[Moderated] Why do people insist AA is not religious?/Efficacy of AA & other treatment programs - Page 153

causeandeffect · 1st December 2011, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Multiple requests in a single post saying could you please provide a link when the commenter knew where it came from is disingenuous.

It’s not disingenuous at all. That blog was in existence for well over 2 years, with literally hundreds of threads. One thread alone, the neverending thread, had over 6,000 posts if I recall correctly. Bringing these 9 items to the table, several in the form of quotations, without being willing or able to support any of them, in fact, does seem disingenuous. I only asked for 3 of them. I will settle for a link, or the name of the thread, or even the subject matter of the thread. Where did you see people “posters encouraged a 25-year-old who'd been clean and sober for 6 years to experiment with a variety of other drugs”? And what was this "variety of other drugs"? This is a very serious accusation you are making here and I fully expect you to back it up. Otherwise you have absolutely no right to speak of libel.

Joey McGee · 1st December 2011, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

"Many" suicides as the direct result of sponsors telling sponsees to go off their medications. Do you have statistics? I see anecdotes. Grief involves anger and grieving a suicide must involve a boatload of it. I believe the anger sometimes latches on to a proxy target. If the anecdotes appear on forums devoted to trashing AA, I take them with a grain of salt. I'm not saying it's never happened.

Statistics? What, is this a joke? Where am I supposed to be getting statistics from? How many people Yeah, many, enough that it's a concern for a lot of people. From a pro 12-step website...

Quote:

Some have been told that they do not have an emotional or psychiatric illness, and that they are experiencing merely self-pity or some other character defect "You don't need those pills; they'll cause you more problems" and "If you're taking pills, then you're in relapse and not really sober". Individuals who have followed such advice have experienced relapse: some have been hospitalized; some have returned to alcohol or drug use; some have attempted or even completed suicide.

Here's some search terms for you

alcoholics anonymous sponsor medication suicide
alcoholics anonymous "anti-med"/"anti-medication" suicide
etc...

You'll see it's a common problem. I'm sorry that there are no statistics or organized bodies dedicated to combatting this.

An example,took all of 5 seconds for me to find.

Quote:

Miranda says : January 14, 2011 at 12:53 am

@ Wendell, it actually is a pretty common practice. I had a sponsor who persuaded me to get discontinue my medication. I very seriously considered suicide. I fired her. The next advised me to do the same and was also fired. They both had different homegroups. The attitude is that you aren’t really sober if you are taking any mood altering medications, even when they are an antidepressant prescribed by a physician. They tell you to “let go and let God.” That’s only one of the extremely dangerous practices in AA.

And this one is from Orange who I happen to believe but feel free to decide he made it up.

Quote:

I recently talked with yet another ex-member old-timer, who has been in and out of A.A. for 30 years, who quit in anger, and hates A.A., because other old-timer sponsors kept telling mental cases to quit taking their medications, and then those sad cases committed suicide. His parting words to those A.A. members, after another funeral, were:

"Well, before you guys got ahold of him, at least he could say his own name.
But when you were done with him, he couldn't even do that."

The meetings I went to there was one guy who said "drugs" were a cop-out and another guy who used every single chance he got to speak to rail against the anti-med faction. I've seen it for myself. These days I asked around my friends and family locally and they said they rarely hear stuff like that anymore (awesome things are getting better!) but acknowledged they've heard stories from the past too.

Quote:

BTW I'm not real keen on the sponsor system.

That's SMART! (they have no sponsors

)

Quote:

Joey, why is it "obvious" there was a degree of "stalking"? A degree of "research," sure. Would most people call Net searches "stalking"? In any event, "I" is not absolved from an ethical duty to disown slander just because he indicated he knew her address. It sounds like they both engaged in power plays, but I wasn't there.

You have just convicted him of suborning homicide, based on one side of the story. I find it weird that Mr. "X" would travel far from home, check into a hotel in his own name and (apparently) use the hotel's computer to make a threat. It could have happened that way, but I'm skeptical.

Obviously they could be making the whole thing up or lying about the details and we have to go off what they say. If what they say is true, they know for sure what happened. You don't believe them, fine, apologizing for this person's actions is irrelevant to the facts we are talking about here anyway.

Quote:

Joey, that is a heckuva good question. If this were a typical forum I wouldn't bother trying to use logic. But it is a site devoted to critical thinking, where people are called on fallacious reasoning and asked to present evidence other than anecdotes. This is not supposed to be a place where people insult each other, cherry pick evidence, assume facts not in evidence, engage in ad homs, etc. Or where terms like "many," "countless" or "numerous" are immune from challenge.

Yeah, do some research on the anti-medication problems in AA on your own for awhile, you'll probably share my concern that many suicides have been caused by this quack faith healing belief over the years. Wow I would love to know how often, but all we're doing is bringing the pattern to attention. I submit that if anyone looks for evidence of this they will come to the same conclusion, that the existence of a pamphlet saying "Don't play doctor" has done absolutely nothing to stop this advice from being given.

Another person in the program describing what I'm telling you

Quote:

Yeah, and then the anti-med members claim that the suicide "failed AA," "...just constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves..." Of course, AA never fails *anyone* according to these strict constructionists of AA dogma; unsuccessful members only fail to work an honest program.

There is a schism in the AA community in my town: the anti-med members on one side, and the pro-med members on the other. In fact, the number of meetings here in town has been growing as resentments over this matter are engendered, and members split off from one group to form another.

Anyway, there is a conference approved pamphlet stating it is important to take any psychiatric medications the doctor prescribes (as long as they're not addictive). Sometimes I feel like shoving these pamphlets in the faces of the anti-med members. We're talking AA (a place to get sober) not the fricken Church of Scientology.

So you can just keep going and find that there are battles going on, in some places more than others, and the effects are clear.

Quote:

For decades I had a career largely devoted to clear thinking, clear writing, fairness, accuracy and context. I was happy to find this forum. It satisfies my need to think, write and learn. On this thread, the fallacies really bothered me and countering them has become a compulsion. AA doesn't need me to defend it and soon I will move on.

In my opinion the actions of apologia on this thread just illustrate how far some people will go to defend the cult and it's members and trash their detractors.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

It sounds like people in meetings are working to counter cure-all perceptions, which might have been fostered in AA, by explicitly saying, "It's OK to get outside help." They can't change the past, correct? So they get slammed for changing the present?

chill out Minoosh. Of course it's a good thing that people are saying "It's ok to get outside help" just like some people say "it's ok to take medications" the point is why are they having to state the obvious? Kudos to them for doing it.

Quote:

If naltrexone turns out to be the magic bullet you think it is

Where did you get that impression? smh. I just use it as an example of something that has been approved by science but is generally looked at with suspicion and scorn by the flock of Bill Wilson. All I did was highlight what the current general consensus is scientifically, which is that it works. It's not a "band-aid"

.

I could have done a much better job of responding to this but I did it off the top of my head. If people are serious about finding the truth about these problems and what really goes on, they should be doing the research themselves trying to replicate our findings, although clearly some people will find whatever they are emotionally looking for. It's that serious of an issue. I don't expect people to accept what I'm saying and the examples I'm giving. I expect people to spend a decent amount of time doing their own work. It's like when Paul Haggis started questioning Scientology, he started going to anti-Scientology websites for the first time having believed what he was told that they were hate groups and disgruntled former members. What he found shocked him and he eventually left. This happens every day in AA. Nancy manged to find the truth about AA, it's origins in the delusions of Frank Buchman, probably thanks to people like Orange. Look at how Orange is attacked here. For what? Where is he wrong? Where did he lie? And calling him "biased" doesn't cut it.

I hope that's good enough. I mean, what is left to be said? I've said enough for awhile I think.

Take care, and thanks for your participation in this thread. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing, but at the end of the day it's a quality use of time.

causeandeffect · 2nd December 2011, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Don't know why he didn't just sue. Maybe he thought she might remove the comments? Didn't have money for a lawyer but wanted it to sound like he did?

So you’re saying trying to arrange a “hit” on her was supposed to convince her that he had money to sue? That doesn’t make any sense at all. Why would you need money to sue someone who was killed by a drug cartel?

Quote:

BTW I thought it was the FBI that traced it to the hotel.

No. The FBI found that someone named “X” had stayed in the hotel during that time period. For privacy reasons, one must be law enforcement to be able to get a list of customers in a hotel or motel.

Many sites will have an option that will allow the site owner to view the IP. It allows the owner to see how many times the site is viewed and allows for the banning of trolls, etc. Even the Sober Recovery site has that option. I assume this site does as well, as indicated by the fact they have a field for “views”. It’s really not as sinister as you are making it out to be. The IP of the hotel that the posts originated from was on the original post. Such IPs can be traced back to the domain of the business. From there you can see the address, phone number, etc. This is all public information that is readily available on the internet.

http://tools.whois.net/whoisbyip/

Quote:

I hope you can't trace mine, and that your ability to trace is linked to your affiliation with ST. Are you threatening me by implying you can ? Because I should tell you, my IP address is misleading.

Now you are trying to make me out to be sinister. This is nothing more than a sly ad hom, following in the foot steps of Alfie. My simple ability to research a domain of a business is from previous IT work experience. I have no way to trace your IP and even if I could, I couldn’t care less who or where you are.

Quote:

I'm not really too afraid of the ST crowd because they seem to covet their victimhood too much to take action. But I may be wrong, and it would suck to be the recipient of that much venom.

Another ad hom. It’s not about being a victim. It’s speaking out about concern regarding addiction recovery and really it’s about concern for others. Personally speaking, the problems I have with AA have more to do with things I saw done to others, than any damage I suffered. It has more to do with the way the dogma effects people in general. It’s more to do with superstitious faith healing being used for such a serious matter. That what you see are anecdotal accounts of what goes on every day in AA, doesn’t make these issues any less of a problem.

Quote:

Oh - and since you're an ST insider, I'm just curious: Do you know if the first email from "X" was a PDF attachment? Did an actual letter ever arrive by post? If he was serious about suing, he should have sent the letter registered mail, return receipt requested.

I fail to see what any of this has to do with anything and I don’t know what you mean by “insider”. As far as I know, no and no.

Quote:

How about "sick"?

That’s an understatement.

Quote:

I'd look it up but I'm out of green soap and Brillo pads. It's really not hard to find but I don't want to go there.

Then get some. And yes, it is hard to find.

Quote:

So, the specific drug was alcohol and he wondered if the implication that there was a "safe" level for alcohol might mean there was a "safe" level for other drugs as well.

So what you’re saying was this “Brian” wanted to try social drinking, but was encouraged “to experiment with a variety of other drugs” instead. Right. And did they tell him what street corner he could purchase this variety of other drugs? Did they also include the name and phone number of the drug dealer? And we’re supposed to believe this accusation that you can’t link to because…?

Quote:

Besides, I'm a bit worried that you are trying to get me to surf to the site so you can pick up my IP address. This is just all starting to sound too threatening. You actually saw the Miami hotel, so not only are you a computer wiz but you've got funds to travel. Or maybe you just looked at images on the Net. Wow, this is beginning to really creep me out

More ad hom. Of course I looked at images on the net. They have these things these days you know. It’s good for business.

Quote:

I really wondered about something you didn't respond to, which is why a guy who was having trouble quitting drinking would pick a female sponsor who was stringing him along sexually.

How should I know? Apparently she didn’t tell him it was a bad idea. Apparently he was supposed to know better when nobody told him otherwise. Apparently people are supposed to come to AA, be ready to "go to any length" and know what lengths they are not supposed to go to.

Quote:

It's one of my issues with sponsorship. Your judgment sucks, but you're supposed to pick the right sponsor. I'd prefer a team of mentors, myself.

Agreed. I had a series of bad sponsors who for all their years of AA, had judgment far worse than mine had ever been.

The Norseman · 2nd December 2011, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Not at all, I don't need to back away because I never claimed it.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Then you "seem" incorrect.
Can you show me something that has better results? If so great, I will stand corrected. In the meantime, the 9% is far better than an otherwise zero percent (well it did when I went to school). This simply shows that AA has a place in society for alcoholics to recover. Other things might work too, but you have yet to provide any data for that.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

It really seems we should take the middle ground on the 5 to 13% figure. I'm going to use 9% from now on. So, now we are up to 15% (9 in AA + 5 who just stop) of alcoholics that get some relief.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Imagine that 5 - 13% still sober after one year. That's not bad going, wonder if any other therapy has anything near close to that? What's that? No, well whod have guessed?

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

If 9% can find relief within AA (with or withour religion) surely that is a good thing.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

It has also been suggested that 5% of people just stop. Great, that's 5%. Add AAs 9% to that and we have 14% of alcoholics achieving some semblance of sobriety.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

The 9% was cited earlier (as between 5 and 13% earlier by another JREF member - I have used the average), and it seemed something we could agree on for the sake of ongoing discussions. If you have something else, by all means show us.
The 5% seems a satisfactory default figure too for thse that go it alone and I had no problem with it for the purposes of discussion.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Again, a fair point. But in the absense of other data it seems an acceptable starting point to me.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

My point really wasn't around the %s so much as about what else is out there. Others in the thread have made numerous claims of AA being no more than, or less successful than 'other' programs'.

I genuinely and sincerely want to know what they are, but no-one seems to want to say. So in the absence of any other data - we have (say) 5% that "just stop" and (say) 9% that go to AA.

I misremembered the circumstances around which you obtained the figure of 15% as it turns out it was based on your math error (adding 9 to 4). Though I loved that as a professional, you merrily took one single figure that painted AA in the best possible light with no questions as to the veracity of the figure and where it came from or how it was derived and ran with it. By the way, when a person has an absence of data (which in the case of alcoholism, is incorrect), then the rational conclusion is the null hypothesis.

It's unsurprising behavior from a staunch AA loyalist, but would be rather surprising coming from someone who is honestly seeking information surrounding alcoholism/addiction.

Quote:

There are 34 of them as you say, just how quickly do you think I can find them and read them?

As fast as I did. Faster, even. You've made this your career, Alfie. I spent a few hours over several evenings diligently searching, downloading, and reading these pdfs. Surely you can do better than I. I'm also not going to beg people to get this information, but I've already twice now offered to GIVE a few of these reports to people who ask me. That you have not done so (but quote the posts wherein I've made the offer) speaks volumes to your supposed interest in discovering non-AA methods of treating alcoholism.

So why the dodge, yet again? Not one single comment on what I've already posted. Not even a brief hesitation on your part in sailing past what has been presented.

Well, any comments on this snippet then, Alfie?

"Alcoholism is a debilitating disorder for the individual and very costly for society. A major goal of alcohol research is to understand the neural underpinnings associated with the transition from alcohol use to alcohol dependence. Positive reinforcement is important in the early stages of alcohol use and abuse. Negative reinforcement can be important early in alcohol use by people self-medicating coexisting affective disorders, but its role likely increases following the transition to dependence. Chronic exposure to alcohol induces changes in neural circuits that control motivational processes, including arousal, reward, and stress. These changes affect systems utilizing the signaling molecules dopamine, opioid peptides, gamma-aminobutyric acid, glutamate, and serotonin, as well as systems modulating the brain’s stress response. These neuroadaptations produce changes in sensitivity to alcohol’s effects following repeated exposure (i.e., sensitization and tolerance) and a withdrawal state following discontinuation of alcohol use. Chronic alcohol exposure also results in persistent neural deficits, some of which may fully recover following extended periods of abstinence. However, the organism remains susceptible to relapse, even after long periods of abstinence. Recent research focusing on brain arousal, reward, and stress systems is accelerating our understanding of the components of alcohol dependence and contributing to the development of new treatment strategies."
-Neurobiology of Alcohol Dependence -- Focus on Motivational Mechanisms
Nicholas W. Gilpin, Ph.D., and George F. Koob, Ph.D.
Journal of Alcohol Research & Health, Vol 31, No 3, 2008

Any signs of a spiritual disease there, Alfie? I'm just not seeing it, myself. Care to download this short study and read it? Perhaps you can inform the readers of this thread how AA's spiritual disease model should be considered the more likely explanation or more accurate than the neurobiological one.

Quote:

It wouldn't matter one bit to me.

It sure seems to though, and everyone can see it.

Quote:

OK. Simply for the sake of me not having to visit that disgusting site again, I withdraw the comment around inciting violence. The rest stands as does my accurate assertion that Stinkin' Thinkin' is nothing more than a hate group.

