He didn't say alcoholism wasn't treatable... he was saying it wasn't a disease.

The word "treatable" would/should not be in the title.

Even if it were then I would have to write another blog reply entitled "Addiction IS a disease"!

The content would be fairly similar, as the idea that medications can be used to treat alcoholism is inherently linked to the idea that it is a disease and thus potentially treatable.

I re-read Peele's article and I still say he was criticising the notion that it was a "treatable disease" not that he was saying it wasn't treatable, but I will let him defend himself and explain himself further on that point.

How can you say that Naltroxone working for some people is proof that it's a disease, especially when the study you cite shows that behavioural therapy is equally as effective? This is like saying because LSD relieves boredom that boredom is a disease (when boredom is equally amenable to behavioural therapy).

The Naltrexone could just be providing symptomatic relief from withdrawals and cravings, but this is no proof of a disease.

The only clear conclusion from the study is that Naltroxene and therapy are equally effective. It makes no distinction between those who gave up completely and those who went back to moderate drinking. And one year isn't enough to tell anything.

are you saying its not a disease? i dont get the LSD reference since boredom is neither harmful nor abnormal.

Is a "disease" something that would leave evidence in cadaver? For example, if by "alcoholism is a disease" you mean that if the person died then we would see evidence, such as brain degeneration, liver erosion, etc? By that definition alcoholism would seem to be a disease.