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

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by 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

It seems to have taken a long time for people to come up with this reason not to support their claims doesn't it? I hope that means all excuses are now exhausted.

[qayak]

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.

And that makes a difference how? It has been the pro-AAers making the claim that AA is effective because other programs might not be.

If you haven't noticed, this isn't Stinkin Thinkin, its the JREF forum.

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by qayak

And that makes a difference how? It has been the pro-AAers making the claim that AA is effective because other programs might not be.

Go ask them, they were the ones claiming these other programs were better than AA.

Quote:

If you haven't noticed, this isn't Stinkin Thinkin, its the JREF forum.

Yes and thankfully so.

[Hallo Alfie]

Qayak is on ignore so I don't read his posts. Going by the above comment he seems to assert that the AAers are making the claims. In fact it is the other way around, it is the non AAers that have been claiming "science" and/or "evidence based" therapies work better (owtte).

In line with the usual protocols of this forum, they are being called to provide evidence.

The problem is that they have produced nothing, and so we wait... and wait....and wait.

[Minoosh]

Before anyone gets too invested in AA's 5 percent success rate, do some research on where that number came from. Same with any other statistic you cite. Extra credit for citing professional journals or the studies themselves vs. relying on the popular press. It's possible the statistic originated with AA itself and was based on misreading a frequency distribution.

Bill Wilson early on estimated that 4 in 5 drunks (though exposed to fledgling AA) didn't want anything to do with a stop-drinking program. Of the 20 percent that remained he thought half got sober immediately. That's 10 percent. Half of those had some slips, then got sober. That's 15 percent. As years went by it emerged that some tried AA, didn't stick around long but came back later and got sober. The claim that AA says it's a cure-all is so easy to debunk I wonder why anyone would bother posting it.

What worked for me was motivation and a lot of structure. Having my days scheduled down to the minute took away dangerous downtime. The meetings were a big help. AA is not a moderation program, which doesn't mean moderation never works; it means if moderation isn't working for you, you might check out AA. If you're one of the 90 percent that believes in some kind of God, it might be helpful and even if you're not, agnostics and atheists have found a path through the steps. It's not some Puritan scheme; it's a way to make peace with the past and learn to live more usefully in the present. If it's not helpful don't go. If you think it might help, give it more than a token try. If possible try a few groups to help find a good fit.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by qayak

And that makes a difference how? ...

If you haven't noticed, this isn't Stinkin Thinkin, its the JREF forum.

qayak's been around, he didn't sign up to trash AA. Some folks did seem to register primarily to post on this topic, and a couple of them were sarcastic, belittling, etc.

The arguments were varied and some deserved to be seriously addressed. These I believe are legit:

1. AA, at the group and national level, needs to raise awareness about the potential for abuse, particularly when it involves underage members. Nationally, additions should be made to literature and a broader conversation held.

2. Within the current structure, responsible AA members should speak up if they hear reckless medical advice, or blanket statements that imply that AA alone is needed to cure mental disorders. AA literature already reflects that stance.

These are the two main ones I can think of. The attacks on Bill Wilson are irrelevant, spewing contempt for anything that claims a "spiritual" component is ineffective, saying "I know someone in AA who killed himself" is inconclusive.

My 2 cents.

[Poster Nutbag]

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.

For the record, I only learned of Stinkin' Thinkin' through this thread and have perused it for all of 5 minutes. As I said before, I bear no animosity towards AA members in general and don't care to engage in character assassination of the whole program for the behavior of a small portion of the members. I also never made efficacy claims about any other program. What I did claim, and this has still not been addressed by the apologist crowd, is that AA does not operate within the modern medical framework, while there are at least a handful of treatments that do. Setting aside any claims of efficacy, I prefer treatments for physical conditions that operate within the modern medical tradition of experimentation, extensive study, and constant improvement, because this is the only proven way to improve treatment of any condition. AA doesn't engage in this, and there is not a good reason why. Every successful medical treatment to date has been developed and studied in a particular way, and improved upon as needed. Why should AA be exempt from this?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Poster Nutbag

..respectful snip .. Why should AA be exempt from this?