LOL

You and Minoosh make wild statements of stalking, hatred, incitements to violence and on and on and in lieu of presenting evidence for them, you both say that a website is so sickening that you cannot possibly show how you arrived at your (now it seems ridiculous) conclusions.

I don't mind saying that these types of rather hysterical flailings call into serious question all your other claims and opinions that have been expressed throughout this thread. It really belies your professionalism and doesn't speak well for members who actively promote such an 'inclusive' group as AA.

Hallo Alfie · 2nd December 2011, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

You'll see it's a common problem. I'm sorry that there are no statistics or organized bodies dedicated to combatting this.

This can't be right. Surely ST and you wouldn't be engaging in guesswork and speculation.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

That's SMART! (they have no sponsors

)

What sort of efficacy rates do they have?

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Where did you get that impression? smh. I just use it as an example of something that has been approved by science

Thalidomide was approved by science too. That didn't work out too well.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

All I did was highlight what the current general consensus is scientifically, which is that it works. It's not a "band-aid"

.

Works? Define works please then provide long term efficacy rates.
The reality is is that naltrexone is of benefit short term only.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

I misremembered the circumstances around which you obtained the figure of 15% as it turns out it was based on your math error (adding 9 to 4).

Is that an apology? An admission you were wrong? Both?

I conceded at the time that my maths was flawed and you have highlighted same:
I have used the average), and it seemed something we could agree on for the sake of ongoing discussions. If you have something else, by all means show us.
The 5% seems a satisfactory default figure too for thse that go it alone and I had no problem with it for the purposes of discussion.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

So why the dodge, yet again?

No dodge. A delay for certain. You may not know it but I have a very busy life - four teenage kids, (near) full time employment plus my own business and other interests on the side. Time poor would be an understatement. Now I have the weekend, I will see what I can do.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Well, any comments on this snippet then, Alfie?

None, very nice. But a few minor observations: it is hardly the final word and they do not discount (even mention) any spiritual aspect - which I usually argue around self esteem etc.

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader:

Quote from The Norseman and its answer are redacted. Arguments about how various people on other websites conduct their arguments are not on topic.

causeandeffect · 2nd December 2011, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Any signs of a spiritual disease there, Alfie? I'm just not seeing it, myself. Care to download this short study and read it? Perhaps you can inform the readers of this thread how AA's spiritual disease model should be considered the more likely explanation or more accurate than the neurobiological one.

Oddly enough I don't see any evidence of this allergy alfie claims either. I wonder why that is....

Minoosh · 2nd December 2011, 05:42 PM

On sponsorship and its pitfalls: You might hear in a meeting, "It's important to get a sponsor right away" or "You need to get a sponsor right away." I don't see the rush. As your mind clears and you get to know people you might make a better choice. The original program didn't mention sponsors. There will be areas where you will need help, though.

Two pitfalls stand out - one is the issue of medication. It's tricky. Relying on drugs for comfort is as dangerous as relying on alcohol. Both inhibit your brain's ability to regulate mood without exogenous substances. Mild anxiety can be useful to an addict - motivation to stay busy, exercise or burn off energy productively. But no one should quit Valium, Xanax or other benzodiazepines abruptly and a few people might have to stay on them to combat crippling panic. Find the lowest effective dose - if/when you're ready to quit you'll have a shorter taper.

The idea in recovery is to learn how to get high and/or comfort yourself, fall asleep, etc. without exogenous substances. Marijuana maintenance is frowned upon (though Willie Nelson says it saved his life). Narcotics for acute pain are sometimes needed but are handled with caution. Antidepressants are out of play in my view; they just don't have an immediate reinforcing effect and are unlikely to affect anyone's "program." If you're honest with your doctors (i.e. not "drug-seeking"; sharing your abuse history) and taking drugs as prescribed, I don't believe it's a sponsor's place to interfere. However, they are within their rights to put boundaries around who they are willing to sponsor. Isn't it better to clarify this upfront? Aren't you looking for a good fit?

The second area where I see a clear threat of traditional sponsorship is in cases involving severe trauma or childhood abuse. It's a horrible idea to ask a newcomer to find his or her part in childhood sexual abuse, or to stir up feelings they're not ready to handle. A few sponsors may be skilled at this, having survived similar traumas. But "outside help" may be best in such circumstances.

Someone's own "part" in child abuse may just be that they continue to beat themselves up for being a victim. It may be useful to lead them gently to this conclusion. But it's well outside the simple "resentments" of the the Big Book explores. In such cases it might be best to start with today's relatively minor irritations - e.g., "traffic makes me mad, what is my part, I left the house too late ... my part is sloth." That may offer a taste of short-term relief without crashing around irresponsibly.

If something is really eating your lunch - a serious secret threatening your recovery, it might be necessary to get it off your chest ASAP. There is nothing that says you have to do this with a sponsor. But, it should be someone you can trust, and who can help work out a way to make amends, if needed.

Ideally, you pick a sponsor who is humble enough to tread lightly and firm enough to resist manipulation. However you proceed, making amends is an area where you need feedback to avoid potential harm (conveniently for Bill, he concluded that admitting infidelity fell into this category.)

Some people grab a sponsor right away, needing a lifeline to coach them through the day. But, if you want to hang back, that may be OK. It has to do with your motives. Are you trying to postpone discomfort or just waiting for a good fit? Only you knows the answer.

Minoosh · 2nd December 2011, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

You and Minoosh make wild statements of stalking, hatred, incitements to violence and on and on and in lieu of presenting evidence for them, you both say that a website is so sickening that you cannot possibly show how you arrived at your (now it seems ridiculous) conclusions.

Me? I don't think I made any wild statements. I did present direct quotes (i.e., evidence) of a few statements I found absurd. I don't think I made wild statements of stalking, hatred and incitements to violence. It's true I never want to revisit that site, but I provided enough search terms to find the posts (in fact, a direct quote would practically guarantee the statements could be found with search terms, verdad? So, when it comes to me, you are batting about .150 with that statement.

Minoosh · 2nd December 2011, 06:39 PM

Joey, the plural of anecdote is not statistics. You know that. I specifically stated that I believe it happens. In fact I recently posted (not approved yet) about what I believe to be a real problem. But it makes a difference how prevalent it is. If it happened once, it's a tragic fluke, if it's happened 2,000 times that's obviously too many. I knew asking for stats would annoy you, but it's not an outrageous request. Nor is pointing out how so-called critical thinkers on this thread sometimes can't see their blind spots. I'm trying to see mine, to be fair and to refrain from polemics which I don't believe are particularly useful.

I'm sure if you plug in certain words you'll get anecdotes about people being told to get off meds. If you plug in other words you'll get anecdotes about people who are not told to get off their meds. One of the people you just cited praised the conference-approved pamphlet on psych meds. A critical thinking exercise: Has AA caused more suicides than it has prevented? I suspect 1 suicide carried out will trump 1,000 prevented.

Since you believe AA oughtn't exist at all, it's clear that you'll keep mining the Net for anecdotes to support your view, and that AA changes such as the psych meds brochure will automatically be written off. I'd love to get into a discussion with you about any possible agreement we might have on the subject. Like the critical thinking exercise cited above. But, I don't believe you'd have any interest in such a venture. I could be wrong.

Hallo Alfie · 2nd December 2011, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Just as a little kickstart perhaps, here are the papers that I've researched, found, downloaded and read regarding the subject of alcoholism for this thread so that I may become better informed. I'm not an alcohol/drug counselor either; it makes me wonder why, during the last year and a half, you haven't done similar. Anyway, all or nearly all of them are published in peer-reviewed journals with proper citations and references.

As far as quick and dirty cites for this thread, hopefully there is enough information to follow up with in case anyone is interested in reading them. I'd be willing to share maybe up to three of these with a person who PMs me with the titles. I got them all through my school's access with EBSCOHost, so it shouldn't be a problem for me to pass on a few to interested parties.

studies snipped,

I have browsed through the first ten of these. One I had actually come across in my work, but most not and the reason should be obvious – they do not relate to the work I actually do.

The studies discuss no specific treatment modalities in terms of delivery to clients – that said I read (predominantly) only the short summaries located on the internet.

Interesting to be certain, but a waste of time for my actual job and for the purposes of discussion here.

The 12-Month Prevalence and Trends in DSM–IV Alcohol Abuse and Dependence

No methods or efficacy rates in here and no relevance to the topic.

Acetaldehyde mediates alcohol activation of the mesolimbic dopamine system

Two interesting things here:

"Ethanol (EtOH), the main psychoactive ingredient of alcoholic drinks, is widely considered to be responsible for alcohol abuse and alcoholism"

And

"Careful consideration of these findings could help in devising new effective pharmacological therapies aimed at reducing EtOH intake in alcoholics".

They make a distinction between abuse and alcoholism. Indeed, they use the word alcoholism which is interesting because I'm pretty sure C&E (or was it someone else?) was saying there was no such thing.

Adolescent Satisfaction with Brief Motivational Enhancement for Alcohol Abuse

Irrelevant

Adolescent Depression, Alcohol and Drug Abuse

Interesting but irrelevant

Alcohol Consumption Primes Automatic Alcohol-Approach Associations

RESULTS: A partial correlation analysis indicated that amount of alcohol consumed predicted stronger automatic alcohol motivation when controlling for the baseline level of automatic alcohol motivation.

Interesting information, but not relevant.

Alcohol Dependence, Withdrawal, and Relapse

This was interesting but obvious.

“In fact, given the high rate of recidivism in alcoholism, relapse clearly is a major impediment to treatment efforts”.

Well duh!
And

“Events that potently trigger relapse drinking fall into three general categories: exposure to small amounts of alcohol (i.e., alcohol-induced priming), exposure to alcohol-related (i.e., conditioned) cues or environmental contexts, and stress.”

These are some of the things that I try and teach clients – self awareness - it is a major tool in recovery and relapse prevention.

Also interesting is that AA teaches these very same things when they say things like:
1. Exposure: Don’t pick up the first drink – the first drink will get you drunk
2. Conditioning: Keep away from the old environment (physically and mentally)
3. Stress: Don’t get Hungry, Angry, Lonely, Tired or Stressed (I like to add to this: Hungry, Thirsty, Tired and Anxious)

The alcohol-preferring P rat and animal models of excessive alcohol drinking

“Neurochemically, research with the P line indicates the endogenous dopaminergic, serotonergic, GABAergic, opiodergic, and peptidergic systems may be involved in a predisposition for alcohol abuse and alcoholism”.

A "predisposition for alcoholism". That sounds like these types might process alcohol differently. In answer to C&E’s assertion earlier about no allergy (a word I don’t like that much either), it seems there is a genetic involvement and difference in these individuals. Whilst that might not fit his definition of an allergy, it's close enough for mine.

And there is the use of that word "alcoholism" again.

An Alternative Counseling Model for Alcohol Abuse in College: A Case Study

Not to be disparaging to their work, but this is not so different from things I do all the time anyway: Simply a harm minimisation goal using motivational interviewing techniques.

Decreased Amygdala Activation during Risk Taking in Non-Dependent Habitual Alcohol Users:

Interesting (sort of) but irrelevant

Efficacy and Safety of Aripiprazole in Alcohol Dependence

Promising possibilities for the treatment of cravings.

I will run through the rest of the list during the course of the evening - we might pop out for a meal but I will do my best. If (and I stress if) there is anything of genuine note above and beyond what we have above I will let you know. But to be blunt, so far this list has done little to advance the discussion.

Hallo Alfie · 3rd December 2011, 12:49 AM

OK, I have run through the rest of them. I have 'graded' them per se (subjective admittedly) to my own professional interests and/or the relevance to this discussion. Most are either "interesting and irrelevant" or just "irrelevant" and I have excluded them from this post.

The rest that was of interest include:

Behavioral Therapy Across the Spectrum

Very interesting (but irrelevant to our discussions here) and confirms/validates many of the approaches we already make in the field; different strokes and all that. I have saved this one to hand out at work and have included it to say thank you for the effort and info.
Thanks and cheers.

Binge drinking and depressive symptoms: a 5-year population-based cohort study

This was very interesting but largely irrelevant to the discussion.
Something that struck me again was: Do you not think that depression, low-self esteem and the much maligned spiritual void could not all be one and the same – or at least connected? I do.

A Developmental Perspective on Underage Alcohol Use

“.. across mid- to late adolescence, the relative influence of genetic factors on underage drinking increases”

Hmm. Genetic factors again.
A very interesting article. Thanks.

Estimating the effect of help-seeking on achieving recovery from alcohol dependence

This confirms some of what I have been saying for a long time that recovery is a three stage process: detox, rehab and maintenance.

“Individuals who participated in 12-Step programs in addition to formal treatment had almost twice the chance of recovery and more than more than twice the chance of AR compared with those who received formal treatment alone.”

CONCLUSIONS:

“Help-seeking plays a significant role in the achievement of abstinent recovery from alcohol dependence, with 12-Step participation playing a major role. Appropriate model selection is critical to assessing the impact of help-seeking.”

Well I'll be stuffed!
One has twice as much chance of maintaining sobriety using 12 step fellowships that without.

Peer reviewed too.

Thanks heaps for this one.

Substance Abuse Is a Disease of the Human Brain: Focus on Alcohol

Interesting:

“Clues are now available regarding how a person goes from a "user" to being addicted based on brain chemistry, anatomy, and genetic risk. During this process the person loses at least partial, if not complete, control, over their compulsive substance use.”

That sounds a lot like “powerlessness” to me.

The Norseman · 3rd December 2011, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Works? Define works please then provide long term efficacy rates.
The reality is is that naltrexone is of benefit short term only.

Do you have a paper you can cite which demonstrates this? I'm asking because I don't know.

Quote:

I conceded at the time that my maths was flawed and you have highlighted same:
I have used the average), and it seemed something we could agree on for the sake of ongoing discussions. If you have something else, by all means show us.
The 5% seems a satisfactory default figure too for thse that go it alone and I had no problem with it for the purposes of discussion.

As it turns out though, you really had no basis for using that number even for discussions' sake; nobody else seemed to agree with you on it and elbe was one who eloquently pointed that out to you way back when. However, my original point was and is that you have taken a figure which is not known to be accurate nor do we know that it was the AA program that produced that figure, as I've pointed out many times now recently.

In other words, if attending a group gives many people success, you lay that success at the feet of AA; if a person says they have higher self-esteem, you lay that success at the feet of the spirituality of AA. The problem I think you and other pro-AAs face is that when other groups produce the same results or other programs give the same amount of self-esteem boosts as AA, it goes to demonstrate that there's nothing unique or special about the AA program itself that's worthy of emulation or support.

Quote:

None, very nice. But a few minor observations: it is hardly the final word and they do not discount (even mention) any spiritual aspect - which I usually argue around self esteem etc.

So you're either re-defining 'self-esteem' or conflating it with 'spiritual' to bolster your argument. The paper doesn't mention 'self-esteem' because it's irrelevant to the chemical causes and effects on the brain. To be fair, this is not necessarily my position; just my understanding on that paper.

Now, I understand you believe in the concept that alcoholism is a spiritual disease. How does your model better explain the process of addiction/dependency/alcoholism?

The Norseman · 3rd December 2011, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Two pitfalls stand out - one is the issue of medication. It's tricky. Relying on drugs for comfort is as dangerous as relying on alcohol. Both inhibit your brain's ability to regulate mood without exogenous substances. Mild anxiety can be useful to an addict - motivation to stay busy, exercise or burn off energy productively. But no one should quit Valium, Xanax or other benzodiazepines abruptly and a few people might have to stay on them to combat crippling panic. Find the lowest effective dose - if/when you're ready to quit you'll have a shorter taper.

The idea in recovery is to learn how to get high and/or comfort yourself, fall asleep, etc. without exogenous substances. Marijuana maintenance is frowned upon (though Willie Nelson says it saved his life). Narcotics for acute pain are sometimes needed but are handled with caution. Antidepressants are out of play in my view; they just don't have an immediate reinforcing effect and are unlikely to affect anyone's "program." If you're honest with your doctors (i.e. not "drug-seeking"; sharing your abuse history) and taking drugs as prescribed, I don't believe it's a sponsor's place to interfere. However, they are within their rights to put boundaries around who they are willing to sponsor. Isn't it better to clarify this upfront? Aren't you looking for a good fit?

Whoa, hold up there chief! How can you possibly think you're qualified enough to be giving advice on how someone should or should not take drugs or medications?

