Moderated: Why do people insist AA is not religious?/Efficacy of AA & other treatment programs

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

It's an easy fix, Joey. Don't put quote marks around things that are not quotes. Instead, paraphrase, or add a qualifier ... "the board basically said, 'It's not our responsibility.' " Signal that you are paraphrasing. Putting words in other people's mouths is dishonest.

I would have thought it was obvious that I was paraphrasing, you don't win points for nitpicking, just sayin. You calling me "dishonest", "fabricated a quote" "make things up" when it doesn't change the meaning of what they said at all, is clearly trying to win points of some kind or the other.

Quote:

He's clearly saying they have a moral responsibility; he's implying they have a legal responsibility. Which is why I think the board will take some kind of action - there is legal exposure. In a lawsuit you're way better off saying,"No, it never occurred to us at all" than saying "We considered doing something about it and decided not to." There should be more literature put out than the one-page communique in 2001 that apparently applied only to the Central region.

You think they will take some kind of action? This was written years ago, nothing has happened, nothing will happen, because to them the structure of the system cult is more important than doing the right thing and changing how the entire program cult operates. The only way they could do it properly is have all people in authority or influence (leaders, sponsors, don't bother making the argument there are no authority figures in AA that's the oldest canard they have) subject to the same rules of professionalism as anyone else. The cult is structured the way it is, to give authority to people who don't deserve it, because that's who created it, woos who wanted to feel better about themselves for having the power to help other people, power over other people. Bill Wilson was the worst. He even enlisted the help of imaginary spirit guides to help him write the 12 and 12, such was his addiction to the feeling of importance.

From "Escape from the cult of AA"

DARE TO ASK YOURSELF 7 QUESTIONS:
1. Do you feel that A.A. is NOT the only road to Sobriety?
2. Do you take issue with being chided for questioning the “Program”?
3. Are you troubled by AA's Religious foundation?
4. Have you been greatly harmed by AA?
5. Do you ever wonder if AA is a cult?
6. Do you question being told that you cannot be angry?
7. Have you been forced to admit powerlessness over your life in a way that empowers other members while it diminishes you?

Quote:

What's your mechanism for ensuring that "alcoholics only take the services of professionals" and outlawing peer support groups? That is what you just proposed doing, if I am I interpreting your words accurately

I have said many times in this thread that I fully support support groups, but when you start giving advice or forming other people's belief systems about alcohol or alcoholism and recovery this is not peer support, this is medical advice. Peer support groups overseen and guided by professionals is the model others have wisely used.

I have had to say this continually because I am regularly attacked with the idea of "You don't want support groups? You heartless monster!" No, I don't want cults operating freely in society. There is a difference.

Quote:

And, did you miss the part where I said I was in group therapy and briefly living under the same treatment center roof as a guy who was soon afterward arrested for first-degree murder? In a highly regarded professional setting?

What's the point? I'm against people with no qualifications other than drinking Bill Wilson's kool-aid being given authority to help indoctrinate (infect) newcomers to achieve sobriety with their belief system (cult memetics)

Quote:

One mother, Joey. Not "some mothers." Do you really not see how your language kicks everything bad about AA up a notch? I notice you pluralize "molestors" when, again, that bullet item cited one molester. Also the incident is 7 years old, no excuse I know but not necessarily an epidemic.

He says "There is confusion about taking legal action against perpetrators because the victims think they will be breaking anomymity..." Where that is two mothers or one (do you really think that has ever only happened once?), or just one mother and multiple victims, there is a pattern of predators getting away with these crimes because vulnerable people are confused and thought-stopped with "anonymity" Why are you nitpicking over things like this? It doesn't win you any points, it doesn't make me look dishonest, this to me sounds like apologizing for a religious cult.

Quote:

Also, as soon as she ran it by Paul he told her to call the police? I don't know what you do about such clueless people having children. Unfortunately parents don't have to pass parenting tests to become parents.

The thing is about vulnerable people and cults... sorry I can't continue this much longer it takes too much time.

Quote:

Except for your insistence on "group leaders," I agree with that assessment. I can't swear there are no groups with an elected "leader," but I haven't seen any examples of this, on this forum or anywhere else.

The oldest AA canard "We have no leaders" (careful, that's not a direct quote ) is BS. The sponsees do what their sponsor says "listen to your sponsor" is something you hear all the time. People gain authority naturally. Look up Midtown, look up Clancy, those are cults, that is how it works.

Quote:

I don't know any 15-year-olds in AA, but you've convinced me: Groups with minor members should act. They should elect someone to scan local sex offender databases, be on the lookout for these individuals, approach them if they are seen in a meeting and say, we'll be watching you. Or, they could post fliers in the window; it would be degrading to the offender, but survivable. If the meeting is within 300 feet of a school, such a person could be asked to leave on legal grounds. The board ought to use its voice to strongly suggest this policy but mandate it? No. There are groups that aren't on the books anywhere, groups where everyone's over 30, etc.

Here's something sad, a 15-year-old addict/alcoholic will be a predator magnet both inside & outside "the rooms." I wonder where they would be more at risk: on the streets and using, or clean in a group that has sober, responsible members.

It's very simple, if groups are not monitored and kept in line by a central authority, predators will rise to the top in some groups. It should be extremely easy, if you call yourself "alcoholics anonymous" this means there is monitoring and security enforced by people who know how these situations go bad. If you don't pass the test, if you don't do things properly, if you let someone be a sponsor who goes around giving anti-med advice, you lose your right to call yourself Alcoholics Anonymous. Of course, this is too much to ask, will never happen in a million years. Do you know any reformed cults that are now good for society? Nope, neither do I.

There are better groups out there that could just take their place.