Because AA is not medical treatment - it is a self help organisation.

I have mentioned a number of times that I would hope people in AA direct prospective members to their doctor for detox treatments. I would also hope people are diirected to outside specialists where necessary for other issues.

AA is a self-help maintenance program, not a medical program. And if it was the latter it would be subject to medical board type regulations.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Poster Nutbag

Setting aside any claims of efficacy, I prefer treatments for physical conditions that operate within the modern medical tradition of experimentation, extensive study, and constant improvement, because this is the only proven way to improve treatment of any condition.

You probably won't like this, but AA identifies it as a spiritual program. You have to rely on anecdote for this since it's hard to measure in a lab (though not impossible if suitable algorithms are developed).

AA doesn't conduct experiment with drunks. It's not going to offer one group "treatment" and exclude another group. Show me the study AA could conduct that wouldn't require it to forbid people from attending. I've been puzzling over this one for a while, and no one's stepped up.

Plenty of science has found its way into AA and research has concluded it's effective, especially when supplemented by appropriate counseling etc. AA is not exempt from hard research; AA attendance has factored into various studies.

It would be a lot harder to measure success if working the AA program were included, since the spiritual dimension, which you may ridicule but most Americans don't, is a separate issue than meeting attendance and not readily quantifiable.

[The Norseman]

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. 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.

The efficacy of medical treatment programs for addiction should be in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology subforum because, irrespective of whether or not AA treats addiction as a spiritual disease, it simply isn't.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by DannyB II

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

No. You made a specific claim that every time I don't like a post, I complain. That's what evidence you need to present (which you did nothing of the sort in the post you referenced) otherwise retract your statement.

[The Norseman]

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.

How about maybe you should have a talk with the *first* people to bring up AAs incredible success numbers -- like AA Alfie who claimed a 15% success rate -- and when asked to back it up, they ran away.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

It seems to have taken a long time for people to come up with this reason not to support their claims doesn't it? I hope that means all excuses are now exhausted.

Yes, it was originally changed as I already stated and it was apparently not just me who noticed yet another, unannounced, change to the thread title.

I've already PMed a mod in order to get permission to start a new thread where discussions of efficacies of differing treatment methods can be discussed in the SMMT subforum where perhaps it will get more professional attention from those who know more than I about studies and proper ways of conducting them and interpreting them. I would like to learn more at least.

The Religion and Philosophy subforum is not the appropriate place for this.



Oh and by the way, it was AlBell who once complained about my and others' concerns and criticisms of AA saying that he felt that, by saying these things, we were potentially driving people away from AA. I would think that the smug condescension shown by many pro-AAs would do more damage in the long run as they seem extremely sensitive to criticism -- appropriate or otherwise.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

You probably won't like this, but AA identifies it as a spiritual program. You have to rely on anecdote for this since it's hard to measure in a lab (though not impossible if suitable algorithms are developed).

Yes, it does as I and others have said for quite a few months now and that is the root of the issue for me, at least. There is no evidence that addiction is in fact a spiritual disease which requires a spiritual solution.

Quote:

AA doesn't conduct experiment with drunks. It's not going to offer one group "treatment" and exclude another group. Show me the study AA could conduct that wouldn't require it to forbid people from attending. I've been puzzling over this one for a while, and no one's stepped up.

It seems my answers to you weren't clear enough for you to understand, and I apologize. I thought I was specific enough and provided links to educate you further. Please do not be disingenuous by claiming that "no one's stepped up."

Quote:

Plenty of science has found its way into AA and research has concluded it's effective, especially when supplemented by appropriate counseling etc. AA is not exempt from hard research; AA attendance has factored into various studies.

It would be a lot harder to measure success if working the AA program were included, since the spiritual dimension, which you may ridicule but most Americans don't, is a separate issue than meeting attendance and not readily quantifiable.

"Plenty of science has found it's way into AA"? Are you serious? That's the whole bloody problem -- where is all of this "plenty of science" then? Do you really think no one AT ALL has tried to find this science for those who are looking?