I think you have inadvertently just given us an excellent illustration on how AAs take it upon themselves to dispense advice where it's ignorant or inapplicable. How ironic considering all the discussion about this very topic!

I'm sure you think you're just stating common sense, but in the context of addiction and everyone's personal tolerance, physiology, attitudes and so forth, you're really treading into territory that you need to leave to that person and their physician.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Me? I don't think I made any wild statements. I did present direct quotes (i.e., evidence) of a few statements I found absurd. I don't think I made wild statements of stalking, hatred and incitements to violence. It's true I never want to revisit that site, but I provided enough search terms to find the posts (in fact, a direct quote would practically guarantee the statements could be found with search terms, verdad? So, when it comes to me, you are batting about .150 with that statement.

*shrugs* Okay.

Minoosh · 3rd December 2011, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

That what you see are anecdotal accounts of what goes on every day in AA, doesn’t make these issues any less of a problem.

Another poster has said all positive anecdotes regarding AA are worthless as evidence. But he accepts negative anecdotes as proof. Some idea of how often things happen makes a difference in determining the size of a problem.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

So what you’re saying was this “Brian” wanted to try social drinking, but was encouraged “to experiment with a variety of other drugs” instead. ... And we’re supposed to believe this accusation that you can’t link to because…?

You're not "supposed" to believe me, so you can drop the sarcasm. I've already said I overreached with that anecdote. Some posters supported Brian's idea of controlled drinking. As I recall Brian asked why that wouldn't apply to other drugs. One poster, in supporting careful drinking, admonished, "No experiments!" And yet - the alcohol experiment was OK. Another self-contradictory ST post. As I recall no one gave Brian a good answer for not trying other drugs. I wonder how he's doing.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

More ad hom. Of course I looked at images on the net. They have these things these days you know. It’s good for business.

More sarcasm. See if you can post without it. It's hard, I know - and I'm not being sarcastic.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Apparently she didn’t tell him it was a bad idea. Apparently he was supposed to know better when nobody told him otherwise.

You could have told him it was a bad idea for a guy, still drinking, to stick with a female sponsor who was stringing him along sexually. You were there, seem well-acquainted with the situation and are wiser than any sponsor you've ever had. Also, you fallaciously assume causality: He was having trouble sober because she was stringing him along. Do you understand the difference between correlation and causality?

Gunthar2000 · 3rd December 2011, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

On sponsorship and its pitfalls: You might hear in a meeting, "It's important to get a sponsor right away" or "You need to get a sponsor right away." I don't see the rush. As your mind clears and you get to know people you might make a better choice. The original program didn't mention sponsors. There will be areas where you will need help, though.

Sure there were sponsors in early AA. Below I've listed a few quotes from AA's "Twelve Steps And Twelve Traditions" first printed in 1953. These quotes prove that sponsorship was big in AA well before 1953. The first edition of AA's "Big Book" was printed in 1939, just 14 years before the 12&12.

Would you have us believe that somewhere within that first 14 years of AA's existence sponsorship was suddenly developed out of thin air, or are you willing to concede that sponsorship was around since AA's inception in 1939?
12&12 p.61, Step Five
"Besides, your sponsor already has the advantage of knowing something about your case."

12&12 p.61, Step Five
"This person may turn out to be one's sponsor, but not necessarily so."

12&12 p.26, Step Two
"The sponsor continues, "Take, for example, my own case."

12&12 p.185, Tradition Twelve
"Enthusiastic over the spectacular recovery of a brother alcoholic, we'd sometimes discuss those intimate and harrowing aspects of his case meant for his sponsor's ear alone."

12&12 p.26, Step Two
""That," agrees the sponsor, "is a very good question indeed."

12&12 p.86, Step Nine
"Do we lay the matter before our sponsor or spiritual adviser, earnestly asking God's help and guidance -- meanwhile resolving to do the right thing when it becomes clear, cost what it may?"

12&12 p.89, Step Ten
"Then there are those occasions when alone, or in the company of our sponsor or spiritual adviser, we make a careful review of our progress since the last time."

12&12 p.39, Step Three
"Of course the sponsor points out that our friend's life is still unmanageable even though he is sober, that after all, only a bare start on A.A.'s program has been made."

12&12 p.46, Step Four
"The sponsor probably points out that the newcomer has some assets which can be noted along with his liabilities."

12&12 p.26, Step Two
"His sponsor probably says, "Take it easy."

12&12 p.46, Step Four
"This the sponsor promptly proves by talking freely and easily, and without exhibitionism, about his own defects, past and present."

12&12 p.154, Tradition Five
"Years later, this tough Irish customer liked to say, "My sponsor sold me one idea, and that was sobriety."

12&12 p.26, Step Two
"At this juncture, his A.A. sponsor usually laughs."

12&12 p.168, Tradition Eight
"Then we saw that if a hardworking secretary answered the phone dozens of times a day, listened to twenty wailing wives, arranged hospitalization and got sponsorship for ten newcomers, and was gently diplomatic with the irate drunk who complained about the job she was doing and how she was overpaid, then such a person could surely not be called a professional A.A."

12&12 p.112, Step Twelve
"Can we have the same kind of confidence and faith in these people who have been infected and sometimes crippled by our own illness that we have in our sponsors?"

12&12 p.46, Step Four
"At this stage of the inventory proceedings, our sponsors come to the rescue."

12&12 p.22, Step One
"Our sponsors declared that we were the victims of a mental obsession so subtly powerful that no amount of human willpower could break it."

12&12 p.46, Step Four
"The sponsors of those who feel they need no inventory are confronted with quite another problem."

12&12 p.58, Step Five
"Often it was while working on this Step with our sponsors or spiritual advisers that we first felt truly able to forgive others, no matter how deeply we felt they had wronged us."

12&12 p.22, Step One
"Relentlessly deepening our dilemma, our sponsors pointed out our increasing sensitivity to alcohol -- an allergy, they called it."

Minoosh · 3rd December 2011, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

"Ethanol (EtOH), the main psychoactive ingredient of alcoholic drinks, is widely considered to be responsible for alcohol abuse and alcoholism"

I love this - alcohol is responsible for alcoholism. Some people ridicule the "powerless" concept, saying the liquid is inert. OK, I get that. But in the AA sense of the word, I've known some people who experienced powerlessness after their very first drink.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Something that struck me again was: Do you not think that depression, low-self esteem and the much maligned spiritual void could not all be one and the same – or at least connected? I do.

I've wondered the same thing. The spiritual "disease" or "void" could mean merely "chronic unhappiness," but it implies more to me - something like feeling constantly self-conscious, unable to "lose yourself" or fully experience the present moment.

I wonder if the AA detractors on this thread realize how many of us have come to terms with the same questions they use to challenge AA. If people find support by banding together against AA, well, they're entitled. But I saw mostly kindness over the years, and nothing that would warrant anything like the hostility on display here.

Hallo Alfie · 3rd December 2011, 07:15 PM

I meant to do this first time around and provide a link: here 'tis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16696626

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Estimating the effect of help-seeking on achieving recovery from alcohol dependence

This confirms some of what I have been saying for a long time that recovery is a three stage process: detox, rehab and maintenance.

“Individuals who participated in 12-Step programs in addition to formal treatment had almost twice the chance of recovery and more than more than twice the chance of AR compared with those who received formal treatment alone.”

CONCLUSIONS:

“Help-seeking plays a significant role in the achievement of abstinent recovery from alcohol dependence, with 12-Step participation playing a major role. Appropriate model selection is critical to assessing the impact of help-seeking.”

Well I'll be stuffed!
One has twice as much chance of maintaining sobriety using 12 step fellowships that without.

Peer reviewed too.

Thanks heaps for this one.

I also want to re-highlight the important bits.

Cheers again.

Originally Posted by Gunthar2000

Sure there were sponsors in early AA. Below I've listed a few quotes from AA's "Twelve Steps And Twelve Traditions" first printed in 1953. These quotes prove that sponsorship was big in AA well before 1953. The first edition of AA's "Big Book" was printed in 1939, just 14 years before the 12&12.

Um, that doesn't actually prove what you think it does. The original claim was "the original program didn't mention sponsors" and it doesn't. Sponsorship came about some years later which you have just shown us.

Originally Posted by Gunthar2000

Would you have us believe that somewhere within that first 14 years of AA's existence sponsorship was suddenly developed out of thin air, or are you willing to concede that sponsorship was around since AA's inception in 1939?

I think we could easily concede this if you actually proved it.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I love this - alcohol is responsible for alcoholism.

Again, I do not want to detract from the studies but there were a few "duh!" moments as I read through them.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I've wondered the same thing. The spiritual "disease" or "void" could mean merely "chronic unhappiness," but it implies more to me - something like feeling constantly self-conscious, unable to "lose yourself" or fully experience the present moment.

Absolutely, these things and so much more can easily match up with that spiritual concept.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I wonder if the AA detractors on this thread realize how many of us have come to terms with the same questions they use to challenge AA.

Clearly not; they are so together all on their own they couldn't understand this.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

If people find support by banding together against AA, well, they're entitled. But I saw mostly kindness over the years, and nothing that would warrant anything like the hostility on display here.

It really does make one wonder doesn't it. And while I am not resiling from my hate group estimations, the "hostility" I see both here and elsewhere is at least hate filled speech in many instances.

I actually pity some of them.

causeandeffect · 3rd December 2011, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Me? I don't think I made any wild statements.

I don’t suppose you see any contradiction between saying this and:

Quote:

It was just plain sad when posters encouraged a 25-year-old who'd been clean
and sober for 6 years to experiment with a variety of other drugs.

Ah, but now you claim:

Quote:

I overreached

And you also said:

Quote:

nothing that would warrant anything like the hostility on display here.

Overreached? Is that what you really call it? It seems you have very good recall of this situation. You keep coming up with more and more details. So why did you say he was encouraged to try a “variety of drugs?” Hmmm, so telling the truth about verifiable facts regarding the anti-med stance many AA members push off onto others, and the damage it causes, is called “hostility”. And telling the verifiable truth about 13 stepping and the damage it does is also called “hostility”. Yet knowingly saying something that is derogatory and not the truth and is unverifiable is called “overreaching” and is not hostile. Interesting. No wonder we have so much trouble communicating.

Quote:

You could have told him it was a bad idea for a guy, still drinking, to stick with a female sponsor who was stringing him along sexually. You were there, seem well-acquainted with the situation and are wiser than any sponsor you've ever had.

LOL! Somehow I’m supposed to rush around the nation, or should it be the whole world, because as I recall this guy was from the UK(so I can be there when they choose a sponsor) telling newcomers “Don’t choose that one for a sponsor!” “Don’t choose that one for a sponsor!” and “Oh, I know she’s attractive and offered to be your sponsor, but just forget it, she’s bad news!” All while I’m jetting to Miami to track public IPs and stalking you! Gosh, Minoosh, you’re too funny! Of course the members of ST told him it was a bad idea. His sponsor apparently didn’t. Confusing correlation with causation? Perhaps. But according to him, he was having problems related to his physical attraction to her, she was manipulating him, and he was drinking a lot. Funny how he sobered up shortly after getting our advice to dump her.

Anyway, I do sooo love my private jet. Er, wait that’s too cumbersome. Minoosh, do I fly through the air like Superman? That still would take too long. Or do I cross my arms and blink like Jeannie? Oh yeah, it’s definitely the Jeannie thing.

Minoosh · 3rd December 2011, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Whoa, hold up there chief! How can you possibly think you're qualified enough to be giving advice on how someone should or should not take drugs or medications?

First off, there wasn't a lot of advice in there. I made a few statements saying stuff like "in my view ...," etc. The gist was that sponsors shouldn't play doctor. Some doctors shouldn't play doctor. Here are a few clarifications and warnings:

* "Marijuana maintenance is frowned on" is a statement of fact - it's between you and your conscience if you call that "clean and sober." It's a much safer drug than alcohol (there I go again!), but it's also relatively easy to learn to mimic that high naturally.

* Sometimes narcotics are needed - this isn't advice, it's fact. If they amputate your leg, they're not going to start you with Advil. (If you're on naltrexone, better hope someone tells them!) I wrote "narcotics are handled with care" - a general statement - but I'll go further and say they should be handled with care. If you have an 80 mg OxyContin tablet (160 in the olden days), don't peel it, grind it and snort it all at once unless you're used to this dose. There's a good chance you'll die. Its manufacturers were found criminally liable for a rash of fatal ODs, facilitated by doctors who were told OxyContin was less addictive than short-acting pills. (It didn't occur to them that people would grind them up, or sell them, doh!) I could have told them that putting 32 Percocets in one pill - with few binders to impede shooting, snorting or smoking - was dangerous. Doctors who didn't realize this were idiots. It's always a good idea to know more than your docs do about what your taking.

* Speaking of narcotics: My old addiction doc said when I switched to suboxone that some people stay on 2 mg of suboxone indefinitely. I didn't want to do that. He may have been right; however a week later he was busted for relapsing and I'm leery of his advice. Previously, at the methadone clinic, medical professionals told me I had to get counseling to go down 5 percent on my dose. So I jumped early to suboxone. The clinics want to keep your business. I heard dozens of stories like this.

* Fact: Anxiety may be useful in recovery. You're trying to reset your brain so it can begin to function without controlled substances. It's useful to learn that mild anxiety will not kill you, and that you can calm down without drugs (hot shower, exercise, melatonin, etc). But, it's no good if you're crippled with panic. Use the lowest effective dose, but go down slowly. Your doctor may not think to tell you that. Also, your doctor may tell you to take more than you need. I know mine did. Thankfully I didn't follow his instructions. Going from 0 mg of alprazolam a day to 3 mg is stupid - I knew that. I didn't tell him, though. I wanted the extra pills.

* Welbutrin and SSRIs are "in my view" out of play (also in the view of most addiction docs).

* I didn't address barbiturates at all. Prescribing Seconal or Nembutal to someone who's already detoxed (and not hospitalized) would be imprudent. If people happen to drink on top of them, they have a tendency to stop breathing. Phenobarbital continues to be a necessity for some people.

* Methamphetamine? If you have ADD or life-threatening narcolepsy, maybe. Cocaine's not really an issue. That about does it for controlled substances but there's one I wanted to add: a muscle relaxer called Soma may be risky.

* Oh, and it's a bad idea to use general anesthetics for simple insomnia, as Michael Jackson's doc found out. Who coulda thought a doc could make a mistake.

Where in my original statement did I fail to take into account tolerance, physiology and attitudes? Can you back up your claims? And what does failing to take into account "attitudes" even mean?

Originally Posted by The Norseman

*shrugs* Okay.

You said I made wild claims of stalking, hatred and incitements to violence. That is, to put it politely, untrue. Your answer is *shrugs*. What does that mean? That you can't be bothered to vet your posts for fact? I said I couldn't stand the site anymore, which is true. I also got concerned after a poster told me he tracked IP addresses from the site. I didn't know if that applied to surfing, or only to comments. I really, really don't want anyone from that site to get my IP address.

causeandeffect · 3rd December 2011, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Indeed, they use the word alcoholism which is interesting because I'm pretty sure C&E (or was it someone else?) was saying there was no such thing.

Nobody said there’s no such thing. Nobody has even said it’s not common terminology. What I said is that you didn’t know that the word “alcoholism” never appears, even once, in the DSM-IV-TR. You see, Alfie, you’ve been called on this before, elsewhere, where you claimed to have authority on the subject of addiction. You then proceeded to dismiss a study because it didn’t use the word “alcoholism.” People started to smell a rat and you were repeatedly asked point blank, where in the DSM-IV-TR was the term alcoholism, or alcoholic found. And in true circle jerk form you replied to look under the heading “Alcoholism”. And the enquirer said something like “huh?” So I asked you here, point blank:

Quote:

Where in the DSM-IV-TR does the word alcoholism appear?

To which you responded:

Quote:

You will find it in the area that discusses the genetic differences involved with chemical dependency from person to person.

To which I responded with the quote from the DSM-IV-TR that covered genetics, and neither the word “alcoholic” nor the word “alcoholism” appeared. To which you responded something like “Oh, uh, well uh, I really knew that, I, uh, just wasn’t gonna tell you that I knew that,” which I think we can all tell is a big bunch of baloney. In fact those words appear nowhere in the entire DSM-IV-TR. This is something that you, as a chemical dependency counseling student, would have studied and been tested on. Even a first year psychology major would have been able to answer that question.