[Joey McGee]

Stinkin' Thinkin', "Muckracking the 12-Step Industry", members of this forum (ilsita for one) friends of mine, and many in this thread, have closed their blog. It will go back up with comments off in good time. You can read their goodbye letter here. The comments on that are quite something. I hope no one goes there from here to start something, that would be disrespectful in light of the circumstances.

Some of the craziest cult member trolls I have ever seen were featured there and posted in their comments. For a long time I was worried about them. Then on the 19th they reveal that someone has sent them a threatening email with ilse's home address in it, and then called them early the next morning, demanding that references to themselves be removed from the comments of the blog. (The comments described them as predators or delusional cult leaders or something along those lines, you know, the usual)

The next blog post in my RSS was "AA member threatens to cut off my head". They contacted the FBI.

So while this alone didn't cause them to shut down the blog, spending all of this time just dealing with these kinds of situations has been very taxing to them and they are moving on to be more effective in other ways. Death threats are not fun to deal with. This is not the first and will not be the last anti-AA group to suffer this kind of treatment and fate.

That was the best AA blog of all time. It helped many, many people get out of the cult and live much better lives. These were good, smart people. Not a hate group at all as some have tried to say. Go ahead and listen to an interview with them and see for yourself.

So, this turn of events is what has been behind my lack of interest in engaging in the same old arguments we had 6 months ago and the same old blatant caricatures of my arguments. I'm going to actually go do something about these problems.

So if you feel the need to bash ST for some strange reason, please remember that ilse is a member of this forum so the rules apply.

Thanks for everything ST crew, your efforts will be multiplied by the skeptic community a million times over.

That reminds me, ilse made a good point, the skeptic community is largely blind to the true nature of the cult, just how bad it is. It has done a good job blending into society. She wrote to Ed Brayton about this and he featured it on his widely read blog. A good point.

They also told me that this thread is just way too crazy for them to engage in, also that it was sad the way things were going, especially since it's James Randi's forum. At first I was in denial about this, but I have come around to their position.

James Randi "created" Penn and Teller, who created BS the 12-step episode (the best anti-AA video ever produced, fantastic television, a great intro to the cult of AA), which no doubt inspired the South Park 12-step epsiode (those guys are all best buds) So that's heartening.

[AlBell]

Still waiting for the studies that demonstrate 'science-based medicine' actually helps anyone, ever.

[DannyB II]

Nutbag wrote:

Quote:

The real harm is that people go to AA thinking it's an effective program largely because AA touts itself as a cure-all for alcoholics,

"Rarely have we seen a person fail who has throughly followed our path."
That doesn't sound like a "cure all" statement to me.

Quote:

but there isn't a shred of evidence that it does bumpkis for them.

Was there supposed to be Doctors reports , longitudinal studies ect....
Nutt your inability to be totally honest here is a bummer. You know AA and what it offers. Stop trying to act like it is something else just so you can criticize it.

Quote:

And many of these people ******* die.

Oh!!! There is the drama.
Can you cite anything but your own anecdotal evidence?
I didn't think so.

Quote:

Anyone who has been to AA meetings for long enough sees these people. They're the chronic relapsers who keep showing up in the rooms and then go get drunk. And instead of pointing them to science-based medicine, AA tells them that they didn't work the steps properly, didn't do their 90 in 90, didn't do enough service.

Nutt, is that what you did while you were in AA. Because you are right there are some folks who do say those things. Most members I know do not. If I had a friend who was struggling I would suggest he go to detox and then get some in house treatment. If AA was not working then the suggestions become slim frankly, depending upon where you live. Most addicts and alcoholics I know are down and out so having a computer isn't always handy. But if they can get to a library, college ect...they can probably hook up with a online group other then AA.
Please stop acting like all these other possibilities aside from AA are tested, studied and have been science based proven. if you had a problem with alcohol then you know damn well all the solutions out there are not providing great results.

That's a load of bull.

Quote:

They went to a program that claims to help alcoholics, but can't provide a shred of evidence that it does so, and they get desperate. They get desperate because they're involved in a treatment that simply doesn't have the answer for the condition they have, and that actively dissuades them from seeking out more effective programs.

Was this your story Nutt. Is this what you perceived to have happened to you.
People in AA are conspiring together to prevent people from getting the help they need. That we hold down alcoholics that want to move on and see if another program works.
That we are so threaten by other avenues that we would participate in the killing (through suicide) of members just to see them not leave.
What in gods name is wrong with you.

Quote:

Through this whole thread, not a single AA supporter has given even the slightest shred of evidence that AA does a damn thing for anyone.

I guess we as members don't count. I have been clean and sober for almost 26 years with the help of AA/NA. I have moved on but I still practice the valuable principles I learned.

Quote:

I'm highly suspicious of an organization that won't conduct a study to see if it's effective when it is literally a matter of life and death for many folks walking in it's doors.

Do all the other programs have such studies done on there effectiveness.
Since you are so brilliant and you seem to have immense experience in working with alcoholics, please do share your current plan of helping people who abuse alcohol. Also would you be able to stop working at your job today and show us how effective your plan would work.
Everyone here I have noticed that knocks AA have all these bright ideas but not one of you work with or support people who are struggling with alcohol or drugs. It just sounds like you are telling us your story but embellishing it bit to include more members.
Just wondering???

[DannyB II]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Stinkin' Thinkin', "Muckracking the 12-Step Industry", members of this forum (ilsita for one) friends of mine, and many in this thread, have closed their blog. It will go back up with comments off in good time. You can read their goodbye letter here. The comments on that are quite something. I hope no one goes there from here to start something, that would be disrespectful in light of the circumstances.

Some of the craziest cult member trolls I have ever seen were featured there and posted in their comments. For a long time I was worried about them. Then on the 19th they reveal that someone has sent them a threatening email with ilse's home address in it, and then called them early the next morning, demanding that references to themselves be removed from the comments of the blog. (The comments described them as predators or delusional cult leaders or something along those lines, you know, the usual)

The next blog post in my RSS was "AA member threatens to cut off my head". They contacted the FBI.