I try not to ridicule spirituality, but sometimes I end up doing so anyway. I don't think I did in this thread; I know others have done. But it is irrelevant whether or not some ridicule spirituality and it's a fallacy (argumentum ad populum) to think that just because lots of Americans believe in spirituality that spirituality is a meaningful proposition especially concerning addictions.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Yes, it was originally changed as I already stated and it was apparently not just me who noticed yet another, unannounced, change to the thread title.

Another?
Unannounced?

There is nothing stopping you from starting another thread on addiction treatments and their efficacies elsewhere.

It seems to me Norseman that by taking these questions to another thread at this late stage is nothing more than a cop out. The questions have been asked and asked for a long time. My cynical side says people are running from the discussion.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Another?
Unannounced?

There is nothing stopping you from starting another thread on addiction treatments and their efficacies elsewhere.

It seems to me Norseman that by taking these questions to another thread at this late stage is nothing more than a cop out. The questions have been asked and asked for a long time. My cynical side says people are running from the discussion.

Yes, another change, as I've already stated.

First: Why do people insist AA is not religious?

Second: Why do people insist AA is not religious?/Efficacy of AA

Newest: Why do people insist AA is not religous?/Efficacy of AA & other treatment programs.



The original topic of efficacy of AA was off-topic; I know I participated in the derail of that. So, it was changed to include discussion of the efficacy of AA. Sometime after that change, it was changed again and I only noticed when you pointed it out. I try to be very precise when I make claims and though I can be wrong, it seems I was not in this case. Maybe a mod will come forward to verify whether or not I'm mistaken. I have no ego involved in being wrong. It is very unfortunate that many others cannot also make this claim in good conscience.

You may view my desiring a thread in the appropriate subforum as a cop-out or as running away. I couldn't care less. You and the other pro-AAs can all do congratulatory back-slapping all night long. I put in a request to a mod simply because I didn't want to be infracted by posting what could be considered a duplicate thread; I also stand by my reasons I just stated. I don't know if it would be an offense so I sent a PM to make certain. I do hope that's alright with you.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Yes, another change, as I've already stated.

Fair enough on "another", I should have put more emphasis on the "unannounced" word which was the one that really caught my eye.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

You may view my desiring a thread in the appropriate subforum as a cop-out or as running away. I couldn't care less. You and the other pro-AAs can all do congratulatory back-slapping all night long. I put in a request to a mod simply because I didn't want to be infracted by posting what could be considered a duplicate thread; I also stand by my reasons I just stated. I don't know if it would be an offense so I sent a PM to make certain. I do hope that's alright with you.

Fine with me. I have no ego about being wrong either.

But I also stand by my comments about it being a cop out. If you take that to mean you, then fine - if the shoe fits, as they say.

My point was and is that we have been asking for people to support their claims around other treatments for a long time, both on and off topic. And it is only now that you wish this change. You have been in a position to say something for some months.

Ther mods have done a great job with this thread imho.They have been firm when they needed to be, allowed the thread to take natural drift and accommodated accordingly to that organic evolution.

And to be fair, I can see your point on one hand. But on the other the cynical side of me says "cop out" when you could readily start another thread without moderator approval/intervention. In fact you should anyway; I too would like to see some more information from a science based perspective. It is certainly not forthcoming from those that make the claims here.

In the meantime you are potentially providing an out for some less than honest posters (I do not count you in that number) and other protagonists, meaning they are not called to account over their fast and loose claims.

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by Poster Nutbag

For the record, I only learned of Stinkin' Thinkin' through this thread and have perused it for all of 5 minutes. As I said before, I bear no animosity towards AA members in general and don't care to engage in character assassination of the whole program for the behavior of a small portion of the members. I also never made efficacy claims about any other program. What I did claim, and this has still not been addressed by the apologist crowd, is that AA does not operate within the modern medical framework, while there are at least a handful of treatments that do. Setting aside any claims of efficacy, I prefer treatments for physical conditions that operate within the modern medical tradition of experimentation, extensive study, and constant improvement, because this is the only proven way to improve treatment of any condition. AA doesn't engage in this, and there is not a good reason why. Every successful medical treatment to date has been developed and studied in a particular way, and improved upon as needed. Why should AA be exempt from this?