It seriously calls into question what you profess to be your profession. And the point was (and still is) that you can’t dismiss studies based on the use of professionally recognized terminology, such as alcohol dependence and alcohol use disorders, as you have done in the past.

Minoosh · 3rd December 2011, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by Gunthar2000

The first edition of AA's "Big Book" was printed in 1939, just 14 years before the 12&12.

I was going by the Big Book. I wouldn't "have you believe" anything. I'm not willing to concede that sponsorship was around since AA's inception in 1939, because AA's inception wasn't in 1939.

Minoosh · 3rd December 2011, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Here's some search terms for you ...

For cryin' out loud, Joey. Google "AA saved my life." You'll find people who were about to kill themselves and didn't.

And on the meds: I noticed one AA lady you quoted made a distinction that psych meds were OK "as long as they weren't addictive." That's pretty important. Psych meds and controlled substances are two different things - I actually can't think of any overlap, except maybe benzos, which I believe are overprescribed. You say AA causes suicides - well, doctors sometimes cause drug addiction.

You gave a really good description of what you considered AA's fake-out technique - you get this phony serenity that holds you until your brain changes which is what you needed all along. But some drugs will inhibit that brain change. I've taken an antidepressant for half my life now (can't say it seems to do much good) and I never want to take extra to get extra-happy; they just don't work that way.

But controlled substances are controlled for a reason. They're habit-forming for everyone, and people in AA have already shown they like to push the envelope when it comes to drugs that give an immediate reward. Without ever drinking again and without even wanting to get high - I just wanted something to kill my appetite - I picked up Rx diet pills (technically legal, but over the Net), then I needed a few tranqs but the doc gave me 90 plus a refill. I thought I would be able to stop on command because they weren't even drugs I liked. But the beast took on a life of its own. Freakin' powerless.

After a while like that I figured I might as well use my DOC - narcotics. And I developed a taste for booze which I'd never even liked. Well, I'm not scamming anymore; I'm on a medical taper and it's $450 a month for drugs that don't get me high. It's better than spending $1,000 a week on pills from Tijuana. But I miss being clean horribly. Clean I would not be able to stand these conversations. I'd have to work out every day instead of hopping onto JREF and getting into arguments. After all this back and forth with you et al. about the evils of AA, I feel I should go back to protect all those vulnerable dewy-eyed newcomers. BTW I've been to only about 3 meetings in the past year. I always say I'm weaning and nobody bats an eye. Friends have prodded me on a couple of occasions, because the weaning is going at a glacial pace.

I don't know if you're abstinent, or if you want to be, or if you consider yourself an addict at all. But - if you were ever clean and miss it - you could do a lot of good in AA. And if you ever sponsored someone, wouldn't you want what was best for them? Well, some pills are just no damn good to play with. If someone needs psychotropics for long-term correction of brain chemistry, it's stupid to tell them to stop. But if an alcoholic wants a little speed to lose weight - it's a horrible idea, and I think you know it.

Oh: I didn't lose the weight.

Gunthar2000 · 4th December 2011, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I was going by the Big Book. I wouldn't "have you believe" anything. I'm not willing to concede that sponsorship was around since AA's inception in 1939, because AA's inception wasn't in 1939.

Here is more evidence that AA sponsorship was around at least as early as 1944

silkworth.net/aahistory/aapamplet_clarences.html

Minoosh · 4th December 2011, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Overreached? Is that what you really call it? It seems you have very good recall of this situation.

I said I was wrong, and going by memory I refined my representation. Any chance you could drop the sarcasm? Probably not. I suppose I could keep pointing out your errors and repeated digs about how I can become an AA big shot, but gloating is bad for me.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Gosh, Minoosh, you’re too funny! Of course the members of ST told him it was a bad idea. ... according to him, he was having problems related to his physical attraction to her, she was manipulating him, and he was drinking a lot. Funny how he sobered up shortly after getting our advice to dump her.

"You're too funnny ... Funny how" ... can you see your sarcasm at all? "He sobered up shortly after getting our advice to dump her." That works for me. I'm glad you guys were watching out for him.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Anyway, I do sooo love my private jet. Er, wait that’s too cumbersome. Minoosh, do I fly through the air like Superman? That still would take too long. Or do I cross my arms and blink like Jeannie? Oh yeah, it’s definitely the Jeannie thing.

Another post dripping with sarcasm. The term comes from the Greek - to tear flesh, gnash the teeth, speak bitterly. "In sarcasm, ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes.” Generally I vet my own posts for sarcasm, hostility and hyperbole. I'm not perfect. For some reason ridicule, contempt and mockery thrive on Internet forums. Only a very few sites try to steer posters away from it. Thank you, JREF.

Minoosh · 4th December 2011, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Overreached? Is that what you really call it? It seems you have very good recall of this situation.

I took issue with an assertion that I made wild claims of stalking, hatred and incitements to violence. I didn't say I never made mistakes.

Hallo Alfie · 4th December 2011, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Nobody said there’s no such thing.

Really? Gee that certainly was the impression you (and others were giving)

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Nobody has even said it’s not common terminology. What I said is that you didn’t know that the word “alcoholism” never appears, even once, in the DSM-IV-TR.

I understood then what I understand now (as would anyone with half a brain), that it was a cynical attempt at a "gotcha!" which failed.

Now, would you care to comment on this peer reviewed study?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16696626

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Estimating the effect of help-seeking on achieving recovery from alcohol dependence

This confirms some of what I have been saying for a long time that recovery is a three stage process: detox, rehab and maintenance.

“Individuals who participated in 12-Step programs in addition to formal treatment had almost twice the chance of recovery and more than more than twice the chance of AR compared with those who received formal treatment alone.”

CONCLUSIONS:

“Help-seeking plays a significant role in the achievement of abstinent recovery from alcohol dependence, with 12-Step participation playing a major role. Appropriate model selection is critical to assessing the impact of help-seeking.”

Well I'll be stuffed!
One has twice as much chance of maintaining sobriety using 12 step fellowships that without.

Peer reviewed too.

Thanks heaps for this one.

DannyB II · 4th December 2011, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Whoa, hold up there chief! How can you possibly think you're qualified enough to be giving advice on how someone should or should not take drugs or medications?

I think you have inadvertently just given us an excellent illustration on how AAs take it upon themselves to dispense advice where it's ignorant or inapplicable. How ironic considering all the discussion about this very topic!

I'm sure you think you're just stating common sense, but in the context of addiction and everyone's personal tolerance, physiology, attitudes and so forth, you're really treading into territory that you need to leave to that person and their physician.

Norseman you just did the very exact behavior you are criticizing Minoosh for.
There is nothing wrong with establishing the motivation behind why a addict wants to take a drug. This is not to say I am telling anyone not to take medication for physical, mental or emotional injuries.
I really believe you are splitting hairs here.
I believe Minoosh and others have explained clearly their positions concerning folks taking proper medications.

Minoosh · 4th December 2011, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

I have seen one poor guy who was having trouble stopping drinking due to his head being wrecked over his sponsor (who was a woman stringing him along sexually).

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Personally speaking, the problems I have with AA have more to do with things I saw done to others, than any damage I suffered.

OK, can you clarify this for me ... you wrote that you had "seen one poor guy who was having trouble ..." Later you clarified that you weren't speaking literally; you meant you saw posts on an Internet forum. So, when you speak of "things I saw done to others," is that literal, or do you also mean that you saw posts made on an Internet forum?

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Many sites will have an option that will allow the site owner to view the IP.

Even just for surfers/lurkers? And, do you need to be the site owner or can anyone do it?

DannyB II · 4th December 2011, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Joey McGee wrote:
"Many" suicides as the direct result of sponsors telling sponsees to go off their medications.

Minoosh wrote:
Do you have statistics? I see anecdotes. Grief involves anger and grieving a suicide must involve a boatload of it. I believe the anger sometimes latches on to a proxy target. If the anecdotes appear on forums devoted to trashing AA, I take them with a grain of salt. I'm not saying it's never happened.

Joey McGee wrote:
Statistics? What, is this a joke? Where am I supposed to be getting statistics from? How many people Yeah, many, enough that it's a concern for a lot of people. From a pro 12-step website...

Joey this 12 step program "Dual Addiction" out of Kansas, you quoted as a link is not any more a advocate then AA,NA,CA,OA,GA,EA and DA is when then ask their members to not give out advice about prescribed medication.
Are there idiots who will run around and spout off about doing sobriety totally drug free yep I am sure there will be. But in no way is this a epidemic.

DannyB II · 4th December 2011, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

"Ethanol (EtOH), the main psychoactive ingredient of alcoholic drinks, is widely considered to be responsible for alcohol abuse and alcoholism"

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I love this - alcohol is responsible for alcoholism. Some people ridicule the "powerless" concept, saying the liquid is inert. OK, I get that. But in the AA sense of the word, I've known some people who experienced powerlessness after their very first drink.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Something that struck me again was: Do you not think that depression, low-self esteem and the much maligned spiritual void could not all be one and the same – or at least connected? I do.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I've wondered the same thing. The spiritual "disease" or "void" could mean merely "chronic unhappiness," but it implies more to me - something like feeling constantly self-conscious, unable to "lose yourself" or fully experience the present moment.

I wonder if the AA detractors on this thread realize how many of us have come to terms with the same questions they use to challenge AA. If people find support by banding together against AA, well, they're entitled.
But I saw mostly kindness over the years, and nothing that would warrant anything like the hostility on display here.

The powerlessness I had from drinking became chronic for me. I drank everyday all day. In the end I did not work, pay the bills, attend family functions, be a husband or father ect...the guilt mixed with alcohol created a toxic emotional and mental duress that I was powerless to climb out of by myself.
This is what I believe AA is talking about. Once I have recovered from a seemingly hopeless state, I don't have to go back.

Thanks Alfie and Minoosh for your constant devotion for setting the record straight.

Edited by Loss Leader:

Edited for clarity in accordance with the poster's apparent intent. I hope.

Minoosh · 4th December 2011, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Gunthar2000

Sure there were sponsors in early AA.

My somewhat snotty response was tempered immediately afterward by an article I read in a "Grapevine" compendium. It does indeed show that as early as the mid-'40s, Bill W. had already hashed out much of the language codified in the 12 & 12.

I don't think I was entirely wrong, though. I also read stories that indicated that in early AA, the "sponsor" relationship wasn't dwelt upon. Someone would, say, give a ride to an alcoholic, but the group as a whole "sponsored" the newcomer. And, this to me seems like alternative that could be healthier than telling a newcomer how to "pick" someone. Simply because individuals are so fallible, and the newcomer is not necessarily equipped to make such a critical decision. I picked a sponsor who happened to work for an umbrella agency that encompassed my workplace. In other words, she was convenient. Our relationship was productive, but as it happened several people at my work site were in the program and the overlap was handy. It really was useful to have multiple points of contact rather than one person to whom I ceded control. A big part of that was pride - I didn't want to humble myself enough to "turn it over" to a single individual. But, there were legitimate self-protective instincts as well. The potential power a sponsor holds is cause for concern. If someone is just playing different sponsor figures against one another - looking for the response one wants to hear - then I'd say, it's unhealthy to keep "shopping." But not always; the desire to get several opinions can be perfectly legitimate. Like a lot of other issues it boils down to motive. Are you trying to get broader feedback, or just trying to find someone who will tell you what you want to hear? Really, you're the only one who can answer that question.

Hallo Alfie · 4th December 2011, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by DannyB II

Thanks Alfie and Minoosh for your constant devotion for setting the record straight.

A pleasure.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

.. respectful snip .. Like a lot of other issues it boils down to motive. Are you trying to get broader feedback, or just trying to find someone who will tell you what you want to hear? Really, you're the only one who can answer that question.

I largely agree with this post and would like to extend it slightly.

For some years (early on) I had one sponsor that got me through the first 12 months. Then I had another that took me through my first effort at the steps, then another for some years. Each of them served a particular purpose for me - I tend to think something instinctive told me it was time to move on. Each of them remain firm friends.

Today I have any number of sponsors (including the three mentioned above - sort of). Each of these sponsors have something - an area of expertise that I like to refer to them about: One is very good with relationships, another spirituality, teenagers, life balance, and so on. This works very well for me.

A well intentioned older member once suggested that by doing this I was not allowing anyone to see the whole me, the whole picture. This made me think long and hard about whether I was hiding parts of me and hunting for advice I wanted rather than needed and/or keeping secrets.

In the end I determined that I wasn't simply hunting answers; I was seeking feedback from individuals whom I respect in areas that I choose to give them respect.

I hope that makes sense.

Cheers

The Norseman · 4th December 2011, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

First off, there wasn't a lot of advice in there. I made a few statements saying stuff like "in my view ...," etc. The gist was that sponsors shouldn't play doctor. Some doctors shouldn't play doctor. Here are a few clarifications and warnings:

* "Marijuana maintenance is frowned on" is a statement of fact - it's between you and your conscience if you call that "clean and sober." It's a much safer drug than alcohol (there I go again!), but it's also relatively easy to learn to mimic that high naturally.

* Sometimes narcotics are needed - this isn't advice, it's fact. If they amputate your leg, they're not going to start you with Advil. (If you're on naltrexone, better hope someone tells them!) I wrote "narcotics are handled with care" - a general statement - but I'll go further and say they should be handled with care. If you have an 80 mg OxyContin tablet (160 in the olden days), don't peel it, grind it and snort it all at once unless you're used to this dose. There's a good chance you'll die. Its manufacturers were found criminally liable for a rash of fatal ODs, facilitated by doctors who were told OxyContin was less addictive than short-acting pills. (It didn't occur to them that people would grind them up, or sell them, doh!) I could have told them that putting 32 Percocets in one pill - with few binders to impede shooting, snorting or smoking - was dangerous. Doctors who didn't realize this were idiots. It's always a good idea to know more than your docs do about what your taking.

* Speaking of narcotics: My old addiction doc said when I switched to suboxone that some people stay on 2 mg of suboxone indefinitely. I didn't want to do that. He may have been right; however a week later he was busted for relapsing and I'm leery of his advice. Previously, at the methadone clinic, medical professionals told me I had to get counseling to go down 5 percent on my dose. So I jumped early to suboxone. The clinics want to keep your business. I heard dozens of stories like this.

* Fact: Anxiety may be useful in recovery. You're trying to reset your brain so it can begin to function without controlled substances. It's useful to learn that mild anxiety will not kill you, and that you can calm down without drugs (hot shower, exercise, melatonin, etc). But, it's no good if you're crippled with panic. Use the lowest effective dose, but go down slowly. Your doctor may not think to tell you that. Also, your doctor may tell you to take more than you need. I know mine did. Thankfully I didn't follow his instructions. Going from 0 mg of alprazolam a day to 3 mg is stupid - I knew that. I didn't tell him, though. I wanted the extra pills.

* Welbutrin and SSRIs are "in my view" out of play (also in the view of most addiction docs).

* I didn't address barbiturates at all. Prescribing Seconal or Nembutal to someone who's already detoxed (and not hospitalized) would be imprudent. If people happen to drink on top of them, they have a tendency to stop breathing. Phenobarbital continues to be a necessity for some people.

* Methamphetamine? If you have ADD or life-threatening narcolepsy, maybe. Cocaine's not really an issue. That about does it for controlled substances but there's one I wanted to add: a muscle relaxer called Soma may be risky.

* Oh, and it's a bad idea to use general anesthetics for simple insomnia, as Michael Jackson's doc found out. Who coulda thought a doc could make a mistake.

Where in my original statement did I fail to take into account tolerance, physiology and attitudes? Can you back up your claims? And what does failing to take into account "attitudes" even mean?

Are you a physician? An addictionologist perhaps? Where is your drug expertise learned?

Anyway, what claims are you thinking I made? That you don't have any expertise to be giving unasked-for advice about drugs to addicts in AA groups or online is perfectly obvious. I bring it up and your first response is to defensively reiterate how you think you're giving common sense advice. This is typical for AAs though and my point was made. If the gist was that sponsors shouldn't play doctor, then neither should the rest of AAs.

Quote:

You said I made wild claims of stalking, hatred and incitements to violence. That is, to put it politely, untrue. Your answer is *shrugs*. What does that mean? That you can't be bothered to vet your posts for fact? I said I couldn't stand the site anymore, which is true.

I shrugged. It's a debatable point about how you came across; you obviously heartily disagree and it's not worth the time and effort to me to hurl invective at one another over it.