So while this alone didn't cause them to shut down the blog, spending all of this time just dealing with these kinds of situations has been very taxing to them and they are moving on to be more effective in other ways. Death threats are not fun to deal with. This is not the first and will not be the last anti-AA group to suffer this kind of treatment and fate.

That was the best AA blog of all time. It helped many, many people get out of the cult and live much better lives. These were good, smart people. Not a hate group at all as some have tried to say. Go ahead and listen to an interview with them and see for yourself.

So, this turn of events is what has been behind my lack of interest in engaging in the same old arguments we had 6 months ago and the same old blatant caricatures of my arguments. I'm going to actually go do something about these problems.

So if you feel the need to bash ST for some strange reason, please remember that ilse is a member of this forum so the rules apply.

Thanks for everything ST crew, your efforts will be multiplied by the skeptic community a million times over.

That reminds me, ilse made a good point, the skeptic community is largely blind to the true nature of the cult, just how bad it is. It has done a good job blending into society. She wrote to Ed Brayton about this and he featured it on his widely read blog. A good point.

They also told me that this thread is just way too crazy for them to engage in, also that it was sad the way things were going, especially since it's James Randi's forum. At first I was in denial about this, but I have come around to their position.

James Randi "created" Penn and Teller, who created BS the 12-step episode (the best anti-AA video ever produced, fantastic television, a great intro to the cult of AA), which no doubt inspired the South Park 12-step epsiode (those guys are all best buds) So that's heartening.

Listen lets get something straight right here and now Stinkin Thinkibn was not a great blog. It attacked, stalked, abused, harassed and outright dehumanized people all across this country.
Mark and Illse were the most vindictive hateful people I have ever met.
Though I don't agree with death threats or anything like that. I do know it was a matter of time. You can only publish people's names, addresses, pictures, ISP addresses ect... for so long and not get retaliation. They put so many people in danger by posting their personal information I can't count.
So please take your whoa is me for those two disgusting people and run it on soem other blog.
Many members know Mark and Ellse here and have been the subject of their ridicule.
Like I said I in no way condone nor am I happy to know Ellse and her family were subjected to this kind of abuse.
But they went after people using their blog and in a very cruel way and abused and attacked them.
I say good riddance.
I am not bashing I am telling the truth, what I said are facts. Plus she was owner of a blog so don't tell me the same rules apply.
You brought it up, you opened the door and you wanted to say something positive without letting the other side say anything. Nice try.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Poster Nutbag

And instead of pointing them to science-based medicine,

Which science based medicines?

For the record, I will regularly refer people to other therapies; people need some serious counselling for PTSD, sexual abuse etc; psychiatry; etc

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I would have thought it was obvious that I was paraphrasing, you don't win points for nitpicking, just sayin. You calling me "dishonest", "fabricated a quote" "make things up" when it doesn't change the meaning of what they said at all, is clearly trying to win points of some kind or the other.

I think it is dishonest in the extreme

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

There are better groups out there that could just take their place.

Which ones?
How do they work and what efficacy rates do they have?
Are they science based?

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Stinkin' Thinkin', "Muckracking the 12-Step Industry",

Stinkin Thinkin is a hate group.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Still waiting for the studies that demonstrate 'science-based medicine' actually helps anyone, ever.

That's off-topic for this thread. Go make a new one under SMT and then you can get more specific information, though I think you probably won't get many useful answers to the question, "so guys, demonstrate 'science-based medicine' actually helps anyone, ever!"

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by DannyB II

*snip*

Originally Posted by DannyB II

*snip*

I'm going to ask that you refrain from personalizing this topic any more than you have since starting, okay? I don't really like the idea of this thread being closed.

I might also recommend you edit out your personal attack against another forum member.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Which science based medicines?
How do they work and what efficacy rates do they have?
Are they science based?

This is off-topic. The topic pertains specifically to AA.

Quote:

Stinkin Thinkin is a hate group.

So what?

The null hypothesis is that AA works no better than doing nothing at all.

Where's your evidence disproving the null hypothesis?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

That's off-topic for this thread. Go make a new one under SMT and then you can get more specific information, though I think you probably won't get many useful answers to the question, "so guys, demonstrate 'science-based medicine' actually helps anyone, ever!"

Actually it is totally on topic.

We are seeking (and have been for some time) the efficacy of other treatments; they would include the science based ones that some continually refer to. The ones that some say AA (and elsewhere) should be referring people with alcohol issues.

If AA doesn't work (as some claim) what does? How? And what are the efficacy rates?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

This is off-topic. The topic pertains specifically to AA.

Untrue. Please read the topic heading.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

So what?

Just saying.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Untrue. Please read the topic heading.

Yup, you're right that was my mistake. I don't know when it was changed, but I see that it now has been.

I retract my statements.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Yup, you're right that was my mistake. I don't know when it was changed, but I see that it now has been.

I retract my statements.

I hadn't noticed this either. I think this needs an explanation. Who petitioned for this and what was the rationale behind accepting it? As everyone can see, it is the technique of some to try and talk about "efficacy" instead of the problems stemming from the religious/cult nature of the program, as if that somehow excuses the iatrogenic problems with the program cult. These problems wouldn't occur (as often, or without a way to report/seek justice) in a secular, evidence-based, professionally run program. Thanks Paul Cleary wherever you are. (oh wait he's at Yale?) is that the same guy? Sheesh. If there was a way to show that SMART and AA had the exact same efficacy results (see this post for how I think it treatment should happen in real life) , you'd still have all your work ahead of you apologizing for the harm that goes on because of the structure of AA!