I agree with much of what you're saying and understand where you're coming from. Trust me, if I could've taken some medication twice a day for a month and been cured of drinking I would've jumped at the chance.

The problem is, at the moment there really isn't any: "treatments for physical conditions that operate within the modern medical tradition of experimentation, extensive study, and constant improvement"

Most doctors believe there is no treatment currently available:

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/285913-treatment

Quote:

Many physicians believe no effective treatment is available for alcoholism; therefore, these physicians do not refer their patients for treatment.

As for AA members being studied we've had this discussion many times in this thread already. I guess one more won't hurt.

The dilemma stems from how AA is structured. It's a loosely connected network of thousands of self-groups that are based on their members anonymity and a lack of rigid rules. That's what makes it attractive for people like me.

I remember missing appointments with my counselours and I was late for my group therapy meetings quite often( I was still drinking at the time), I was told I would be dropped if it continued and eventually I was. That can't happen to me in AA.

I don't think asking AA members to fill out reports would go over too well, the info might not be realible either.
The best way to study addicts is in a tightly controlled enviroment
with strict parameters.

Maybe one day a government somewhere will offer an AA program to people in need, they could offer room & board in return the subjects will have to participate in a lenghty study. I'm not sure how that would work though or who would oversee it.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Fair enough on "another", I should have put more emphasis on the "unannounced" word which was the one that really caught my eye.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Fine with me. I have no ego about being wrong either.

The only reason I'm being so adamant about it is that I do believe it was changed without general announcement, otherwise I would have objected then.

Quote:

But I also stand by my comments about it being a cop out. If you take that to mean you, then fine - if the shoe fits, as they say.

Heh. Okay, Alfie. I'm not sure how other to interpret you saying, "It seems to me Norseman that by taking these questions to another thread at this late stage is nothing more than a cop out" other than that it was directed specifically at me.

Quote:

My point was and is that we have been asking for people to support their claims around other treatments for a long time, both on and off topic. And it is only now that you wish this change. You have been in a position to say something for some months.

I understand and I have been providing some evidence along the way. Not a huge amount, I'll admit, but I would dare say more than most. I was fine with the status the way it was until you pointed out the thread change, then I had come to a realization. This realization is that I was in error by not, as you point out, saying anything about it sooner. Can't go back and change it, so I'm pressing on with what I believe the subject of a new thread should be.

You seem to me to be if not against my starting a new thread, at least not for it either and that is somewhat surprising to me. I would think that a separate thread *specifically* about how effective treatment types *other than AA* are in in a separate thread would be beneficial for all involved. I will bring my evidence for other treatment types and I hope that others, including yourself, bring it as well.

Quote:

Ther mods have done a great job with this thread imho.They have been firm when they needed to be, allowed the thread to take natural drift and accommodated accordingly to that organic evolution.

I'm not sure why you bring up the mods and their decisions regarding this thread; it seems a bit irrelevant. I agree with you, though, in that they've done a good job.

Quote:

And to be fair, I can see your point on one hand. But on the other the cynical side of me says "cop out" when you could readily start another thread without moderator approval/intervention. In fact you should anyway; I too would like to see some more information from a science based perspective. It is certainly not forthcoming from those that make the claims here.

In the meantime you are potentially providing an out for some less than honest posters (I do not count you in that number) and other protagonists, meaning they are not called to account over their fast and loose claims.

I put in my request a day or two ago; I would like confirmation from a mod that it'd be okay. Maybe I'm just confusing me starting a new thread versus me starting a new thread that is similar to one that was locked and/or moderated.

Besides, if this thread continues, there is more than ample space here to call out me or others in providing evidence for or against AA specifically.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

The only reason I'm being so adamant about it is that I do believe it was changed without general announcement, otherwise I would have objected then.

There was a general announcement on the 13th August as Ketyk outlined a few posts ago.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Can't go back and change it, so I'm pressing on with what I believe the subject of a new thread should be.

I might owe you an apology; are you saying you want to start a new thread, or change the topic of this one? Or both?