Quote:

I also got concerned after a poster told me he tracked IP addresses from the site. I didn't know if that applied to surfing, or only to comments. I really, really don't want anyone from that site to get my IP address.

I can understand some concern; I don't particularly want anyone at all to get mine, though after having studied computers and networking for many years (well, practically lived computers for the past twenty something years) I may have an edge over you when it comes to that sort of thinking and it's really not as easy as perhaps implied. Even though we disagree on the particular topic of AA, I hope I may reassure you of this fact.

DannyB II · 4th December 2011, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Gunthar2000

Here is more evidence that AA sponsorship was around at least as early as 1944

silkworth.net/aahistory/aapamplet_clarences.html

This is a article written by a member of AA (A.A. Sponsorship Pamphlet
1944 - by Clarence S.).
Gunthar there are literally thousands of articles out there that members have written and in many cases published. This doesn't mean they are AA/GSO approved or that any measure of credence should be given. It is really the readers choice.
Clarence may have thought he was speaking for AA or not I don't know. But I do not agree with most of what he said.
This is why Bill, Bob and the hundred members stayed away from this subject in the Big Book.
Now let me note that later on (I am not sure what year the GSO started this) certain pamphlets were approved by the GSO and are/were available on this very topic, sponsorship.
This was IMO a appeasement to the Treatment Industry.
I am of the opinion and belief that sponsor/mentoring is done by the community you are in. I allowed many to help me yet I gravitated towards one in particular who has gone on to become a great friend of mine.
I will not act as if sponsorship is not routinely brought up to new members and even strongly encouraged because it is. As many other things you folks disagree with concerning AA I too disagree with forcing a person onto another, in the name of helping said individual.
I will also say that most members I know reject suggestions that they feel are being forced on them.

causeandeffect · 4th December 2011, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Any chance you could drop the sarcasm? Probably not. I suppose I could keep pointing out your errors and repeated digs about how I can become an AA big shot, but gloating is bad for me.

Minoosh, I thought you were joking with me in a sarcastic way when you said you were afraid I would stalk you, so I responded in kind in a sarcastic joking way. But it occurs to me that you may really feel I’m a threat to you, and if so, I’m sorry.

To answer your question, some site owners can see the IPs of those who post. Others cannot. It depends on how sophisticated the site is. But the visitors to the site can’t see those things. So if you’re really worried that I would stalk you, I most definitely would not, even if I could. And I can’t. And, let me say this again, I would not. The IP in question was posted on the original thread about “X”. It was not his own personal IP, it was the public IP of the hotel from where he sent the threatening posts. Since he never posted from his home, nobody would have access to his personal IP either. As far as surfers or lurkers, I know that some sites can track how many hits they get from different IPs, but I seriously doubt they could track individual ones. I do know that members of that blog were stalked by AA supporters, even to gardening sites if they had an unusual username.

Quote:

So, when you speak of "things I saw done to others," is that literal, or do you also mean that you saw posts made on an Internet forum?

Both. When I was going to AA, I saw people treated very badly, before, during, after meetings, on the phone and in person. I’m not saying that those people were bad people. I’m saying they were very misguided. They truly believed they were doing the right things per the program. But these incidents often left me feeling very disturbed because I recognized both the potential for, as well as, the very real damage that resulted from their actions. For the most part, these actions stemmed from the program itself. It’s simply the way they had learned to be. It’s like growing up in an abusive household. It just looks normal to them. I also recognized the unhealthy way they were treating themselves and that used to bother me a lot as well. So I tried different groups etc, and found they just had a slightly different flavor of the same thing.

So when I found that there are numerous sites on line, and oldtimers and newcomers alike from all over the US, and in fact, different countries, who were being very honest about what their experiences were, and that it was much the same everywhere, I knew the problems weren’t just regional. And I knew I had to speak out too. Minoosh, these aren’t just memes. These are the actual experiences of very real people. And all those unhealthy ways of relating to others and to the self are completely unnecessary for recovery. You may have come to terms with them, but I cannot. I feel people deserve much better.

Despite any accusations some like to throw around, AA detractors are just as sincerely concerned with recovery as you AA members. They just recognize unhealthy behaviors and abuses are not conducive to mental health and sobriety.

For what it’s worth, Minoosh, I sincerely wish you all the best in your recovery. I’m sorry you’ve been going through all this. I know it’s hard and hope you will soon get back to doing what you love—which includes AA. I wish there was something I could do to help, but I’m sure you wouldn’t like any of my suggestions. So all I can do is wish you the very best. That’s all I can do for anybody who has a very different idea of what recovery should look like.

Minoosh · 5th December 2011, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Where is your drug expertise learned?

The semi-snotty answer is, I can't believe you have to ask. The straight answer is, my experience, other people's experiences, observation, reading, being in treatment, talking to experts, etc. I've been studying this for more than 30 years.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

That you don't have any expertise to be giving unasked-for advice about drugs to addicts in AA groups or online is perfectly obvious .... If the gist was that sponsors shouldn't play doctor, then neither should the rest of AAs.

The stuff I say is pretty much medical consensus. Think about this. If you want to quit smoking, the advice of ex-smokers might well be more useful than that of a doctor who's never gone through it. Some people do best with a two-step approach: Quit smoking "cold turkey" while using alternative nicotine-delivery systems to wean yourself from the physical addiction. Others just swear off. What a lot of people find it hard to do is wean down on the number of cigarettes. Over time a seeker of knowledge can learn a lot, both from accumulated case histories and quantitative research.

You're right that there's a line between sharing general knowledge and giving an individual specific advice. But various detox protocols are well-known. Getting off benzos abruptly is a famously bad idea. The life-threatening nature of alcohol withdrawal has been well-known for decades. Experts widely believe that opiate withdrawal is not life threatening. You can go cold turkey, with or without non-narcotic drugs to ease the symptoms; or you can wean down and experience less discomfort (though possibly for a longer period of time). Or, hell, you can stay on them forever; in themselves, they're probably less physically damaging than booze or cigarettes. I don't have any moral opinion about that. It's just that some people do want to quit narcotics, and the accumulated experience of generations of junkies counts for something.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

... it's not worth the time and effort to me to hurl invective at one another over it.

I can do without the hurling

myself.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

I can understand some concern ... it's really not as easy as perhaps implied.

I'm not an optimist when it comes to the subject of computer/Internet privacy. It amazes me how many people want their surfing to be transparent, so they can get targeted ads. Sometimes I feel like people are wiring themselves for surveillance. I find it creepy, but lots of people don't.

Hallo Alfie · 5th December 2011, 12:31 PM

I am waiting on some to comments on this science based research:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16696626

Estimating the effect of help-seeking on achieving recovery from alcohol dependence

This confirms some of what I have been saying for a long time that recovery is a three stage process: detox, rehab and maintenance.

“Individuals who participated in 12-Step programs in addition to formal treatment had almost twice the chance of recovery and more than more than twice the chance of AR compared with those who received formal treatment alone.”

CONCLUSIONS:

“Help-seeking plays a significant role in the achievement of abstinent recovery from alcohol dependence, with 12-Step participation playing a major role. Appropriate model selection is critical to assessing the impact of help-seeking.”

Well I'll be stuffed!
One has twice as much chance of maintaining sobriety using 12 step fellowships that without.

I would also challenge C&E, Joey etc to provide this information to the hate group they love - given that they want to help people to get sober and all that.

I think the answers we sought from the start of the thread have been answered, namely:

Is AA religious? No: It is a spiritual program but it can be (religious) if one wants it to be.
Does AA work? Yes, in conjunction with other treatments (detox and rehab/counselling etc), people have twice as much chance of attaining and maintaining sobriety as they would without.
What is the efficacy of other treatments? Unknown, but they will work better with AA.

End thread.

Minoosh · 5th December 2011, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Minoosh, I thought you were joking with me in a sarcastic way when you said you were afraid I would stalk you, so I responded in kind in a sarcastic joking way. But it occurs to me that you may really feel I’m a threat to you, and if so, I’m sorry.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

So if you’re really worried that I would stalk you, I most definitely would not, even if I could. And I can’t.

I believe you. Thank you. At one time I had a more public profile and was occasionally spooked by online comments.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Both. When I was going to AA, I saw people treated very badly ... for the most part, these actions stemmed from the program itself. It’s simply the way they had learned to be.

I'm inclined to disagree - I usually go straight to individual responsibility, and the assumption that people can choose to be kind or unkind, no matter what set of beliefs they hold. It's hard for me to see how "the program" would make people mean. I wasn't there, though.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

... these aren’t just memes. These are the actual experiences of very real people. And all those unhealthy ways of relating to others and to the self are completely unnecessary for recovery. You may have come to terms with them, but I cannot. I feel people deserve much better.

When I see jargon used in belittling way (not common in my AA experience, but not unheard of) I challenge it. Someone says, "The steps are in order for a reason." I look at the wall and think, no. You don't have to clear up the wreckage of the past before you start fixing what you do today. I might then say something to that effect (sticking with "I" statements, of course). My bias is toward believing that this is how most meetings work. The ones I went to did. There probably is a name for this kind of fallacy - solipsism? Confirmation bias?

I'm more or less immune to slogans and don't interpret the language of the steps in a negative way. For example the idea of "losing myself" was never a threat. Have you ever sought out a friend, ready to "vent," only to realize they need it more than you? Like, I'm on the verge of bitching about something minor - then learn my friend has just had to put down a beloved pet. Instantly I'm there for my friend and grateful I didn't launch into my rant. It feels something like being "rocketed into a fourth dimension." Big Book corn with a kernel of truth.

The "unhealthy ways of relating to others and to the self" - I'm not sure what you mean. If you are talking about the idea of "powerlessness," for example, we could probably read the same words and arrive at opposite conclusions.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Despite any accusations some like to throw around, AA detractors are just as sincerely concerned with recovery as you AA members. They just recognize unhealthy behaviors and abuses are not conducive to mental health and sobriety.

I believe you. Sometimes I've felt hurt and defensive when I thought posters were on this thread for sport. Well, there's no reason they shouldn't be, and I don't have to take it personally. I respect posters who have some idea what the stakes are, whether they agree with AA or not.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

For what it’s worth, Minoosh, I sincerely wish you all the best in your recovery. ... That’s all I can do for anybody who has a very different idea of what recovery should look like.

A very sincere thank-you. It's possible that our visions of recovery overlap.

I exaggerated the "Brian" exchange for what I thought were good reasons, but really, it stemmed from inflated self-importance.

Minoosh · 5th December 2011, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by DannyB II

Once I have recovered from a seemingly hopeless state, I don't have to go back.

This state sounds so familiar.

I think you mean you never have to go back to that state, but I'd go further: Even if you're pulled up by the AA program or fellowship, it's possible to move on and stay sober. It's counterproductive to tell people that if they quit going to AA meetings, they'll get drunk. If someone else brought it up as a topic I'd stick with my experience. For some reason I never assumed people in AA were telling me what to do - even if they used the pronoun "you," I assumed they were talking about themselves. Advice-giving was considered bad form, but some people do talk that way.

At times I wonder, though, if some people are just eager to hear advice and threats when AA members really are just talking about themselves.

Bamberger · 5th December 2011, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Is AA religious? No: It is a spiritual program but it can be (religious) if one wants it to be.

End thread.

The heavy use of the word God in both AA literature and in prayers at meetings makes it religious.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Does AA work? Yes, in conjunction with other treatments (detox and rehab/counselling etc), people have twice as much chance of attaining and maintaining sobriety as they would without.

End thread.

Evidence, please

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

What is the efficacy of other treatments? Unknown, but they will work better with AA.

End thread.

Evidence, please

Do not end thread.

1st December 2011, 04:44 PM	#6081
causeandeffect Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 146	Originally Posted by Minoosh Multiple requests in a single post saying could you please provide a link when the commenter knew where it came from is disingenuous. It’s not disingenuous at all. That blog was in existence for well over 2 years, with literally hundreds of threads. One thread alone, the neverending thread, had over 6,000 posts if I recall correctly. Bringing these 9 items to the table, several in the form of quotations, without being willing or able to support any of them, in fact, does seem disingenuous. I only asked for 3 of them. I will settle for a link, or the name of the thread, or even the subject matter of the thread. Where did you see people “posters encouraged a 25-year-old who'd been clean and sober for 6 years to experiment with a variety of other drugs”? And what was this "variety of other drugs"? This is a very serious accusation you are making here and I fully expect you to back it up. Otherwise you have absolutely no right to speak of libel.
causeandeffect Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 146

1st December 2011, 10:13 PM	#6082
Joey McGee Transcendental Naturalist Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,133	Originally Posted by Minoosh "Many" suicides as the direct result of sponsors telling sponsees to go off their medications. Do you have statistics? I see anecdotes. Grief involves anger and grieving a suicide must involve a boatload of it. I believe the anger sometimes latches on to a proxy target. If the anecdotes appear on forums devoted to trashing AA, I take them with a grain of salt. *I'm not saying it's never happened.* Statistics? What, is this a joke? Where am I supposed to be getting statistics from? How many people Yeah, many, enough that it's a concern for a lot of people. From a pro 12-step website... Quote: Some have been told that they do not have an emotional or psychiatric illness, and that they are experiencing merely self-pity or some other character defect "You don't need those pills; they'll cause you more problems" and "If you're taking pills, then you're in relapse and not really sober". Individuals who have followed such advice have experienced relapse: some have been hospitalized; some have returned to alcohol or drug use; some have attempted or even completed suicide. Here's some search terms for you alcoholics anonymous sponsor medication suicide alcoholics anonymous "anti-med"/"anti-medication" suicide etc... You'll see it's a common problem. I'm sorry that there are no statistics or organized bodies dedicated to combatting this. An example,took all of 5 seconds for me to find. Quote: Miranda says : January 14, 2011 at 12:53 am @ Wendell, it actually is a pretty common practice. I had a sponsor who persuaded me to get discontinue my medication. I very seriously considered suicide. I fired her. The next advised me to do the same and was also fired. They both had different homegroups. The attitude is that you aren’t really sober if you are taking any mood altering medications, even when they are an antidepressant prescribed by a physician. They tell you to “let go and let God.” That’s only one of the extremely dangerous practices in AA. And this one is from Orange who I happen to believe but feel free to decide he made it up. Quote: I recently talked with yet another ex-member old-timer, who has been in and out of A.A. for 30 years, who quit in anger, and hates A.A., because other old-timer sponsors kept telling mental cases to quit taking their medications, and then those sad cases committed suicide. His parting words to those A.A. members, after another funeral, were: "Well, before you guys got ahold of him, at least he could say his own name. But when you were done with him, he couldn't even do that." The meetings I went to there was one guy who said "drugs" were a cop-out and another guy who used every single chance he got to speak to rail against the anti-med faction. I've seen it for myself. These days I asked around my friends and family locally and they said they rarely hear stuff like that anymore (awesome things are getting better!) but acknowledged they've heard stories from the past too. Quote: BTW I'm not real keen on the sponsor system. That's SMART! (they have no sponsors ) Quote: Joey, why is it "obvious" there was a degree of "stalking"? A degree of "research," sure. Would most people call Net searches "stalking"? In any event, "I" is not absolved from an ethical duty to disown slander just because he indicated he knew her address. It sounds like they both engaged in power plays, but I wasn't there. You have just convicted him of suborning homicide, based on one side of the story. I find it weird that Mr. "X" would travel far from home, check into a hotel in his own name and (apparently) use the hotel's computer to make a threat. It could have happened that way, but I'm skeptical. Obviously they could be making the whole thing up or lying about the details and we have to go off what they say. If what they say is true, they know for sure what happened. You don't believe them, fine, apologizing for this person's actions is irrelevant to the facts we are talking about here anyway. Quote: Joey, that is a heckuva good question. If this were a typical forum I wouldn't bother trying to use logic. But it is a site devoted to critical thinking, where people are called on fallacious reasoning and asked to present evidence other than anecdotes. This is not supposed to be a place where people insult each other, cherry pick evidence, assume facts not in evidence, engage in ad homs, etc. Or where terms like "many," "countless" or "numerous" are immune from challenge. Yeah, do some research on the anti-medication problems in AA on your own for awhile, you'll probably share my concern that many suicides have been caused by this quack faith healing belief over the years. Wow I would love to know how often, but all we're doing is bringing the pattern to attention. I submit that if anyone looks for evidence of this they will come to the same conclusion, that the existence of a pamphlet saying "Don't play doctor" has done absolutely nothing to stop this advice from being given. Another person in the program describing what I'm telling you Quote: Yeah, and then the anti-med members claim that the suicide "failed AA," "...just constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves..." Of course, AA never fails anyone according to these strict constructionists of AA dogma; unsuccessful members only fail to work an honest program. There is a schism in the AA community in my town: the anti-med members on one side, and the pro-med members on the other. In fact, the number of meetings here in town has been growing as resentments over this matter are engendered, and members split off from one group to form another. Anyway, there is a conference approved pamphlet stating it is important to take any psychiatric medications the doctor prescribes (as long as they're not addictive). Sometimes I feel like shoving these pamphlets in the faces of the anti-med members. We're talking AA (a place to get sober) not the fricken Church of Scientology. So you can just keep going and find that there are battles going on, in some places more than others, and the effects are clear. Quote: For decades I had a career largely devoted to clear thinking, clear writing, fairness, accuracy and context. I was happy to find this forum. It satisfies my need to think, write and learn. On this thread, the fallacies really bothered me and countering them has become a compulsion. AA doesn't need me to defend it and soon I will move on. In my opinion the actions of apologia on this thread just illustrate how far some people will go to defend the cult and it's members and trash their detractors. Originally Posted by Minoosh It sounds like people in meetings are working to counter cure-all perceptions, which might have been fostered in AA, by explicitly saying, "It's OK to get outside help." They can't change the past, correct? So they get slammed for changing the present? chill out Minoosh. Of course it's a good thing that people are saying "It's ok to get outside help" just like some people say "it's ok to take medications" the point is why are they having to state the obvious? Kudos to them for doing it. Quote: If naltrexone turns out to be the magic bullet you think it is Where did you get that impression? smh. I just use it as an example of something that has been approved by science but is generally looked at with suspicion and scorn by the flock of Bill Wilson. All I did was highlight what the current general consensus is scientifically, which is that it works. It's not a "band-aid" . I could have done a much better job of responding to this but I did it off the top of my head. If people are serious about finding the truth about these problems and what really goes on, they should be doing the research themselves trying to replicate our findings, although clearly some people will find whatever they are emotionally looking for. It's that serious of an issue. I don't expect people to accept what I'm saying and the examples I'm giving. I expect people to spend a decent amount of time doing their own work. It's like when Paul Haggis started questioning Scientology, he started going to anti-Scientology websites for the first time having believed what he was told that they were hate groups and disgruntled former members. What he found shocked him and he eventually left. This happens every day in AA. Nancy manged to find the truth about AA, it's origins in the delusions of Frank Buchman, probably thanks to people like Orange. Look at how Orange is attacked here. For what? Where is he wrong? Where did he lie? And calling him "biased" doesn't cut it. I hope that's good enough. I mean, what is left to be said? I've said enough for awhile I think. Take care, and thanks for your participation in this thread. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing, but at the end of the day it's a quality use of time.
	__________________ How do I know that this is so? By looking!