It's pretty obvious to everyone that there is a perfectly rational explanation why there is not a Cochrane review for SMART yet. AA started in the 30s and has crept into the court system and beyond. It doesn't matter, we are talking about "What's the harm?" here, in light of the OP.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Stinkin Thinkin is a hate group.

What is your rationale for stating this? Can you give any evidence and reason for this assessment or is your hatred of their purpose the main factor? They exist purely to help eliminate delusion and pseudoscience in medicine, a goal the JREF shares. They don't pull punches, they don't excuse wish thinking. Good on them. Without completely distorting their words or actions, I know absolutely nothing they have done to hurt or hate on any innocent person. Some people are just protective of their namesake, I understand, but "hate group" is just provably wrong.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Poster Nutbag

The real harm is that people go to AA thinking it's an effective program largely because AA touts itself as a cure-all for alcoholics

It doesn't.

Quote:

, but there isn't a shred of evidence that it does bumpkis for them... And many of these people ******* die.

It's simply untrue that no one has given a shred of evidence that AA helps some people. You can deny the 1 million in the U.S. have been helped by AA, but they believe they have, and I don't think they're all delusional. At any rate as we discussed before: If they think AA has helped, hasn't AA helped? If you don't like anecdotal evidence click on some of the posted links to studies.

Quote:

And many of these people ******* die. I Anyone who has been to AA meetings for long enough sees these people. They're the chronic relapsers who keep showing up in the rooms and then go get drunk.

Chronic relapsers die in and out of AA. There is no treatment that reliably "has the answers for the condition they have." except maybe handcuffing them to a gurney or keeping them perpetually unconscious. Many have used up any health coverage that would supply alternative or supplemental options for these "more effective programs" you allude to. Most people in AA don't want people to die of alcoholism, don't you get that? If any medical help's available we'll summon it. Just because some of them are theist doesn't mean they take great joy subjugating and condemning people. Jesus, if that's been your experience of AA, I'm sorry. It hasn't been mine.

Quote:

And instead of pointing them to science-based medicine, AA tells them that they didn't work the steps properly, didn't do their 90 in 90, didn't do enough service. ... They get desperate because they're involved in a treatment that simply doesn't have the answer for the condition they have, and that actively dissuades them from seeking out more effective programs.

They get desperate because they're in a desperate situation. Many have used up any health coverage that would supply options for these "more effective programs" you allude to. There's no tradition in AA doctrine of beating up on individuals and isolating them from care. If anyone tells them those things, it's most definitely not 'AA.'

Quote:

...not a single AA supporter has given even the slightest shred of evidence that AA does a damn thing for anyone.

You repeat the claim, I'll repeat the response. It's untrue that no one has given a shred of evidence that AA helps some people. You can deny the 1 million in the U.S. have been helped by AA, but they believe they have, and I don't think they're all delusional. Do you? At any rate as we discussed before: If they think AA has helped, hasn't AA helped? If you don't like anecdotal evidence click on some of the posted links to scientific studies.

Quote:

I'm highly suspicious of an organization that won't conduct a study to see if it's effective when it is literally a matter of life and death for many folks walking in it's doors.

AA conducts membership surveys; but it's been pointed out numerous times that AA isn't going to seek out people that have never been to AA and make them promise not to go to AA. The General Service Board has no power to make that directive. There's a charter, it's binding. When people talk about bottom-up structure it's not a metaphor. I suppose groups could start pushing for it - but if detractors blame even neutral studies, they 're certainly not going to believe one "run by" AA, so really what is the point?

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

You calling me "dishonest", "fabricated a quote" "make things up" when it doesn't change the meaning of what they said at all, is clearly trying to win points of some kind or the other.

Of course I'm trying to win points, Joey. Sheez.

Quote:

You think they will take some kind of action? This was written years ago, nothing has happened,

The board's answer was 2 years ago. Things do trickle up. Do you not think people in AA look out for one another? They do. Your default attribution is malevolence.

Quote:

The cult is structured the way it is, to give authority to people who don't deserve it, because that's who created it, woos who wanted to feel better about themselves for having the power to help other people, power over other people.

I can see that you really believe this. This has affected you personally, you spoke of close family members involved in AA. Further attacks on Bill Wilson irrelevant; he was colorful, so what?

Quote:

From "Escape from the cult of AA"

DARE TO ASK YOURSELF 7 QUESTIONS:

Uh, selection bias?

Quote:

I fully support support groups, but when you start giving advice or forming other people's belief systems about alcohol or alcoholism ...

When you start giving advice? That is when a groups rights of assembly should end?

And how does a support group form other people's belief systems? You think addicts/alcoholics don't arrive at some beliefs themselves? Like, *I can't drink because last time I launched a 3,000-pound missile down city streets at 60 mph? *People know what they've done! Here, try these steps OK? No? Oh, OK, well, if you change your mind ... Such indoctrination.

Quote:

I don't want cults operating freely in society.

It's called freedom of assembly. There is a difference.

Quote:

He says "There is confusion about taking legal action against perpetrators because the victims think they will be breaking anomymity...

And I can't account for people that dense. That woman sounds like she was actually looking for a cult. If you look for a cult in AA maybe you'll find one.

Quote:

The thing is about vulnerable people and cults... sorry I can't continue this much longer it takes too much time.

Tell me about it

Quote:

... if groups are not monitored and kept in line by a central authority, predators will rise to the top.

You're in your own world Joey

Quote:

If you don't pass the test, if you don't do things properly, if you let someone be a sponsor who goes around giving anti-med advice, you lose your right to call yourself Alcoholics Anonymous.

Ah, Joey. What was it that happened?

Quote:

There are better groups out there that could just take their place.

Maybe they will. And they'll be professionally moderated just like you say? By volunteer professionals, correct?
You have an interesting mind.

[DannyB II]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

I'm going to ask that you refrain from personalizing this topic any more than you have since starting, okay? I don't really like the idea of this thread being closed.