Originally Posted by The Norseman

You seem to me to be if not against my starting a new thread, at least not for it either and that is somewhat surprising to me. I would think that a separate thread *specifically* about how effective treatment types *other than AA* are in in a separate thread would be beneficial for all involved. I will bring my evidence for other treatment types and I hope that others, including yourself, bring it as well.

I am all for the new thread and will be a willing participant. I am against changing this thread back.

Have I misunderstood you somehow? If so; my mistake and I apologise. I have no personal beef with you.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

The efficacy of medical treatment programs for addiction should be in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology subforum because, irrespective of whether or not AA treats addiction as a spiritual disease, it simply isn't.

You've convinced yourself and all other atheists=materialists=skeptics, anyway.

The problem is "What does 'spiritual' mean?".

There as yet has been no demonstration alcoholism is a medical problem.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Oh and by the way, it was AlBell who once complained about my and others' concerns and criticisms of AA saying that he felt that, by saying these things, we were potentially driving people away from AA. I would think that the smug condescension shown by many pro-AAs would do more damage in the long run as they seem extremely sensitive to criticism -- appropriate or otherwise.

What is going on here is "otherwise"; more like fox & sour grapes imnsho.

Once an effective medical/scientific modality has been demonstrated effective, we would have something to discuss.

[DannyB II]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

qayak's been around, he didn't sign up to trash AA. Some folks did seem to register primarily to post on this topic, and a couple of them were sarcastic, belittling, etc.

The arguments were varied and some deserved to be seriously addressed. These I believe are legit:

Quote:

1. AA, at the group and national level, needs to raise awareness about the potential for abuse, particularly when it involves underage members. Nationally, additions should be made to literature and a broader conversation held.

2. Within the current structure, responsible AA members should speak up if they hear reckless medical advice, or blanket statements that imply that AA alone is needed to cure mental disorders. AA literature already reflects that stance.

These are the two main ones I can think of. The attacks on Bill Wilson are irrelevant, spewing contempt for anything that claims a "spiritual" component is ineffective, saying "I know someone in AA who killed himself" is inconclusive.

My 2 cents.

I think most responsible people in and out of AA would concur.

[DannyB II]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

No. You made a specific claim that every time I don't like a post, I complain. That's what evidence you need to present (which you did nothing of the sort in the post you referenced) otherwise retract your statement.

Ya got me there, consider it retracted.

[Minoosh]

Reposting:

Does Alcoholics Anonymous work? For some heavy drinkers the answer is a tentative yes
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...anonymous-work

Secret of AA: After 75 years, we don't know how it works
http://http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/06/ff_alcoholics_anonymous/all/1

Some people aren't getting this, so I repeat:

In terms of clinical trials, it would be problematic for AA to conduct a study, largely because AA itself is not going to bar someone from attending AA, including subjects picked to be part of a control group for clinical trials. So far no one has been able to show me how that would work. AA can encourage voluntary surveys but that's about it.

Also I repeat the request for the source material showing AA's 5 percent success rate.

You see references in the media from time to time of "promising new treatments" for addiction/alcoholism. Which is good, we need every weapon in the arsenal. In general they don't preclude concurrent attendance in AA; in fact many counselors suggest a multifaceted approach.

Re: Adding "Efficacy of other treatments." It's valid, especially when the argument is made that AA has stopped science-based addiction treatment in its tracks. At that point it's legitimate to ask, What science-based addiction treatment is AA suppressing and what's the evidence that those modalities work?

If you really want to quit, one way is to structure your time down to the minute and take advantage of every avenue of support you are willing to incorporate. Take very good care of yourself and beware of excessive isolation.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Of the 20 percent that remained he thought half got sober immediately. That's 10 percent.

Quoting myself because I want to emphasize: Those who got sober right away probably had appropriate short-term medical treatment for acute alcohol withdrawal. Paraledehyde, phenobarbital and these days Valium are used to prevent seizures and DTs. I don't know the exact threshold at which alcohol detox becomes potentially fatal. Certainly if you have shakes in the morning and have to drink to settle them down, you should be detoxed under supervision. I don't think the "old-timers" had any issue with that.

