them, ultimately becoming resistant. This results in superbugs that your body has no ability to fight.

Bacteria do not adapt to resveratrol – they have no way to mutate and resist it.

During tests, resveratrol was shown to inhibit – and in some cases even reduce – tumor growth in skin, breast, prostate, gastrointestinal, and lung cancers.

A separate study performed at the University of Leicester indicated that two glasses of wine a day could reduce the rate of bowel cancer by nearly 50%.

The more research that is done, the clearer it becomes that wine prevents cancer – in moderation – is good for you. It’s healthy for your heart, reduces your risk of dementia, and can even protect your brain from damage after a stroke. All of this and it can prevent cancer.

Why Big Pharma Doesn’t Care About the Science

The pharmaceutical companies will never talk about this. If you prevent cancer, they lose billions of dollars every year in cancer treatment drugs. That you might enjoy yourself with a lovely glass of wine prevents cancer while affecting their profits probably makes them angry.

Cancer is a wily foe and there is no magic bullet but there are three major secrets that you must know to beat cancer and remain in good health. Click here now to discover these secrets for yourself. While you browse, open up a bottle of good wine, and enjoy the day.

It will put a smile on your face, it will heal your body, and let’s be honest, isn’t everything better with a glass of wine? Salut!

Maybe it does; but is it the right kind of sleep? Probably not.

A Japanese study, published Aug 2011 online in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, looked at the quality of sleep after alcohol intake. They found disturbing news. Alcohol interferes with the nourishing and restorative aspect of sleep.

They tested 10 male university students (hardly “normal” human beings!). Using electrocardiograms, the researchers focused on the relationship between the volunteers’ heart rate variability and their sleep. The team found that alcohol increased heart rate and interfered with the restorative functions of sleep — and the more alcohol the participants drank, the greater the effect.

Apparently, the first half of sleep after alcohol intake looks good on the EEG. But assessment of autonomic nerve function showed that drinking leads to insomnia rather than good sleep.

The effect on habitual drinkers might be even worse, the researchers pointed out. This was a study after only ONE dose.

Certainly, anyone who drinks regularly will have observed that alcohol causes insomnia. It’s hardly surprising that alcohol should have negative consequences on the quality of sleep.

My only complaint is the usual one for alcohol studies: the researchers did not differentiate what TYPE of alcohol. All good research points to the fact that wine is healthful. But beer and spirits are not.