I might also recommend you edit out your personal attack against another forum member.

What are you talking about, Norseman. I am lost, really.

[Hallo Alfie]

Joey, please refer to your earlier comments and respond to these...

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Which science based medicines?

Which ones?
How do they work and what efficacy rates do they have?
Are they science based?

[DannyB II]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

I'm going to ask that you refrain from personalizing this topic any more than you have since starting, okay? I don't really like the idea of this thread being closed.

I might also recommend you edit out your personal attack against another forum member.

I am going to ask you to please be fair. Just because you happen to like Stinkin Thinkin and refuse to see the harm they brought to many, that is not my problem. It was a hate group.
Nut was very direct and so was I.
Norseman knock it off. Every time you don't like a post it is attacking. Let the members I am conversing with comment.
AA is personal for us maybe you can cavalierly talk about it but at times when you folks are being dramatic it can be a bit much.
People lives are at stake here at times.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

AA started in the 30s and has crept into the court system ....

Aye, creeping like those Commies who were going to take over America.

[Minoosh]

An aside, and it's not said in defense of AA:

In the U.S. any documented treatment for substance abuse can make you uninsurable.

Obama care sort of fixes this, if it lasts.

It's not just that they won't insure you for substance abuse; they won't insure you for anything.

[Poster Nutbag]

Originally Posted by DannyB II

Nutbag wrote:



"Rarely have we seen a person fail who has throughly followed our path."
That doesn't sound like a "cure all" statement to me.



Was there supposed to be Doctors reports , longitudinal studies ect....
Nutt your inability to be totally honest here is a bummer. You know AA and what it offers. Stop trying to act like it is something else just so you can criticize it.



Oh!!! There is the drama.
Can you cite anything but your own anecdotal evidence?
I didn't think so.


Nutt, is that what you did while you were in AA. Because you are right there are some folks who do say those things. Most members I know do not. If I had a friend who was struggling I would suggest he go to detox and then get some in house treatment. If AA was not working then the suggestions become slim frankly, depending upon where you live. Most addicts and alcoholics I know are down and out so having a computer isn't always handy. But if they can get to a library, college ect...they can probably hook up with a online group other then AA.
Please stop acting like all these other possibilities aside from AA are tested, studied and have been science based proven. if you had a problem with alcohol then you know damn well all the solutions out there are not providing great results.

That's a load of bull.



Was this your story Nutt. Is this what you perceived to have happened to you.
People in AA are conspiring together to prevent people from getting the help they need. That we hold down alcoholics that want to move on and see if another program works.
That we are so threaten by other avenues that we would participate in the killing (through suicide) of members just to see them not leave.
What in gods name is wrong with you.




I guess we as members don't count. I have been clean and sober for almost 26 years with the help of AA/NA. I have moved on but I still practice the valuable principles I learned.



Do all the other programs have such studies done on there effectiveness.
Since you are so brilliant and you seem to have immense experience in working with alcoholics, please do share your current plan of helping people who abuse alcohol. Also would you be able to stop working at your job today and show us how effective your plan would work.
Everyone here I have noticed that knocks AA have all these bright ideas but not one of you work with or support people who are struggling with alcohol or drugs. It just sounds like you are telling us your story but embellishing it bit to include more members.
Just wondering???

While I appreciate the snarky tone of your post, you still have yet to actually provide evidence that AA works. As the Norseman said, the null hypothesis is that AA provides no better outcome than no treatment at all, and the organization has not conducted such a study. The few studies available show outcomes identical to no treatment, and until better studies are done, we should not attribute any effect to AA.

As I said earlier, my experience in AA was actually relatively positive. There were some nutters here and there but most of the people were decent human beings attempting to improve themselves, and I totally respect that. I still speak to my old sponsor on a near daily basis and have tremendous respect for him as a person. I dont think AA members conspire to drown out other options, but there is no doubt that the organization as a whole is inadequately self critical and so dominant in the field of treatment as to crowd out funding of other methods and awareness of other programs that at least operate within the framework of good medical practice. The idea that the 12-steps work as they claim to work is simply laughable, and since there's been no evidence produced that they do work, it's best to make no assumptions about the efficacy. The fact that millions of people worldwide think that AA helped them simply doesn't matter. Far more believe that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, or that homeopathic remedies helped an ailment, or any other whacky claim. The fact that someone believes a treatment was effective is in no way indicative that the treatment actually had any effect. I'm only criticizing AA because I see it failing people, and some of these people have died because they did not have access to effective treatment. As someone who realizes how the modern scientific method has revolutionized medicine, I find it simply inexcusable that the largest alcohol treatment program has failed to incorporate these advances into the program.

I was lucky and was able to attend a program in addition to AA that was self critical and constantly reviewed its practices. Whether it was my own motivation, that program, or AA that ultimately made the difference is a question I simply cannot answer, but I feel much more comfortable operating within a rational framework than one founded quite literally upon revelation. If you don't, that's fine, but the idea that such an organization has dominated the treatment field for so long should be disturbing to anyone who really wants to provide good treatment to alcoholics.

[Poster Nutbag]

And a quick follow-up to my last post. AA can conduct a study about its efficacy any time it pleases. If it were truly concerned (as an organization) about providing the best possible treatment, it would do so. The traditions are simply that, and if they prevent such a study as currently written (though I don't think they do), they should be scrapped. If the real goal is helping as many people as possible, then there is no excusable reason for failing to see how they are performing as an organization and making any necessary adjustments to improve the program.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by qayak

AA meetings often hold socials/dances and because the people attending the events are dry which means underage kids can get in. That is exactly how my former sister-in-law met her 34yo husband when she was 15 ... She was pregnant by 16 and married to the abusive asshat before turning 17.

Agreed, these cases occur in all kinds of social situations. Especially in the home.