2nd December 2011, 01:08 PM	#6083
causeandeffect Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 146	Originally Posted by Minoosh Don't know why he didn't just sue. Maybe he thought she might remove the comments? Didn't have money for a lawyer but wanted it to sound like he did? So you’re saying trying to arrange a “hit” on her was supposed to convince her that he had money to sue? That doesn’t make any sense at all. Why would you need money to sue someone who was killed by a drug cartel? Quote: BTW I thought it was the FBI that traced it to the hotel. No. The FBI found that someone named “X” had stayed in the hotel during that time period. For privacy reasons, one must be law enforcement to be able to get a list of customers in a hotel or motel. Many sites will have an option that will allow the site owner to view the IP. It allows the owner to see how many times the site is viewed and allows for the banning of trolls, etc. Even the Sober Recovery site has that option. I assume this site does as well, as indicated by the fact they have a field for “views”. It’s really not as sinister as you are making it out to be. The IP of the hotel that the posts originated from was on the original post. Such IPs can be traced back to the domain of the business. From there you can see the address, phone number, etc. This is all public information that is readily available on the internet. http://tools.whois.net/whoisbyip/ Quote: I hope you can't trace mine, and that your ability to trace is linked to your affiliation with ST. Are you threatening me by implying you can ? Because I should tell you, my IP address is misleading. Now you are trying to make me out to be sinister. This is nothing more than a sly ad hom, following in the foot steps of Alfie. My simple ability to research a domain of a business is from previous IT work experience. I have no way to trace your IP and even if I could, I couldn’t care less who or where you are. Quote: I'm not really too afraid of the ST crowd because they seem to covet their victimhood too much to take action. But I may be wrong, and it would suck to be the recipient of that much venom. Another ad hom. It’s not about being a victim. It’s speaking out about concern regarding addiction recovery and really it’s about concern for others. Personally speaking, the problems I have with AA have more to do with things I saw done to others, than any damage I suffered. It has more to do with the way the dogma effects people in general. It’s more to do with superstitious faith healing being used for such a serious matter. That what you see are anecdotal accounts of what goes on every day in AA, doesn’t make these issues any less of a problem. Quote: Oh - and since you're an ST insider, I'm just curious: Do you know if the first email from "X" was a PDF attachment? Did an actual letter ever arrive by post? If he was serious about suing, he should have sent the letter registered mail, return receipt requested. I fail to see what any of this has to do with anything and I don’t know what you mean by “insider”. As far as I know, no and no. Quote: How about "sick"? That’s an understatement. Quote: I'd look it up but I'm out of green soap and Brillo pads. It's really not hard to find but I don't want to go there. Then get some. And yes, it is hard to find. Quote: So, the specific drug was alcohol and he wondered if the implication that there was a "safe" level for alcohol might mean there was a "safe" level for other drugs as well. So what you’re saying was this “Brian” wanted to try social drinking, but was encouraged “to experiment with a variety of other drugs” instead. Right. And did they tell him what street corner he could purchase this variety of other drugs? Did they also include the name and phone number of the drug dealer? And we’re supposed to believe this accusation that you can’t link to because…? Quote: Besides, I'm a bit worried that you are trying to get me to surf to the site so you can pick up my IP address. This is just all starting to sound too threatening. You actually saw the Miami hotel, so not only are you a computer wiz but you've got funds to travel. Or maybe you just looked at images on the Net. Wow, this is beginning to really creep me out More ad hom. Of course I looked at images on the net. They have these things these days you know. It’s good for business. Quote: I really wondered about something you didn't respond to, which is why a guy who was having trouble quitting drinking would pick a female sponsor who was stringing him along sexually. How should I know? Apparently she didn’t tell him it was a bad idea. Apparently he was supposed to know better when nobody told him otherwise. Apparently people are supposed to come to AA, be ready to "go to any length" and know what lengths they are not supposed to go to. Quote: It's one of my issues with sponsorship. Your judgment sucks, but you're supposed to pick the right sponsor. I'd prefer a team of mentors, myself. Agreed. I had a series of bad sponsors who for all their years of AA, had judgment far worse than mine had ever been.
causeandeffect Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 146

2nd December 2011, 01:37 PM	#6084
The Norseman I Void Warranties Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The Treasure Valley Posts: 3,237	Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie Not at all, I don't need to back away because I never claimed it. Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie Then you "seem" incorrect. Can you show me something that has better results? If so great, I will stand corrected. In the meantime, the 9% is far better than an otherwise zero percent (well it did when I went to school). This simply shows that AA has a place in society for alcoholics to recover. Other things might work too, but you have yet to provide any data for that. Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie It really seems we should take the middle ground on the 5 to 13% figure. I'm going to use 9% from now on. So, now we are up to 15% (9 in AA + 5 who just stop) of alcoholics that get some relief. Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie Imagine that 5 - 13% still sober after one year. That's not bad going, wonder if any other therapy has anything near close to that? What's that? No, well whod have guessed? Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie If 9% can find relief within AA (with or withour religion) surely that is a good thing. Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie It has also been suggested that 5% of people just stop. Great, that's 5%. Add AAs 9% to that and we have 14% of alcoholics achieving some semblance of sobriety. Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie The 9% was cited earlier (as between 5 and 13% earlier by another JREF member - I have used the average), and it seemed something we could agree on for the sake of ongoing discussions. If you have something else, by all means show us. The 5% seems a satisfactory default figure too for thse that go it alone and I had no problem with it for the purposes of discussion. Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie Again, a fair point. But in the absense of other data it seems an acceptable starting point to me. Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie My point really wasn't around the %s so much as about what else is out there. Others in the thread have made numerous claims of AA being no more than, or less successful than 'other' programs'. I genuinely and sincerely want to know what they are, but no-one seems to want to say. So in the absence of any other data - we have (say) 5% that "just stop" and (say) 9% that go to AA. I misremembered the circumstances around which you obtained the figure of 15% as it turns out it was based on your math error (adding 9 to 4). Though I loved that as a professional, you merrily took one single figure that painted AA in the best possible light with no questions as to the veracity of the figure and where it came from or how it was derived and ran with it. By the way, when a person has an absence of data (which in the case of alcoholism, is incorrect), then the rational conclusion is the null hypothesis. It's unsurprising behavior from a staunch AA loyalist, but would be rather surprising coming from someone who is honestly seeking information surrounding alcoholism/addiction. Quote: There are 34 of them as you say, just how quickly do you think I can find them and read them? As fast as I did. Faster, even. You've made this your career, Alfie. I spent a few hours over several evenings diligently searching, downloading, and reading these pdfs. Surely you can do better than I. I'm also not going to beg people to get this information, but I've already twice now offered to GIVE a few of these reports to people who ask me. That you have not done so (but quote the posts wherein I've made the offer) speaks volumes to your supposed interest in discovering non-AA methods of treating alcoholism. So why the dodge, yet again? Not one single comment on what I've already posted. Not even a brief hesitation on your part in sailing past what has been presented. Well, any comments on this snippet then, Alfie? "Alcoholism is a debilitating disorder for the individual and very costly for society. A major goal of alcohol research is to understand the neural underpinnings associated with the transition from alcohol use to alcohol dependence. Positive reinforcement is important in the early stages of alcohol use and abuse. Negative reinforcement can be important early in alcohol use by people self-medicating coexisting affective disorders, but its role likely increases following the transition to dependence. Chronic exposure to alcohol induces changes in neural circuits that control motivational processes, including arousal, reward, and stress. These changes affect systems utilizing the signaling molecules dopamine, opioid peptides, gamma-aminobutyric acid, glutamate, and serotonin, as well as systems modulating the brain’s stress response. These neuroadaptations produce changes in sensitivity to alcohol’s effects following repeated exposure (i.e., sensitization and tolerance) and a withdrawal state following discontinuation of alcohol use. Chronic alcohol exposure also results in persistent neural deficits, some of which may fully recover following extended periods of abstinence. However, the organism remains susceptible to relapse, even after long periods of abstinence. Recent research focusing on brain arousal, reward, and stress systems is accelerating our understanding of the components of alcohol dependence and contributing to the development of new treatment strategies." -Neurobiology of Alcohol Dependence -- Focus on Motivational Mechanisms Nicholas W. Gilpin, Ph.D., and George F. Koob, Ph.D. Journal of Alcohol Research & Health, Vol 31, No 3, 2008 Any signs of a spiritual disease there, Alfie? I'm just not seeing it, myself. Care to download this short study and read it? Perhaps you can inform the readers of this thread how AA's spiritual disease model should be considered the more likely explanation or more accurate than the neurobiological one. Quote: It wouldn't matter one bit to me. It sure seems to though, and everyone can see it. Quote: OK. Simply for the sake of me not having to visit that disgusting site again, I withdraw the comment around inciting violence. The rest stands as does my accurate assertion that Stinkin' Thinkin' is nothing more than a hate group. LOL You and Minoosh make wild statements of stalking, hatred, incitements to violence and on and on and in lieu of presenting evidence for them, you both say that a website is so sickening that you cannot possibly show how you arrived at your (now it seems ridiculous) conclusions. I don't mind saying that these types of rather hysterical flailings call into serious question all your other claims and opinions that have been expressed throughout this thread. It really belies your professionalism and doesn't speak well for members who actively promote such an 'inclusive' group as AA.
	__________________ "I have always thought that a wild animal never looks so well as when some obstacle of pronounced durability is between us." "Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics." -tsig

2nd December 2011, 05:01 PM	#6086
causeandeffect Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 146	Originally Posted by The Norseman Any signs of a spiritual disease there, Alfie? I'm just not seeing it, myself. Care to download this short study and read it? Perhaps you can inform the readers of this thread how AA's spiritual disease model should be considered the more likely explanation or more accurate than the neurobiological one. Oddly enough I don't see any evidence of this allergy alfie claims either. I wonder why that is....
causeandeffect Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 146

2nd December 2011, 05:42 PM	#6087
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490	On sponsorship and its pitfalls: You might hear in a meeting, "It's important to get a sponsor right away" or "You need to get a sponsor right away." I don't see the rush. As your mind clears and you get to know people you might make a better choice. The original program didn't mention sponsors. There will be areas where you will need help, though. Two pitfalls stand out - one is the issue of medication. It's tricky. Relying on drugs for comfort is as dangerous as relying on alcohol. Both inhibit your brain's ability to regulate mood without exogenous substances. Mild anxiety can be useful to an addict - motivation to stay busy, exercise or burn off energy productively. But no one should quit Valium, Xanax or other benzodiazepines abruptly and a few people might have to stay on them to combat crippling panic. Find the lowest effective dose - if/when you're ready to quit you'll have a shorter taper. The idea in recovery is to learn how to get high and/or comfort yourself, fall asleep, etc. without exogenous substances. Marijuana maintenance is frowned upon (though Willie Nelson says it saved his life). Narcotics for acute pain are sometimes needed but are handled with caution. Antidepressants are out of play in my view; they just don't have an immediate reinforcing effect and are unlikely to affect anyone's "program." If you're honest with your doctors (i.e. not "drug-seeking"; sharing your abuse history) and taking drugs as prescribed, I don't believe it's a sponsor's place to interfere. However, they are within their rights to put boundaries around who they are willing to sponsor. Isn't it better to clarify this upfront? Aren't you looking for a good fit? The second area where I see a clear threat of traditional sponsorship is in cases involving severe trauma or childhood abuse. It's a horrible idea to ask a newcomer to find his or her part in childhood sexual abuse, or to stir up feelings they're not ready to handle. A few sponsors may be skilled at this, having survived similar traumas. But "outside help" may be best in such circumstances. Someone's own "part" in child abuse may just be that they continue to beat themselves up for being a victim. It may be useful to lead them gently to this conclusion. But it's well outside the simple "resentments" of the the Big Book explores. In such cases it might be best to start with today's relatively minor irritations - e.g., "traffic makes me mad, what is my part, I left the house too late ... my part is sloth." That may offer a taste of short-term relief without crashing around irresponsibly. If something is really eating your lunch - a serious secret threatening your recovery, it might be necessary to get it off your chest ASAP. There is nothing that says you have to do this with a sponsor. But, it should be someone you can trust, and who can help work out a way to make amends, if needed. Ideally, you pick a sponsor who is humble enough to tread lightly and firm enough to resist manipulation. However you proceed, making amends is an area where you need feedback to avoid potential harm (conveniently for Bill, he concluded that admitting infidelity fell into this category.) Some people grab a sponsor right away, needing a lifeline to coach them through the day. But, if you want to hang back, that may be OK. It has to do with your motives. Are you trying to postpone discomfort or just waiting for a good fit? Only you knows the answer.
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490

2nd December 2011, 06:07 PM	#6088
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490	Originally Posted by The Norseman You and Minoosh make wild statements of stalking, hatred, incitements to violence and on and on and in lieu of presenting evidence for them, you both say that a website is so sickening that you cannot possibly show how you arrived at your (now it seems ridiculous) conclusions. Me? I don't think I made any wild statements. I did present direct quotes (i.e., evidence) of a few statements I found absurd. I don't think I made wild statements of stalking, hatred and incitements to violence. It's true I never want to revisit that site, but I provided enough search terms to find the posts (in fact, a direct quote would practically guarantee the statements could be found with search terms, verdad? So, when it comes to me, you are batting about .150 with that statement.
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490

