the benzo's and opiates were bad but, omg, the seizures and d.t's from alcohol were indescribable. i do service work at an aa women's detox and there are no medications given. every week at least one newcomer has a seizure where the paramedics come out. we've also had one fatality from alcohol detox.

This is interesting-and very intriguing to read the articles linked on here.
American Indians have long been thought to have a hard time metablolizing alcohol. The grave markers along the road to the reservations I believe can testify to this. Is this a stereotype? I don't know...

Metabolizing

"Human bodies have enzymes within their bodies that help them to metabolize alcohol at a certain rate, to get the alcohol out of both the bloodstream and the body. Spreading throughout ones body, alcohol is almost completely metabolized in the liver where enzymes begin to turn the ethanol into CO2 and water (What happens when you drink). For a white of normal weight and normal height, the amount of time it takes for 1/3 an oz of alcohol (aprox. one beer) to leave the body is about an hour. However, depending on location, different ethnic groups have a higher or lower toleration of alcohol due to the amount of time it takes to metabolize. Interestingly, there have been studies done on different reservations that show that certain tribes have a higher or lower tolerance of alcohol due to the effectiveness of these enzymes (Kelley). With both those with higher and lower tolerances, this can cause problems. Native Americans who metabolize alcohol at a slower than "normal" rate tend to have a lower toleration of alcohol and can therefore become drunk much faster. When one is binge drinking, either with friends or alone, this can cause extreme alcohol poising and often death. At the same time, other Native Americans who have a higher tolerance and are able to metabolize alcohol more quickly get drunk less quickly. This higher tolerance tends to cause more long-term problems and also can be highly dangerous in the short term when the drinker takes far too many drinks."

Makes you think. But I still believe that once we open the floodgates in our psyches to escape-we will do this again if we open the door. Even with another substance. It may not be our first substance of choice-but we are at high risk. We are not just biological beings-I do have a strong belief that the spiritual and mental aspect of ourselves have a big part to do with addiction/alcoholism.

I am of the notion too that one size does not fit all. But this ezyme discussion is good stuff!

I have one simple rule of thumb when wading through stuff like this. If the researchers just hop from hypotheses to conclusions without any experimental verification to support their claim, their opinion is as worthwhile as the average bus driver's. Call it what you like, but there is nothing scientific about armchair guesswork.The studies which reveal the methodology of the experiment and the raw, uninterpreted including control-group data are much more trustworthy.

I agree nemo. But even with control groups-there are often other factors that the researchers did not consider, or did not include in their study as it would not corrolate with what they want to put out there as their findings. A does not always equal B-there is a C factor, and even researcher don't think of it sometimes.

So professionally done studies with what seem like well-controlled control groups-all contributing factors are not always taken into consideration. Other things influencing the outcomes may only come out later, after the study is done. Sometimes what is uncovered is the professionals steering the outcome.

I am always a skeptic with psychological experiments especially-so subjective, lots of bs behind the scenes.

I thought about this abit...I had lived for years in an area between 2 reservations. My best drinking buddy was an American Indian.

I thought I had heard that Indians could be predisposed to alcoholism....and after reading more...Ya it's all about enzymes!

this is the site I used as my known good:

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh301/3-4.htm

Awesome ML. I don't know why I couldn't find that resource last night when I was searching.

Thanks!

np Howto....I have had a typically thought of American Indian surname for 32 yrs now.

I kept it after the divorce for my son's sake....but ppl tend to assume.....
My son, his family and I are the only one with the last name in Spokane, Wa.....a fairly large city. I love it...but have also heard my share of "drunk Indian jokes" I laugh!

KK,

Let me put it this way. I've been a monk in the Catholic church, a businessman and a graduate student in sociology at a major university. Of these three institutions, I would say in hindsight that by far the most superstitious, dishonest, sold-out, corrupt, intimidating and cult-lke was the sociology departmnent.

Just because you can say you're addicted to alcohol doesn't not logically follow that you are a drug addict.

Please stop the insanity.

The problem is that we have an obsession to drink and not an obsession to do drugs.

The obsession gets us to drink, not do drugs. What's so hard to understand.

Discussing drug problems and drug solutions are misleading and potentially dangerous to anyone new to this board.

Basdist...
This post has nothing to do with the addiction argument. It is simply information regarding the PHYSICAL ALLERGY described in the AA Big Book and supported by various research others have noted here.

Please leave the addiction argument out of it. I don't care whether alcoholism is an addiction or not. The whole argument is annoying to me. If you want to argue it, go to one of the other posts about it. This one is irrelevant.

Sorry, won't happen again.

This is good and valuable information.

In modern medical terminology, an alcoholic's compulsion to drink is not an "allergy" -- ask any doctor.

What Silkworth was saying -- which unfortunately became gospel, is that he suspected alcoholics have a biological disposition to craving, an atypical response -- like an allergy. He loosely termed it an allergy of the body. He had no scientific evidence at all -- it was his opinion and he was not aware of the genetic and metabolic scientific inquiries that have come to light.

None the less -- his word is taken as gospel and repeated time and again among AA's.

The fact that he was, technically, incorrect and had no scientific basis for his claim is ignored out of hand.

Similarly, Bill made highly exaggerated claims about the efficacy of the AA program with, again, no scientific basis. A few studies have concluded that AA has an attrition rate of about 90% -- though it is unclear what exactly is meant by attrition -- are these people who go to one meeting and never return? Are these people who have a slip at some point? Are these people who will come back to AA?

I am rather troubled at how we AA's like to quote science when it supports our hypothesis, but are utterly uninterested in science and demand blind faith in other circumstances.

I am simply pointing out that one can not have it both ways.

All that said -- Joe and Charlie have discussed this in their Big Book studies -- a revisiting of the Doctor's Opinion armed with contemporary medical terminology about metabolism of acetone and other ketones in alcoholics.

I also believe AA does well when we speak the simple truth about it. We are not certain why alcoholics are alcoholics and AA is not a cure-all. It works for many millions of people and requires constant vigilance. But, sadly, most alcoholics die of alcoholism -- be it in the form of a cirrhotic liver, a car wrapped around a tree or a self-inflicted gunshot.

I remember this -- and consider myself one of the lucky ones.

If I am going to effectively "carry this message" to the next alcoholic, I have to be honest about my experience. If I speak of AA's steps and principles as gospel, I am not being honest to my experience. If I try to speak as a scientist, I am lying.

Just some thoughts I wanted to share.

Thank you for the post, hotolive!