The most common place for sexual violence to occur is in a person's home and
Alcohol or drugs increase a person's vulnerability to sexual assault
http://http://www.ywcabergencounty.org/programs/rape_crisis.html

You'd like to think a 15-year-old would be safer at home but you'd be wrong. She's also safer sober BTW.

The clubs probably ought to have age restrictions; I imagine a lot of them do. Shall we research that or just make it up?

Originally Posted by qayak

The fact is, AA makes it easy because of the pecking order involved. Adults are superior to children

And you believe this. Good God. Please provide evidence.

I wouldn't turn my 15-year-old daughter loose at an AA dance, but she'd apparently be safer from Daddy there.

Thank you, you're motivating me to go back to AA and keep an eye on people like your brother-in-law.

Quote:

My brother-in-law comes home from his weekly Saturday meeting and tells me all about any new woman who attends and the number of old timers who are all over her.

He sounds like a real champ. Definitely I'd trust whatever he said.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Poster Nutbag

And a quick follow-up to my last post. AA can conduct a study about its efficacy any time it pleases. If it were truly concerned (as an organization) about providing the best possible treatment, it would do so.

It's concerned about serving a network of loosely connected, largely autonomous groups and staying as accessible as possible. The "best possible treatment" would probably be more along the lines of what Joey suggests and it would cost thousands of dollars per patient. Please show me what you think AA's study should look like. No one's been able to do it yet.

Originally Posted by Poster Nutbag

... If the real goal is helping as many people as possible...

That's not the real goal. Bill tried that at first, 4 out of 5 "rummies" weren't terribly interested. It's about being there for people who want it. You obviously don't.

Did it help you at all, do you think?

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Poster Nutbag

The idea that the 12-steps work as they claim to work is simply laughable, and since there's been no evidence produced that they do work, it's best to make no assumptions about the efficacy.

I get it what you're saying, that there's no evidence AA helps anyone, and that's inaccurate. If you want to attack the steps have at it and I assume you'd include the secular version. Can you think of any way to do it except to require some people to work the steps and forbid others from doing so? AA's there for every alcoholic who wants it. It's not going to forbid people from working the steps. So, design away, you claim it can easily be done.

Originally Posted by Poster Nutbag

The fact that millions of people worldwide think that AA helped them simply doesn't matter.

Those poor deluded fools. But I wasn't talking about anecdotes.

Originally Posted by Poster Nutbag

I find it simply inexcusable that the largest alcohol treatment program has failed to incorporate these advances into the program.

Which advances? And what would that look like?

The fact that the U.S. relies on a free program that takes no government money to be its "largest alcohol treatment program" is unnerving, I admit. I mean, all they do is read a little bit, drink coffee and sit around talking. Shouldn't the largest program be run by NIH, or Kaiser or something? A big teaching hospital? A foundation? I wonder why they haven't stepped up.

Originally Posted by Poster Nutbag

I was lucky and was able to attend a program in addition to AA that was self critical and constantly reviewed its practices.

I'd like to hear more about this program, its success rate and how it constantly improved its practices.

The sincere people in AA are - ideally - also are self-critical and constantly reviewing their practices. It's part of the program. AA is the people in it, not the general service board. Some if most have been involved in treatment facilities or groups.

Take the smoking example, as second-hand worries grew most meetings became nonsmoking. The AA organism changed to meet conditions on the ground. It will keep doing so.

But a drop-in center where you put a buck in a basket is not responsible for transforming the U.S. behavioral health care system.

Originally Posted by Poster Nutbag

but the idea that such an organization has dominated the treatment field for so long should be disturbing to anyone who really wants to provide good treatment to alcoholics.

Cost nothing, doesn't charge, doesn't advertise and has somehow hopelessly damaged all those other proven treatments out there.

Someone ought to step up to fix this. Congress, maybe.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I hadn't noticed this either. I think this needs an explanation. Who petitioned for this and what was the rationale behind accepting it? As everyone can see, it is the technique of some to try and talk about "efficacy" instead of the problems stemming from the religious/cult nature of the program, as if that somehow excuses the iatrogenic problems with the program cult. These problems wouldn't occur (as often, or without a way to report/seek justice) in a secular, evidence-based, professionally run program. Thanks Paul Cleary wherever you are. (oh wait he's at Yale?) is that the same guy? Sheesh. If there was a way to show that SMART and AA had the exact same efficacy results (see this post for how I think it treatment should happen in real life) , you'd still have all your work ahead of you apologizing for the harm that goes on because of the structure of AA!

It's pretty obvious to everyone that there is a perfectly rational explanation why there is not a Cochrane review for SMART yet. AA started in the 30s and has crept into the court system and beyond. It doesn't matter, we are talking about "What's the harm?" here, in light of the OP.

Yes, I didn't have time earlier to mention this part, but I agree; I think combining evidence for and against AA as well as evidence for and against other treatments in this thread is going to kill it. It's already a muddled mess trying to keep on topic as it is. At this point, it's become too easy for AA proponents to obfuscate and dodge the issue of AA's own inefficacies by trying to drag into the mix other (perhaps) more effective treatment modalities.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Yes, I didn't have time earlier to mention this part, but I agree; I think combining evidence for and against AA as well as evidence for and against other treatments in this thread is going to kill it. It's already a muddled mess trying to keep on topic as it is. At this point, it's become too easy for AA proponents to obfuscate and dodge the issue of AA's own inefficacies by trying to drag into the mix other (perhaps) more effective treatment modalities.

I may be wrong but I seem to recall the "addition" being made about the time we went to moderation (maybe before we did). That was some time ago and compaining about it now seems a little strange to say the least.

There is ample room for discussion on a number of fronts here.