2nd December 2011, 06:39 PM	#6089
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490	Joey, the plural of anecdote is not statistics. You know that. I specifically stated that I believe it happens. In fact I recently posted (not approved yet) about what I believe to be a real problem. But it makes a difference how prevalent it is. If it happened once, it's a tragic fluke, if it's happened 2,000 times that's obviously too many. I knew asking for stats would annoy you, but it's not an outrageous request. Nor is pointing out how so-called critical thinkers on this thread sometimes can't see their blind spots. I'm trying to see mine, to be fair and to refrain from polemics which I don't believe are particularly useful. I'm sure if you plug in certain words you'll get anecdotes about people being told to get off meds. If you plug in other words you'll get anecdotes about people who are not told to get off their meds. One of the people you just cited praised the conference-approved pamphlet on psych meds. A critical thinking exercise: Has AA caused more suicides than it has prevented? I suspect 1 suicide carried out will trump 1,000 prevented. Since you believe AA oughtn't exist at all, it's clear that you'll keep mining the Net for anecdotes to support your view, and that AA changes such as the psych meds brochure will automatically be written off. I'd love to get into a discussion with you about any possible agreement we might have on the subject. Like the critical thinking exercise cited above. But, I don't believe you'd have any interest in such a venture. I could be wrong.
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490

2nd December 2011, 10:40 PM	#6090
Hallo Alfie Alexithymically superadjusted Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,014	Originally Posted by The Norseman Just as a little kickstart perhaps, here are the papers that I've researched, found, downloaded and read regarding the subject of alcoholism for this thread so that I may become better informed. I'm not an alcohol/drug counselor either; it makes me wonder why, during the last year and a half, you haven't done similar. Anyway, all or nearly all of them are published in peer-reviewed journals with proper citations and references. As far as quick and dirty cites for this thread, hopefully there is enough information to follow up with in case anyone is interested in reading them. I'd be willing to share maybe up to three of these with a person who PMs me with the titles. I got them all through my school's access with EBSCOHost, so it shouldn't be a problem for me to pass on a few to interested parties. studies snipped, I have browsed through the first ten of these. One I had actually come across in my work, but most not and the reason should be obvious – they do not relate to the work I actually do. The studies discuss no specific treatment modalities in terms of delivery to clients – that said I read (predominantly) only the short summaries located on the internet. Interesting to be certain, but a waste of time for my actual job and for the purposes of discussion here. The 12-Month Prevalence and Trends in DSM–IV Alcohol Abuse and Dependence No methods or efficacy rates in here and no relevance to the topic. Acetaldehyde mediates alcohol activation of the mesolimbic dopamine system Two interesting things here: "Ethanol (EtOH), the main psychoactive ingredient of alcoholic drinks, is widely considered to be responsible for alcohol abuse and alcoholism" And "Careful consideration of these findings could help in devising new effective pharmacological therapies aimed at reducing EtOH intake in alcoholics". They make a distinction between abuse and alcoholism. Indeed, they use the word alcoholism which is interesting because I'm pretty sure C&E (or was it someone else?) was saying there was no such thing. Adolescent Satisfaction with Brief Motivational Enhancement for Alcohol Abuse Irrelevant Adolescent Depression, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Interesting but irrelevant Alcohol Consumption Primes Automatic Alcohol-Approach Associations RESULTS: A partial correlation analysis indicated that amount of alcohol consumed predicted stronger automatic alcohol motivation when controlling for the baseline level of automatic alcohol motivation. Interesting information, but not relevant. *Alcohol Dependence, Withdrawal, and Relapse* This was interesting but obvious. “In fact, given the high rate of recidivism in alcoholism, relapse clearly is a major impediment to treatment efforts”. Well duh! And “Events that potently trigger relapse drinking fall into three general categories: exposure to small amounts of alcohol (i.e., alcohol-induced priming), exposure to alcohol-related (i.e., conditioned) cues or environmental contexts, and stress.” These are some of the things that I try and teach clients – self awareness - it is a major tool in recovery and relapse prevention. Also interesting is that AA teaches these very same things when they say things like: 1. Exposure: Don’t pick up the first drink – the first drink will get you drunk 2. Conditioning: Keep away from the old environment (physically and mentally) 3. Stress: Don’t get Hungry, Angry, Lonely, Tired or Stressed (I like to add to this: Hungry, Thirsty, Tired and Anxious) The alcohol-preferring P rat and animal models of excessive alcohol drinking “Neurochemically, research with the P line indicates the endogenous dopaminergic, serotonergic, GABAergic, opiodergic, and peptidergic systems may be involved in a predisposition for alcohol abuse and alcoholism”. A "predisposition for alcoholism". That sounds like these types might process alcohol differently. In answer to C&E’s assertion earlier about no allergy (a word I don’t like that much either), it seems there is a genetic involvement and difference in these individuals. Whilst that might not fit his definition of an allergy, it's close enough for mine. And there is the use of that word "alcoholism" again. *An Alternative Counseling Model for Alcohol Abuse in College: A Case Study* Not to be disparaging to their work, but this is not so different from things I do all the time anyway: Simply a harm minimisation goal using motivational interviewing techniques. Decreased Amygdala Activation during Risk Taking in Non-Dependent Habitual Alcohol Users: Interesting (sort of) but irrelevant *Efficacy and Safety of Aripiprazole in Alcohol Dependence* Promising possibilities for the treatment of cravings. I will run through the rest of the list during the course of the evening - we might pop out for a meal but I will do my best. If (and I stress if) there is anything of genuine note above and beyond what we have above I will let you know. But to be blunt, so far this list has done little to advance the discussion.
	__________________ Alfie is a real goose. Lionking http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=14601 'Sex by surprise is a form of "rape" unknown outside of Sweden.' Bit Pattern http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...91#post8776491 'Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.' Francois Guizot

3rd December 2011, 12:49 AM	#6091
Hallo Alfie Alexithymically superadjusted Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,014	OK, I have run through the rest of them. I have 'graded' them per se (subjective admittedly) to my own professional interests and/or the relevance to this discussion. Most are either "interesting and irrelevant" or just "irrelevant" and I have excluded them from this post. The rest that was of interest include: Behavioral Therapy Across the Spectrum Very interesting (but irrelevant to our discussions here) and confirms/validates many of the approaches we already make in the field; different strokes and all that. I have saved this one to hand out at work and have included it to say thank you for the effort and info. Thanks and cheers. Binge drinking and depressive symptoms: a 5-year population-based cohort study This was very interesting but largely irrelevant to the discussion. Something that struck me again was: Do you not think that depression, low-self esteem and the much maligned spiritual void could not all be one and the same – or at least connected? I do. *A Developmental Perspective on Underage Alcohol Use* “.. across mid- to late adolescence, the relative influence of genetic factors on underage drinking increases” Hmm. Genetic factors again. A very interesting article. Thanks. *Estimating the effect of help-seeking on achieving recovery from alcohol dependence* This confirms some of what I have been saying for a long time that recovery is a three stage process: detox, rehab and maintenance. “Individuals who participated in 12-Step programs in addition to formal treatment had almost twice the chance of recovery and more than more than twice the chance of AR compared with those who received formal treatment alone.” CONCLUSIONS: “Help-seeking plays a significant role in the achievement of abstinent recovery from alcohol dependence, with 12-Step participation playing a major role. Appropriate model selection is critical to assessing the impact of help-seeking.” Well I'll be stuffed! One has twice as much chance of maintaining sobriety using 12 step fellowships that without. Peer reviewed too. Thanks heaps for this one. *Substance Abuse Is a Disease of the Human Brain: Focus on Alcohol* Interesting: “Clues are now available regarding how a person goes from a "user" to being addicted based on brain chemistry, anatomy, and genetic risk. During this process the person loses at least partial, if not complete, control, over their compulsive substance use.” That sounds a lot like “powerlessness” to me.
	__________________ Alfie is a real goose. Lionking http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=14601 'Sex by surprise is a form of "rape" unknown outside of Sweden.' Bit Pattern http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...91#post8776491 'Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.' Francois Guizot

3rd December 2011, 11:37 AM	#6092
The Norseman I Void Warranties Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The Treasure Valley Posts: 3,237	Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie Works? Define works please then provide long term efficacy rates. The reality is is that naltrexone is of benefit short term only. Do you have a paper you can cite which demonstrates this? I'm asking because I don't know. Quote: I conceded at the time that my maths was flawed and you have highlighted same: I have used the average), and it seemed something we could agree on for the sake of ongoing discussions. If you have something else, by all means show us. The 5% seems a satisfactory default figure too for thse that go it alone and I had no problem with it for the purposes of discussion. As it turns out though, you really had no basis for using that number even for discussions' sake; nobody else seemed to agree with you on it and elbe was one who eloquently pointed that out to you way back when. However, my original point was and is that you have taken a figure which is not known to be accurate nor do we know that it was the AA program that produced that figure, as I've pointed out many times now recently. In other words, if attending a group gives many people success, you lay that success at the feet of AA; if a person says they have higher self-esteem, you lay that success at the feet of the spirituality of AA. The problem I think you and other pro-AAs face is that when other groups produce the same results or other programs give the same amount of self-esteem boosts as AA, it goes to demonstrate that there's nothing unique or special about the AA program itself that's worthy of emulation or support. Quote: None, very nice. But a few minor observations: it is hardly the final word and they do not discount (even mention) any spiritual aspect - which I usually argue around self esteem etc. So you're either re-defining 'self-esteem' or conflating it with 'spiritual' to bolster your argument. The paper doesn't mention 'self-esteem' because it's irrelevant to the chemical causes and effects on the brain. To be fair, this is not necessarily my position; just my understanding on that paper. Now, I understand you believe in the concept that alcoholism is a spiritual disease. How does your model better explain the process of addiction/dependency/alcoholism?
	__________________ "I have always thought that a wild animal never looks so well as when some obstacle of pronounced durability is between us." "Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics." -tsig

3rd December 2011, 11:44 AM	#6093
The Norseman I Void Warranties Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The Treasure Valley Posts: 3,237	Originally Posted by Minoosh Two pitfalls stand out - one is the issue of medication. It's tricky. Relying on drugs for comfort is as dangerous as relying on alcohol. Both inhibit your brain's ability to regulate mood without exogenous substances. Mild anxiety can be useful to an addict - motivation to stay busy, exercise or burn off energy productively. But no one should quit Valium, Xanax or other benzodiazepines abruptly and a few people might have to stay on them to combat crippling panic. Find the lowest effective dose - if/when you're ready to quit you'll have a shorter taper. The idea in recovery is to learn how to get high and/or comfort yourself, fall asleep, etc. without exogenous substances. Marijuana maintenance is frowned upon (though Willie Nelson says it saved his life). Narcotics for acute pain are sometimes needed but are handled with caution. Antidepressants are out of play in my view; they just don't have an immediate reinforcing effect and are unlikely to affect anyone's "program." If you're honest with your doctors (i.e. not "drug-seeking"; sharing your abuse history) and taking drugs as prescribed, I don't believe it's a sponsor's place to interfere. However, they are within their rights to put boundaries around who they are willing to sponsor. Isn't it better to clarify this upfront? Aren't you looking for a good fit? Whoa, hold up there chief! How can you possibly think you're qualified enough to be giving advice on how someone should or should not take drugs or medications? I think you have inadvertently just given us an excellent illustration on how AAs take it upon themselves to dispense advice where it's ignorant or inapplicable. How ironic considering all the discussion about this very topic! I'm sure you think you're just stating common sense, but in the context of addiction and everyone's personal tolerance, physiology, attitudes and so forth, you're really treading into territory that you need to leave to that person and their physician. Originally Posted by Minoosh Me? I don't think I made any wild statements. I did present direct quotes (i.e., evidence) of a few statements I found absurd. I don't think I made wild statements of stalking, hatred and incitements to violence. It's true I never want to revisit that site, but I provided enough search terms to find the posts (in fact, a direct quote would practically guarantee the statements could be found with search terms, verdad? So, when it comes to me, you are batting about .150 with that statement. shrugs Okay.
	__________________ "I have always thought that a wild animal never looks so well as when some obstacle of pronounced durability is between us." "Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics." -tsig

3rd December 2011, 12:55 PM	#6094
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490	Originally Posted by causeandeffect That what you see are anecdotal accounts of what goes on every day in AA, doesn’t make these issues any less of a problem. Another poster has said all positive anecdotes regarding AA are worthless as evidence. But he accepts negative anecdotes as proof. Some idea of how often things happen makes a difference in determining the size of a problem. Originally Posted by causeandeffect So what you’re saying was this “Brian” wanted to try social drinking, but was encouraged “to experiment with a variety of other drugs” instead. ... And we’re supposed to believe this accusation that you can’t link to because…? You're not "supposed" to believe me, so you can drop the sarcasm. I've already said I overreached with that anecdote. Some posters supported Brian's idea of controlled drinking. As I recall Brian asked why that wouldn't apply to other drugs. One poster, in supporting careful drinking, admonished, "No experiments!" And yet - the alcohol experiment was OK. Another self-contradictory ST post. As I recall no one gave Brian a good answer for not trying other drugs. I wonder how he's doing. Originally Posted by causeandeffect More ad hom. Of course I looked at images on the net. They have these things these days you know. It’s good for business. More sarcasm. See if you can post without it. It's hard, I know - and I'm not being sarcastic. Originally Posted by causeandeffect Apparently she didn’t tell him it was a bad idea. Apparently he was supposed to know better when nobody told him otherwise. You could have told him it was a bad idea for a guy, still drinking, to stick with a female sponsor who was stringing him along sexually. You were there, seem well-acquainted with the situation and are wiser than any sponsor you've ever had. Also, you fallaciously assume causality: He was having trouble sober because she was stringing him along. Do you understand the difference between correlation and causality?
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490

3rd December 2011, 03:45 PM	#6095
Gunthar2000 New Blood Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 24	Sponsors Have Always Been a Part of AA Originally Posted by Minoosh On sponsorship and its pitfalls: You might hear in a meeting, "It's important to get a sponsor right away" or "You need to get a sponsor right away." I don't see the rush. As your mind clears and you get to know people you might make a better choice. The original program didn't mention sponsors. There will be areas where you will need help, though. Sure there were sponsors in early AA. Below I've listed a few quotes from AA's "Twelve Steps And Twelve Traditions" first printed in 1953. These quotes prove that sponsorship was big in AA well before 1953. The first edition of AA's "Big Book" was printed in 1939, just 14 years before the 12&12. Would you have us believe that somewhere within that first 14 years of AA's existence sponsorship was suddenly developed out of thin air, or are you willing to concede that sponsorship was around since AA's inception in 1939? 12&12 p.61, Step Five "Besides, your sponsor already has the advantage of knowing something about your case." 12&12 p.61, Step Five "This person may turn out to be one's sponsor, but not necessarily so." 12&12 p.26, Step Two "The sponsor continues, "Take, for example, my own case." 12&12 p.185, Tradition Twelve "Enthusiastic over the spectacular recovery of a brother alcoholic, we'd sometimes discuss those intimate and harrowing aspects of his case meant for his sponsor's ear alone." 12&12 p.26, Step Two ""That," agrees the sponsor, "is a very good question indeed." 12&12 p.86, Step Nine "Do we lay the matter before our sponsor or spiritual adviser, earnestly asking God's help and guidance -- meanwhile resolving to do the right thing when it becomes clear, cost what it may?" 12&12 p.89, Step Ten "Then there are those occasions when alone, or in the company of our sponsor or spiritual adviser, we make a careful review of our progress since the last time." 12&12 p.39, Step Three "Of course the sponsor points out that our friend's life is still unmanageable even though he is sober, that after all, only a bare start on A.A.'s program has been made." 12&12 p.46, Step Four "The sponsor probably points out that the newcomer has some assets which can be noted along with his liabilities." 12&12 p.26, Step Two "His sponsor probably says, "Take it easy." 12&12 p.46, Step Four "This the sponsor promptly proves by talking freely and easily, and without exhibitionism, about his own defects, past and present." 12&12 p.154, Tradition Five "Years later, this tough Irish customer liked to say, "My sponsor sold me one idea, and that was sobriety." 12&12 p.26, Step Two "At this juncture, his A.A. sponsor usually laughs." 12&12 p.168, Tradition Eight "Then we saw that if a hardworking secretary answered the phone dozens of times a day, listened to twenty wailing wives, arranged hospitalization and got sponsorship for ten newcomers, and was gently diplomatic with the irate drunk who complained about the job she was doing and how she was overpaid, then such a person could surely not be called a professional A.A." 12&12 p.112, Step Twelve "Can we have the same kind of confidence and faith in these people who have been infected and sometimes crippled by our own illness that we have in our sponsors?" 12&12 p.46, Step Four "At this stage of the inventory proceedings, our sponsors come to the rescue." 12&12 p.22, Step One "Our sponsors declared that we were the victims of a mental obsession so subtly powerful that no amount of human willpower could break it." 12&12 p.46, Step Four "The sponsors of those who feel they need no inventory are confronted with quite another problem." 12&12 p.58, Step Five "Often it was while working on this Step with our sponsors or spiritual advisers that we first felt truly able to forgive others, no matter how deeply we felt they had wronged us." 12&12 p.22, Step One "Relentlessly deepening our dilemma, our sponsors pointed out our increasing sensitivity to alcohol -- an allergy, they called it."
Gunthar2000 New Blood Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 24