I would say somewhere south of 8 ounces of spirits a day, you probably have a physical dependence that requires detox but please don't take my word for it. Depending on the person it could be less.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I would say somewhere south of 8 ounces of spirits a day, you probably have a physical dependence that requires detox but please don't take my word for it. Depending on the person it could be less.

It can be far less: I would be very uncomfortable placing a minimum volume on dependence and detox concerns.

As some are aware I work in a detox. We have a legendary story in the unit of a lady who came for assessment some 12-15 years ago whose daily habit was two small sherry's per night. The lady was quite elderly (in her late 70s early 80s) and her husband of 60 years had passed away some six months prior.

She was accepted into the program, and thinking she was doing the right thing decided to stop drinking between acceptance and addmittance (say a week). She went into DTs and died.

Anecdotal I know, and the skeptic in me says BS. Except; I have heard the same story from a number of sources - all who were working there at the time - they include a GP, Psychiatrist, clinician and two experienced nurses.

[Hallo Alfie]

Meanwhile... where are the anti AAers recently? Do they not post on weekends which kind of suggests they are using work tools. Or have they run from the continued and valid demands of "evidence"? Something else?

Hopefully they are coming up with the evidence they claim is available to put me firmly in my place. I hope; it would be an argument I would be happy to lose.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

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.

No these people are just too unprofessional and stupid to do anything about it. It's not going to "trickle up" where it's need because the predators run their own groups. Like Cleary said, in one instance someone was told to pray for their rapist. It's a crappy old cult that won't change until it's forced to, just like Cleary said. I have no idea what that last sentence is supposed to mean.

Quote:

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?

It started out as a copy of the Oxford group, these people get off on their positions and take them too seriously. Bill and Bob are highly revered, but the stupid arrogant things they did aren't well known. They weren't colorful, they were wildly deluded people, and the religious cult bears those fingerprints.

Quote:

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

If there was a cancer support group that started giving advice about homeopathy and colon cleansing you can bet that some skeptic somewhere would be raising hell over it.

Quote:

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.

I suggest you read the writings of former long-term members, people in the program for 25+ years, at places such as xsteppers and aa deprogramming, to get an idea of how their beliefs were shaped by a cult environment. There are lots of stories of teenagers who were just being teens, then scared by their parents and AA into thinking they have a disease, going to meetings for all this time, then suddenly realize that the statistics and their story doesn't make sense and start enjoying alcohol with no problems. You think hmmmm, this is a stupid cult...

Quote:

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

I'm not against freedom of assembly, I'm against sitting back and not saying anything while people with really bad problems are indoctrinated into a relgious cult under the pretences of helping them get sober. It's really very simple.

Quote:

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.

No offence but this is just an incredibly naive way of looking at it. You seem to have little understanding about what happens to vulnerable people in their kinds of religiously based groups. I recommend reading Steven Hassan or Rick Ross.

Quote:

You're in your own world Joey

I'm in the real world where Midtown happened and no one would do anything about it. We've covered that in detail in this thread. Some people tried to apologize over it, doubted the details, without looking at the evidence provided. No one would do anything, nothing has really changed to prevent that from happening again. There are many more bad groups with bad reputations out there. I don't think you're trying to research this just arguing about it.

Quote:

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

Thank you. From the SMART homepage "Most groups also have a volunteer advisor who is a mental health professional" hey great idea.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

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

Every court case ever has ended in favor of "You cannot make people attend AA because it is a religious program." Now, since it's unconstitutional to mandate religion, this is why I say "crept into". Why do you think they work so hard to maintain the lie that it is not religious?

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

It can be far less: I would be very uncomfortable placing a minimum volume on dependence and detox concerns.

Yes, I realized my hypothetical was on the high end - I was thinking stereotypically of a good-sized man in his prime. That was about what my dad drank. He was dependent but stable and other than extreme irritability didn't have much of a withdrawal syndrome if forced off booze for the day (a very rare occurrence).

There are a ton of variables though.

Anyway, the point was that even if you're determined to "do it yourself," it's prudent to detox under the care of someone who can prescribe controlled substances if needed. Above a certain level going "cold turkey" from alcohol is dangerous.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

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.