Many of us would love to learn of these "science" or "evidence based" systems that work; but as yet actual evidence has been lacking despite the screams of their existence.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

I may be wrong but I seem to recall the "addition" being made about the time we went to moderation (maybe before we did). That was some time ago and compaining about it now seems a little strange to say the least.

No. The change was to "Why do people insist AA is not religious?/Efficacy of AA"

The "...& other treatment programs" is a more recent addition and will still be a mistake conflating them all here in this thread, especially in the Religion and Philosophy subforum. Medical science as pertaining to addiction more properly belongs in MST.

Quote:

Many of us would love to learn of these "science" or "evidence based" systems that work; but as yet actual evidence has been lacking despite the screams of their existence.

Screams? Oh, please.

Any 'insightful', specific, thoughtful comments you'd like to make regarding the studies that have been presented? Have you found any for the edification of the rest of us?

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by DannyB II

I am going to ask you to please be fair. Just because you happen to like Stinkin Thinkin and refuse to see the harm they brought to many, that is not my problem. It was a hate group.
Nut was very direct and so was I.
Norseman knock it off. Every time you don't like a post it is attacking. Let the members I am conversing with comment.
AA is personal for us maybe you can cavalierly talk about it but at times when you folks are being dramatic it can be a bit much.
People lives are at stake here at times.

I am fair, Danny. Instead of just reporting it to the mods, I thought I'd remind you that you made what appeared to be a personal attack against another forum member.

Also you are personalizing this discussion by bringing in a (in this case) completely mistaken and irrelevant item by stating that I "like Stinkin' Thinkin'" website when I've never made any comment about it in my life that I can remember. I am not the only one you do this with, either. Ultimately, it doesn't matter excepting the fact that it detracts from what I believe you wish to say.

Quote:

Every time you don't like a post it is attacking.

You are mistaken. So if this is the case, evidence please?

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Still waiting for the studies that demonstrate 'science-based medicine' actually helps anyone, ever.

Don't hold your breath.

Originally Posted by DannyB II

Listen lets get something straight right here and now Stinkin Thinkibn was not a great blog. It attacked, stalked, abused, harassed and outright dehumanized people all across this country.
Mark and Illse were the most vindictive hateful people I have ever met.
Though I don't agree with death threats or anything like that. I do know it was a matter of time. You can only publish people's names, addresses, pictures, ISP addresses ect... for so long and not get retaliation. They put so many people in danger by posting their personal information I can't count.
So please take your whoa is me for those two disgusting people and run it on soem other blog.
Many members know Mark and Ellse here and have been the subject of their ridicule.
Like I said I in no way condone nor am I happy to know Ellse and her family were subjected to this kind of abuse.
But they went after people using their blog and in a very cruel way and abused and attacked them.
I say good riddance.
I am not bashing I am telling the truth, what I said are facts. Plus she was owner of a blog so don't tell me the same rules apply.
You brought it up, you opened the door and you wanted to say something positive without letting the other side say anything. Nice try.

No kidding that site was infested with raging hypocrites.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Stinkin Thinkin is a hate group.

Yep, I'm glad the cowards that attacked you no longer have a forum to spew their hate. Unfortunately it seems a few have made their way here. At least they won't be allowed to get away with same sort of nonsense on this site.

Originally Posted by DannyB II

What are you talking about, Norseman. I am lost, really.

Me too.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Then why are you reading it???

What do they call people who just put random negative comments into forums? I forget.

You mean people whose sole purpose for signing up at JREF is to fabricate nonsense about AA?

They used to congregate at another forum, can you guess which one?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

Don't hold your breath.

I've been here a while now, I'd be long dead if I had been.

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

Yep, I'm glad the cowards that attacked you no longer have a forum to spew their hate.

I didn't mind, after all they gave me a great nickname: Iron Man Alfie. Ta da!
But you are right about cowardice, when I responded with better than they could give, they had to shut me down.

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

Unfortunately it seems a few have made their way here. At least they won't be allowed to get away with same sort of nonsense on this site.

Bring it on I say; they are at the grown ups table here.

That said, if true, I do not condone any threats made against them. However they played a very hard and insulting game - one with all the hallmarks of a hate group; it could be argued that they brought much of what they got on themselves.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Yes, I didn't have time earlier to mention this part, but I agree; I think combining evidence for and against AA as well as evidence for and against other treatments in this thread is going to kill it. It's already a muddled mess trying to keep on topic as it is. At this point, it's become too easy for AA proponents to obfuscate and dodge the issue of AA's own inefficacies by trying to drag into the mix other (perhaps) more effective treatment modalities.

Agreed that the null hypothesis for AA, or any other, treatment modality should be 'does not help'; stats just don't support help over and above doing nothing (other than getting older, and perhaps, wiser).

I think this thread is the perfect place to provide any study that demonstrates some modality actually working.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

No. The change was to "Why do people insist AA is not religious?/Efficacy of AA"

The "...& other treatment programs" is a more recent addition and will still be a mistake conflating them all here in this thread, especially in the Religion and Philosophy subforum. Medical science as pertaining to addiction more properly belongs in MST.

Perhaps, although any evidence medical science has actually helped would be nice, and so far, not forthcoming.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

At this point, it's become too easy for AA proponents to obfuscate and dodge the issue of AA's own inefficacies by trying to drag into the mix other (perhaps) more effective treatment modalities.

When people state that AA doesn't work I believe it's perfectly legitimate to address whether anything works in the same forum. I want the evidence for other treatments put forth, not to defend AA but so that any random person happening on this thread will see evidence about these other programs.

Grandiose of me.

[DannyB II]

Originally Posted by Poster Nutbag

While I appreciate the snarky tone of your post, you still have yet to actually provide evidence that AA works. As the Norseman said, the null hypothesis is that AA provides no better outcome than no treatment at all, and the organization has not conducted such a study. The few studies available show outcomes identical to no treatment, and until better studies are done, we should not attribute any effect to AA.

