80% is great. At least he isn't stuck on "Chassis." Go with it.
For the downvoters, clearly it hasn't happened to you yet. There's nothing like being taken advantage of in a "band" only to find out it was never a band at all, just some songwriter's vanity project that gets folded as soon as they get what they want from you for free. It'll happen; I suspect most of the experienced players here have been there. There are tons of sharks out there waiting for you to step into their pond.
I barely recall watching this show once or twice, but was not my fave.
Found the guy who's looking for free studio work.
My career was in medical research, so what I know about this is that all research concludes by suggesting more research is needed. That's true, because when we begin to think we know all there is to know, we no longer leave room to learn anything new.
What I'd say to all of this is that there is additional research done since Sinclair's early work. He went to Finland and set up a clinic and treated thousands of patients there - that's applied science, not research - but he never told us to stop seeking more info, and he and others have continued to do so.
The big problem with all research is funding. You can say something needs to be done until the cows come home, but until someone with deep pockets is willing to pay the bill on that, it's all just talk. That shouldn't keep us from thinking our way through to logical conclusions and developing best practices based on evidence and what we already know. Pretty much all of medicine operates that way.
I dislike the idea that any treatment modality should become ossified to a degree that new evidence can't be incorporated due to over-reliance on outdated understanding. We should always be welcoming of new evidence and refinements to our approaches. I'm very happy to incorporate whatever works for each person, whether that be the Vivitrol shot, Acamprosate, time-targeted use of Naltrexone (which is all that TSM is), or some other combination of meds. I'm just thrilled that we have so many more options than we did a few decades ago, and that they are becoming more widely known and readily available, because nobody should have to suffer with AUD.
What do you mean by "in tune?" I can sing in tune relative to the other notes I sing as long as my voice in warmed up and in condition. I cannot always sing at concert pitch unless I take a minute to listen in my head to the music I want to sing (or a song that I know is in the same key or will give me a known note to relate to).
If I don't listen for pitch in my head first, I won't necessarily be at concert pitch with the recording, but often I am, anyway.
Royalties don't really matter if gig pay was pooled in order to make a recording that now belongs to one person. Those people should have been paid for those gigs and given session rate to record. This is not ethical.
If they were paid for the gigs, that's fine, but lesson learned is not to give away free studio work unless you co-own rights to the material.
Nobody asks for money back that's already spent on consumables, past travel expenses, or purchases that the player will keep. That's not a thing.
What's a thing would be band funds, or spent funds where everyone pitched in to buy a PA or some other product that then stays with .... someone who is not leaving the band. i've seen band funds used to pay for studio time where the BL broke the band up as soon as the recording was made. That's an unethical use of shared money where the BL essentially used the band members and the revenue from live shows to finance his own personal project. In that situation they should have been paid back what they put into the band fund, but it was spent on the recording, which benefitted nobody but the songwriter. The money was gone, nobody got back what they'd put into the band, but the bandleader got a nice record.
You need to ask yourself what's ethical and what isn't, and ask yourself how you would feel in their shoes if XYZ happened to you. Then act accordingly.
I agree but I did ok at home. Kaiser does suck, though.
I seriously don't know why people downvote someone for merely sharing their own experience. Nobody's saying my experience applies to the OP. I'm saying that medical detox at home was presented to ME as the new normal. That may be of interest.
Good luck to you with it. I hope it all works out well for you!
I think compliance is a big problem because people do not really understand the science behind it, so they tend to doubt the method. They try it for a few days, expecting instant results, then get defiant because they miss the high and want to outsmart the medication. Those people aren't really ready for it. It may take them some time to figure it out.
You have to admit that it seems counterintuitive based on what most people think they know about what's needed for recovery. I also think compliance is a problem because most people expect too much too soon and aren't adequately prepared for the work they'll need to do alongside the medication to keep going, remain compliant, and gain the benefits.
From what I've seen in the TSM community, many start with a goal of harm reduction but find that eventually abstinence just becomes the logical end point. It's not necessary to set a strict goal of abstinence heading into this, and it's generally a good idea to let your goals be flexible, because once you're in it you're in a place you couldn't have imagined until you got there, and that changes everything. It's a fascinating treatment.
I would listen to the doctor, though when I went for mine I was told they (Kaiser) really rarely inpatient for that anymore. I was having seizures and they didn't admit me. Weird.
Anyway, the doctor should be able to give you instructions on what to do.
I'm confused; medical detox can be done at home. Is he specifically saying you need to go to the hospital?
Yes, you will still get drunk if you drink a lot, it just won't feel as satisfying. It's that sense of satisfaction that creates much of the addiction so that's what we're trying to unlearn.
A lot of the evidence is anecdotal, which in the medical literature would be called a "case study." I've spoken with people who have had good success with it, as I also have, so I am comfortable with the idea that it works for some of us, not sure how many or what factors lead to success or failure. Since I've had success with it where nothing else worked, I tend to suggest it's worth trying.
It's really only hard on the liver at high doses, not the doses we typically use to treat AUD. But if in doubt, or if you have liver disease, it's best to ask your doctor about monitoring that.
AA and SMART and many other programs are abstinence based, whereas naltrexone using the Sinclair Method is primarily about harm-reduction which may ultimately lead to abstinence, but that is not the immediate goal. It's very different from AA, which was developed almost a century ago, and the way it works can be hard to wrap your head around.
There are some materials out here that present it as though it's a miracle drug that takes all the effort out of cutting down / quitting, but that's not the experience most people have. Most of us who use it successfully find that it helps to create conditions in which the work we tried that used to be unsuccessful now works for us. We used to try to cut back, but we couldn't. With naltrexone, now we can.
For most who take it compliantly, it helps to reduce the urge to drink and makes it easier to change habits around alcohol use, ultimately changing our relationship with alcohol to one that seems much more in line with how most "normies" drink. From that point it's a choice you make as to whether you want to cut alcohol completely out of your life or continue to drink socially.
Whether it's right for you might depend on a number of factors, and there are other medications that can also be tried. It's hard to overcome almost a century of cultural conditioning that says abstinence is the only way forward, and there are some people who just can't accept or believe in that. Acamprosate is probably a better medication for those people. But the point is that there are options and AA is by no means the only support available. Good luck with whatever you decide to choose from here. A relapse only lasts as long as you decide to allow it to continue.
It's not even practical from the casino's standpoint. If someone gets sick, how does this policy help them? I've never heard of it and if someone were telling me this is the reason they can't hire me, I wouldn't believe it.
Nuttall's woodpecker has a distinctive call where I live. Took me forever to figure out which bird was making that sound.
Right, which is one reason I really think this is an academic debate. Nobody cared until someone in academia decided there was only one correct way.
80% is not on the fence.
I'm completely in love with one name. Husband says he's 80%.
namenerds