Yeah let's trust the words of Bill Wilson. Them not wanting his version of the Oxford group's cult religion is a lot different from not wanting to get sober/end their chemical dependence and drink normally. Gee, I wonder how many "rummies" would take a free course of naltrexone if offered?

[Hallo Alfie]

Now how about your words Joey? Those akin to there are science and evidence based therapies that work better than AA.

What are they?
How do their treatments work?
What are their efficacy rates?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Every court case ever has ended in favor of "You cannot make people attend AA because it is a religious program." Now, since it's unconstitutional to mandate religion, this is why I say "crept into". Why do you think they work so hard to maintain the lie that it is not religious?

Every court case? Ever?

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Why do you think they work so hard to maintain the lie that it is not religious?

I don't know about "them," Joey, I only know about me.

Even leaving the religious angle aside, sending probationers to AA is problematic. They're exposed to something that might help, but also may end up just resenting AA. Anyway as you know AA has no powers of coercion. Judges make up their own minds, appellate courts weigh in and practices change. You seem to discount any suggestion that the judicial system is responsible for the judicial system.

In my state when doctors are popped by other doctors, they're put on a very short leash and ordered to attend AA or NA if they want to keep practicing medicine. Also standard is individual counseling, group counseling and random drug screens. AA is not forcing docs to do this, other doctors are.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Yeah let's trust the words of Bill Wilson. Them not wanting his version of the Oxford group's cult religion is a lot different from not wanting to get sober/end their chemical dependence and drink normally. Gee, I wonder how many "rummies" would take a free course of naltrexone if offered?

Not very many, they like getting hammered, or at any rate can't picture a different future for themselves. BTW it was on exactly this cohort that the Veterans Administration tried naltrexone and concluded it was "no better than placebo."

Naltrexone in the treatment of alcohol dependence
http://http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa011127

"Our studies do not support the use of naltrexone for the treatment of men with chronic, severe alcohol dependence"

I get your little eye roll thingy, that's cute. I don't know if the term "rummy" sounded as corny in 1935 as it does now; for all I know it did, but in any event word usage changes and I'm just now wondering if you are aware of that.

When are you going to get that AA is not a moderation program? I know you resent that fact, but it's just not, and has never been billed as such. And, at a certain point of liver damage "normal" drinking is not an option, one drink is toxic.

Another study might support naltrexone to help a heavy drinker become a normal drinker. Like I said before, the "subject" might want to wear a medical bracelet explaining why the morphine isn't relieving the pain of a "subject" with a bone sticking out of his flesh.

[Joey McGee]

Some funny, entertaining and educational videos on AA.

Cult leader Bill Wilson (is this creepy or what?) talking about the only way to sobriety and his religious experience (which was actually a hallucination on the Belladona cure) So strange, just the way he talks...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[ETA]

Quote:

"then when one alcoholic carries this message to the next, he could reach the newcomer, where he lived, even below consciousness. Then bringing about the deflation, he could create a dependence, of the newcomer upon his sponsor, upon a group if there were any, and finally upon God."

As has been mentioned in this thread, the "We Agnostics" stuff is just more conversion baloney.

Quote:

Yes, we of agnostic temperament have had these thoughts and experiences. Let us make haste to reassure you. We found that as soon as we were able to lay aside prejudice and express even a willingness to believe in a Power greater than ourselves, we commenced to get results, even though it was impossible for any of us to fully define or comprehend that Power, which is God.

[/ETA]

The Onion covers AA

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Top Ten Reasons to Run from Alcoholics Anonymous

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Really honestly just like with any cult we learn the most from the former members who have written about their experiences, then comparing them with how other long-term members describe these same problems, and decide for yourself. It's quite easy after that.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I don't know about "them," Joey, I only know about me.

Even leaving the religious angle aside, sending probationers to AA is problematic. They're exposed to something that might help, but also may end up just resenting AA. Anyway as you know AA has no powers of coercion. Judges make up their own minds, appellate courts weigh in and practices change. You seem to discount any suggestion that the judicial system is responsible for the judicial system.