As I said earlier, my experience in AA was actually relatively positive. There were some nutters here and there but most of the people were decent human beings attempting to improve themselves, and I totally respect that. I still speak to my old sponsor on a near daily basis and have tremendous respect for him as a person. I dont think AA members conspire to drown out other options, but there is no doubt that the organization as a whole is inadequately self critical and so dominant in the field of treatment as to crowd out funding of other methods and awareness of other programs that at least operate within the framework of good medical practice. The idea that the 12-steps work as they claim to work is simply laughable, and since there's been no evidence produced that they do work, it's best to make no assumptions about the efficacy. The fact that millions of people worldwide think that AA helped them simply doesn't matter. Far more believe that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, or that homeopathic remedies helped an ailment, or any other whacky claim. The fact that someone believes a treatment was effective is in no way indicative that the treatment actually had any effect. I'm only criticizing AA because I see it failing people, and some of these people have died because they did not have access to effective treatment. As someone who realizes how the modern scientific method has revolutionized medicine, I find it simply inexcusable that the largest alcohol treatment program has failed to incorporate these advances into the program.

I was lucky and was able to attend a program in addition to AA that was self critical and constantly reviewed its practices. Whether it was my own motivation, that program, or AA that ultimately made the difference is a question I simply cannot answer, but I feel much more comfortable operating within a rational framework than one founded quite literally upon revelation. If you don't, that's fine, but the idea that such an organization has dominated the treatment field for so long should be disturbing to anyone who really wants to provide good treatment to alcoholics.

One thing I have noticed the anti-AA'ers never seem to see their snarkyness.
If your experience was so positive and you are still talking with your sponsor daily then why would you say AA is killing people. If I had been with a organization that I knew was killing people then I would not want anything to do with anybody there. Nutt, these are your words I am using.
My problem is when you start throwing around statements like "AA is killing people and many at that". Then you say "but ya I had really a positive time while I was there".
It is confusing.
I went through a residential treatment program in Maine back in 1975. There model for treating young adults was so barbaric, dehumanizing ect...that many committed suicide during and after they left. So I know what it is like to have someone try to brainwash me and be in a cult with no way out. I have nothing to do with any of the staff that abused us.
You keep pounding away at this efficacy point like it really is supposed to mean something. AA should have longitudinal studies, be tested and they should go out and make AA'ers submit to random tests.
I just laugh my butt off because AA has worked for 70 years and is still working, I don't why and you don't know why and Nutt it is just killing you that this is a fact. You can not deny 1 million people (which is a conservative number in the USA) and call them all dummies.
AA is simple, the steps appeal to ones good self and asks if you want to become a better person, if so this is how we did it. Not this is the only way but "This Is How We Did It".
There are at least 7 members of JREF's right here that are AA folks posting on this thread and about the same number Anti-AA posting. So what does that tell you Nutt. You and I are not alone and we both matter, equally.
Concerning critical thinking, I didn't need a program to teach me this or guide me I had plenty of good healthy friends in AA and out that were critical thinkers. Still have the same friends. AA people have been some of the most critical thinkers I have known. This is why according to my experiences many go on to have successful lives. We demanded excellence from one another.
As far as showing you evidence that AA does help people look at you and I. We are clean and sober today. Yes your time in AA did have something to do with that. Remember AA is only part of the treatment plan.

[DannyB II]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

I am fair, Danny. Instead of just reporting it to the mods, I thought I'd remind you that you made what appeared to be a personal attack against another forum member.

Also you are personalizing this discussion by bringing in a (in this case) completely mistaken and irrelevant item by stating that I "like Stinkin' Thinkin'" website when I've never made any comment about it in my life that I can remember. I am not the only one you do this with, either. Ultimately, it doesn't matter excepting the fact that it detracts from what I believe you wish to say.

You are mistaken. So if this is the case, evidence please?

Norseman,
Please read above. My answer to your post is within the lines above.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

When people state that AA doesn't work I believe it's perfectly legitimate to address whether anything works in the same forum.

How is it legitimate? How does the effectiveness of another program make any difference to the effectiveness of AA? Discussion of other methods has zero bearing on whether AA is effective or not and it is a logical fallacy to say "Well, you might as well go to AA because none of the others work either."

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

The "...& other treatment programs" is a more recent addition and will still be a mistake conflating them all here in this thread, especially in the Religion and Philosophy subforum. Medical science as pertaining to addiction more properly belongs in MST.

Originally Posted by qayak

How is it legitimate? How does the effectiveness of another program make any difference to the effectiveness of AA? Discussion of other methods has zero bearing on whether AA is effective or not and it is a logical fallacy to say "Well, you might as well go to AA because none of the others work either."

Maybe you should have a talk with 8den, Jack Astor, Poster Nutbag, Joey McGee and their friends from Stinkin Thinkin, they were the first people to mention those other treatments and when they were asked to back up their claims, they ran away.

[Ketyk]

I'm not sure if this makes a difference to anyone, but the thread title was changed 13th August 2011.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...65#post7471665

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

Maybe you should have a talk with 8den, Jack Astor, Poster Nutbag, Joey McGee and their friends from Stinkin Thinkin, they were the first people to mention those other treatments and when they were asked to back up their claims, they ran away.

Indeed. Even in the forum's home page they actually made claims about science and/or medically based therapies. When questioned on this and further challenged they had nothing except bile and hate. Sadly for them, it is their lack of critical thinking and exploration that was exposed.

Stinkin thinkin was no more than a hate group that served little purpose except for sick people to vent their common spleens.


In order to compare apples with apples, I would ask all the ST ex forum members (and others) to support their claims and show us which treatments they think work, what methodologies are used and what the efficacy rates are.

I don't think it too much to ask and time to stump up methinks.