In my state when doctors are popped by other doctors, they're put on a very short leash and ordered to attend AA or NA if they want to keep practicing medicine. Also standard is individual counseling, group counseling and random drug screens. AA is not forcing docs to do this, other doctors are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol..._Court_rulings

P&T Section how ordering people to attend aa is unconstitutional

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

When are you going to get that AA is not a moderation program?

One problem is precisely that they convince people who could learn to moderate that they are a diseased alcoholic.

Quote:

Research has shown that there are different degrees of drinking disorders, and many people can change habits on their own.

Quote:

Leading scientists say that most humans never become powerless over alcohol.

Quote:

Seventy years ago, Bill Wilson -- the co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous -- declared his powerlessness over alcohol in a book by the same name. The failed businessman contended that, as an alcoholic, he had to "hit bottom" before changing his life and that sobriety could only be achieved through complete abstention.

For generations, Americans took these tenets to be true for everyone. Top addiction experts are no longer sure.

http://www.latimes.com/features/heal...0,474959.story

Gee, what kind of group would want to maintain a lie that guaranteed it more numbers? A deluded religious cult.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Now how about your words Joey? Those akin to there are science and evidence based therapies that work better than AA.

What are they?
How do their treatments work?
What are their efficacy rates?

Are you sure you're not inventing a red herring? I've always said that there are things in evidence-based medicine that AA fails to integrate, starting with the idea of tracking itself and improving... I did quote Stanton Peele's article "AA is Ruining the World"

Quote:

AA rules out other, often more effective, approaches. AA is a jealous lover. A body of research has grown that investigates the efficacy of alcoholism and addiction therapies with names like motivational interviewing, life skills training, community reinforcement, brief interventions, harm reduction, etc.

So I've provided evidence that most people can learn to moderate or quit their drinking on their own, and AA has not integrated this information into their approach, so I guess that's one point. But it is not the point of this thread to talk about one piece of technology versus another piece of technology, this is in the religion subforum, and the point is to expose the cult memetics so people stop getting caught up in this virus. If there is any positive technology within the cult, that isn't a win for the cult, it's a win for the technology, it is two separate phenomena.

And he links to another article where he says

Quote:

Other approaches -- which have more often been empirically validated in clinical trials -- include motivational enhancement (allowing addicts to grasp the divergence between their behavior and their values), skills training (including problem-solving, assertiveness training, emotional self-management), community reinforcement (integrating rewards for sobriety into people's daily lives -- including their families and social groups).

These other approaches are generally labeled "cognitive-behavior therapy" (CBT). Although evidence-based, CBT doesn't seem to many people to be medical enough to deal with a genuine disease. In the U.S., we instead hope that medicine will ultimately discover the secret to addiction. In the meantime we call addiction a disease, but rely on group meetings and admissions of powerlessness and submission to a higher power -- hardly in themselves medical treatments -- to cope with alcoholism and other addictions.

While I find this interesting, it's obvious to me that evidence-based treatment will continue to improve no matter what. Skeptical, secular medicine is always better, and AA has never changed it's treatment. What if it was true that AA and all of these approaches are equally as successful? (I HIGHLY doubt that, obviously) It wouldn't change anything I've said about AA this entire thread, that's it's a stupid religious cult without so many problems it makes you want to puke after awhile.

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Some funny, entertaining and educational videos on AA.

Cult leader Bill Wilson (is this creepy or what?) talking about the only way to sobriety and his religious experience (which was actually a hallucination on the Belladona cure) So strange, just the way he talks...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The Onion covers AA

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Top Ten Reasons to Run from Alcoholics Anonymous

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Really honestly just like with any cult we learn the most from the former members who have written about their experiences, then comparing them with how other long-term members describe these same problems, and decide for yourself. It's quite easy after that.

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

One problem is precisely that they convince people who could learn to moderate that they are a diseased alcoholic.

Spoken like someone who is completely clueless about alcoholism.

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/features/heal...0,474959.story

Gee, what kind of group would want to maintain a lie that guaranteed it more numbers? A deluded religious cult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol...ymous#Meetings