3rd December 2011, 05:54 PM	#6096
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490	Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie "Ethanol (EtOH), the main psychoactive ingredient of alcoholic drinks, is widely considered to be responsible for alcohol abuse and alcoholism" I love this - alcohol is responsible for alcoholism. Some people ridicule the "powerless" concept, saying the liquid is inert. OK, I get that. But in the AA sense of the word, I've known some people who experienced powerlessness after their very first drink. Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie Something that struck me again was: Do you not think that depression, low-self esteem and the much maligned spiritual void could not all be one and the same – or at least connected? I do. I've wondered the same thing. The spiritual "disease" or "void" could mean merely "chronic unhappiness," but it implies more to me - something like feeling constantly self-conscious, unable to "lose yourself" or fully experience the present moment. I wonder if the AA detractors on this thread realize how many of us have come to terms with the same questions they use to challenge AA. If people find support by banding together against AA, well, they're entitled. But I saw mostly kindness over the years, and nothing that would warrant anything like the hostility on display here.
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490

3rd December 2011, 07:15 PM	#6097
Hallo Alfie Alexithymically superadjusted Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,014	I meant to do this first time around and provide a link: here 'tis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16696626 Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie *Estimating the effect of help-seeking on achieving recovery from alcohol dependence* This confirms some of what I have been saying for a long time that recovery is a three stage process: detox, rehab and maintenance. “Individuals who participated in 12-Step programs in addition to formal treatment had almost twice the chance of recovery and more than more than twice the chance of AR compared with those who received formal treatment alone.” CONCLUSIONS: “Help-seeking plays a significant role in the achievement of abstinent recovery from alcohol dependence, with 12-Step participation playing a major role. Appropriate model selection is critical to assessing the impact of help-seeking.” Well I'll be stuffed! One has twice as much chance of maintaining sobriety using 12 step fellowships that without. Peer reviewed too. Thanks heaps for this one. I also want to re-highlight the important bits. Cheers again. Originally Posted by Gunthar2000 Sure there were sponsors in early AA. Below I've listed a few quotes from AA's "Twelve Steps And Twelve Traditions" first printed in 1953. These quotes prove that sponsorship was big in AA well before 1953. The first edition of AA's "Big Book" was printed in 1939, just 14 years before the 12&12. Um, that doesn't actually prove what you think it does. The original claim was "the original program didn't mention sponsors" and it doesn't. Sponsorship came about some years later which you have just shown us. Originally Posted by Gunthar2000 Would you have us believe that somewhere within that first 14 years of AA's existence sponsorship was suddenly developed out of thin air, or are you willing to concede that sponsorship was around since AA's inception in 1939? I think we could easily concede this if you actually proved it. Originally Posted by Minoosh I love this - alcohol is responsible for alcoholism. Again, I do not want to detract from the studies but there were a few "duh!" moments as I read through them. Originally Posted by Minoosh I've wondered the same thing. The spiritual "disease" or "void" could mean merely "chronic unhappiness," but it implies more to me - something like feeling constantly self-conscious, unable to "lose yourself" or fully experience the present moment. Absolutely, these things and so much more can easily match up with that spiritual concept. Originally Posted by Minoosh I wonder if the AA detractors on this thread realize how many of us have come to terms with the same questions they use to challenge AA. Clearly not; they are so together all on their own they couldn't understand this. Originally Posted by Minoosh If people find support by banding together against AA, well, they're entitled. But I saw mostly kindness over the years, and nothing that would warrant anything like the hostility on display here. It really does make one wonder doesn't it. And while I am not resiling from my hate group estimations, the "hostility" I see both here and elsewhere is at least hate filled speech in many instances. I actually pity some of them.
	__________________ Alfie is a real goose. Lionking http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=14601 'Sex by surprise is a form of "rape" unknown outside of Sweden.' Bit Pattern http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...91#post8776491 'Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.' Francois Guizot

3rd December 2011, 08:26 PM	#6098
causeandeffect Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 146	Originally Posted by Minoosh Me? I don't think I made any wild statements. I don’t suppose you see any contradiction between saying this and: Quote: It was just plain sad when posters encouraged a 25-year-old who'd been clean and sober for 6 years to experiment with a variety of other drugs. Ah, but now you claim: Quote: I overreached And you also said: Quote: nothing that would warrant anything like the hostility on display here. Overreached? Is that what you really call it? It seems you have very good recall of this situation. You keep coming up with more and more details. So why did you say he was encouraged to try a “variety of drugs?” Hmmm, so telling the truth about verifiable facts regarding the anti-med stance many AA members push off onto others, and the damage it causes, is called “hostility”. And telling the verifiable truth about 13 stepping and the damage it does is also called “hostility”. Yet knowingly saying something that is derogatory and not the truth and is unverifiable is called “overreaching” and is not hostile. Interesting. No wonder we have so much trouble communicating. Quote: You could have told him it was a bad idea for a guy, still drinking, to stick with a female sponsor who was stringing him along sexually. You were there, seem well-acquainted with the situation and are wiser than any sponsor you've ever had. LOL! Somehow I’m supposed to rush around the nation, or should it be the whole world, because as I recall this guy was from the UK(so I can be there when they choose a sponsor) telling newcomers “Don’t choose that one for a sponsor!” “Don’t choose that one for a sponsor!” and “Oh, I know she’s attractive and offered to be your sponsor, but just forget it, she’s bad news!” All while I’m jetting to Miami to track public IPs and stalking you! Gosh, Minoosh, you’re too funny! Of course the members of ST told him it was a bad idea. His sponsor apparently didn’t. Confusing correlation with causation? Perhaps. But according to him, he was having problems related to his physical attraction to her, she was manipulating him, and he was drinking a lot. Funny how he sobered up shortly after getting our advice to dump her. Anyway, I do sooo love my private jet. Er, wait that’s too cumbersome. Minoosh, do I fly through the air like Superman? That still would take too long. Or do I cross my arms and blink like Jeannie? Oh yeah, it’s definitely the Jeannie thing.
causeandeffect Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 146

3rd December 2011, 08:37 PM	#6099
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490	Originally Posted by The Norseman Whoa, hold up there chief! How can you possibly think you're qualified enough to be giving advice on how someone should or should not take drugs or medications? First off, there wasn't a lot of advice in there. I made a few statements saying stuff like "in my view ...," etc. The gist was that sponsors shouldn't play doctor. Some doctors shouldn't play doctor. Here are a few clarifications and warnings: * "Marijuana maintenance is frowned on" is a statement of fact - it's between you and your conscience if you call that "clean and sober." It's a much safer drug than alcohol (there I go again!), but it's also relatively easy to learn to mimic that high naturally. * Sometimes narcotics are needed - this isn't advice, it's fact. If they amputate your leg, they're not going to start you with Advil. (If you're on naltrexone, better hope someone tells them!) I wrote "narcotics are handled with care" - a general statement - but I'll go further and say they should be handled with care. If you have an 80 mg OxyContin tablet (160 in the olden days), don't peel it, grind it and snort it all at once unless you're used to this dose. There's a good chance you'll die. Its manufacturers were found criminally liable for a rash of fatal ODs, facilitated by doctors who were told OxyContin was less addictive than short-acting pills. (It didn't occur to them that people would grind them up, or sell them, doh!) I could have told them that putting 32 Percocets in one pill - with few binders to impede shooting, snorting or smoking - was dangerous. Doctors who didn't realize this were idiots. It's always a good idea to know more than your docs do about what your taking. * Speaking of narcotics: My old addiction doc said when I switched to suboxone that some people stay on 2 mg of suboxone indefinitely. I didn't want to do that. He may have been right; however a week later he was busted for relapsing and I'm leery of his advice. Previously, at the methadone clinic, medical professionals told me I had to get counseling to go down 5 percent on my dose. So I jumped early to suboxone. The clinics want to keep your business. I heard dozens of stories like this. * Fact: Anxiety may be useful in recovery. You're trying to reset your brain so it can begin to function without controlled substances. It's useful to learn that mild anxiety will not kill you, and that you can calm down without drugs (hot shower, exercise, melatonin, etc). But, it's no good if you're crippled with panic. Use the lowest effective dose, but go down slowly. Your doctor may not think to tell you that. Also, your doctor may tell you to take more than you need. I know mine did. Thankfully I didn't follow his instructions. Going from 0 mg of alprazolam a day to 3 mg is stupid - I knew that. I didn't tell him, though. I wanted the extra pills. * Welbutrin and SSRIs are "in my view" out of play (also in the view of most addiction docs). * I didn't address barbiturates at all. Prescribing Seconal or Nembutal to someone who's already detoxed (and not hospitalized) would be imprudent. If people happen to drink on top of them, they have a tendency to stop breathing. Phenobarbital continues to be a necessity for some people. * Methamphetamine? If you have ADD or life-threatening narcolepsy, maybe. Cocaine's not really an issue. That about does it for controlled substances but there's one I wanted to add: a muscle relaxer called Soma may be risky. * Oh, and it's a bad idea to use general anesthetics for simple insomnia, as Michael Jackson's doc found out. Who coulda thought a doc could make a mistake. Where in my original statement did I fail to take into account tolerance, physiology and attitudes? Can you back up your claims? And what does failing to take into account "attitudes" even mean? Originally Posted by The Norseman shrugs Okay. You said I made wild claims of stalking, hatred and incitements to violence. That is, to put it politely, untrue. Your answer is shrugs. What does that mean? That you can't be bothered to vet your posts for fact? I said I couldn't stand the site anymore, which is true. I also got concerned after a poster told me he tracked IP addresses from the site. I didn't know if that applied to surfing, or only to comments. I really, really don't want anyone from that site to get my IP address.
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490

3rd December 2011, 08:42 PM	#6100
causeandeffect Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 146	Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie Indeed, they use the word alcoholism which is interesting because I'm pretty sure C&E (or was it someone else?) was saying there was no such thing. Nobody said there’s no such thing. Nobody has even said it’s not common terminology. What I said is that you didn’t know that the word “alcoholism” never appears, even once, in the DSM-IV-TR. You see, Alfie, you’ve been called on this before, elsewhere, where you claimed to have authority on the subject of addiction. You then proceeded to dismiss a study because it didn’t use the word “alcoholism.” People started to smell a rat and you were repeatedly asked point blank, where in the DSM-IV-TR was the term alcoholism, or alcoholic found. And in true circle jerk form you replied to look under the heading “Alcoholism”. And the enquirer said something like “huh?” So I asked you here, point blank: Quote: Where in the DSM-IV-TR does the word alcoholism appear? To which you responded: Quote: You will find it in the area that discusses the genetic differences involved with chemical dependency from person to person. To which I responded with the quote from the DSM-IV-TR that covered genetics, and neither the word “alcoholic” nor the word “alcoholism” appeared. To which you responded something like “Oh, uh, well uh, I really knew that, I, uh, just wasn’t gonna tell you that I knew that,” which I think we can all tell is a big bunch of baloney. In fact those words appear nowhere in the entire DSM-IV-TR. This is something that you, as a chemical dependency counseling student, would have studied and been tested on. Even a first year psychology major would have been able to answer that question. It seriously calls into question what you profess to be your profession. And the point was (and still is) that you can’t dismiss studies based on the use of professionally recognized terminology, such as alcohol dependence and alcohol use disorders, as you have done in the past.
causeandeffect Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 146

3rd December 2011, 08:49 PM	#6101
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490	Originally Posted by Gunthar2000 The first edition of AA's "Big Book" was printed in 1939, just 14 years before the 12&12. I was going by the Big Book. I wouldn't "have you believe" anything. I'm not willing to concede that sponsorship was around since AA's inception in 1939, because AA's inception wasn't in 1939.
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490

3rd December 2011, 10:21 PM	#6102
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490	Originally Posted by Joey McGee Here's some search terms for you ... For cryin' out loud, Joey. Google "AA saved my life." You'll find people who were about to kill themselves and didn't. And on the meds: I noticed one AA lady you quoted made a distinction that psych meds were OK "as long as they weren't addictive." That's pretty important. Psych meds and controlled substances are two different things - I actually can't think of any overlap, except maybe benzos, which I believe are overprescribed. You say AA causes suicides - well, doctors sometimes cause drug addiction. You gave a really good description of what you considered AA's fake-out technique - you get this phony serenity that holds you until your brain changes which is what you needed all along. But some drugs will inhibit that brain change. I've taken an antidepressant for half my life now (can't say it seems to do much good) and I never want to take extra to get extra-happy; they just don't work that way. But controlled substances are controlled for a reason. They're habit-forming for everyone, and people in AA have already shown they like to push the envelope when it comes to drugs that give an immediate reward. Without ever drinking again and without even wanting to get high - I just wanted something to kill my appetite - I picked up Rx diet pills (technically legal, but over the Net), then I needed a few tranqs but the doc gave me 90 plus a refill. I thought I would be able to stop on command because they weren't even drugs I liked. But the beast took on a life of its own. Freakin' powerless. After a while like that I figured I might as well use my DOC - narcotics. And I developed a taste for booze which I'd never even liked. Well, I'm not scamming anymore; I'm on a medical taper and it's $450 a month for drugs that don't get me high. It's better than spending $1,000 a week on pills from Tijuana. But I miss being clean horribly. Clean I would not be able to stand these conversations. I'd have to work out every day instead of hopping onto JREF and getting into arguments. After all this back and forth with you et al. about the evils of AA, I feel I should go back to protect all those vulnerable dewy-eyed newcomers. BTW I've been to only about 3 meetings in the past year. I always say I'm weaning and nobody bats an eye. Friends have prodded me on a couple of occasions, because the weaning is going at a glacial pace. I don't know if you're abstinent, or if you want to be, or if you consider yourself an addict at all. But - if you were ever clean and miss it - you could do a lot of good in AA. And if you ever sponsored someone, wouldn't you want what was best for them? Well, some pills are just no damn good to play with. If someone needs psychotropics for long-term correction of brain chemistry, it's stupid to tell them to stop. But if an alcoholic wants a little speed to lose weight - it's a horrible idea, and I think you know it. Oh: I didn't lose the weight.
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490

4th December 2011, 11:11 AM	#6103
Gunthar2000 New Blood Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 24	Originally Posted by Minoosh I was going by the Big Book. I wouldn't "have you believe" anything. I'm not willing to concede that sponsorship was around since AA's inception in 1939, because AA's inception wasn't in 1939. Here is more evidence that AA sponsorship was around at least as early as 1944 silkworth.net/aahistory/aapamplet_clarences.html
Gunthar2000 New Blood Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 24

4th December 2011, 11:28 AM	#6104
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490	Originally Posted by causeandeffect Overreached? Is that what you really call it? It seems you have very good recall of this situation. I said I was wrong, and going by memory I refined my representation. Any chance you could drop the sarcasm? Probably not. I suppose I could keep pointing out your errors and repeated digs about how I can become an AA big shot, but gloating is bad for me. Originally Posted by causeandeffect Gosh, Minoosh, you’re too funny! Of course the members of ST told him it was a bad idea. ... according to him, he was having problems related to his physical attraction to her, she was manipulating him, and he was drinking a lot. Funny how he sobered up shortly after getting our advice to dump her. "You're too funnny ... Funny how" ... can you see your sarcasm at all? "He sobered up shortly after getting our advice to dump her." That works for me. I'm glad you guys were watching out for him. Originally Posted by causeandeffect Anyway, I do sooo love my private jet. Er, wait that’s too cumbersome. Minoosh, do I fly through the air like Superman? That still would take too long. Or do I cross my arms and blink like Jeannie? Oh yeah, it’s definitely the Jeannie thing. Another post dripping with sarcasm. The term comes from the Greek - to tear flesh, gnash the teeth, speak bitterly. "In sarcasm, ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes.” Generally I vet my own posts for sarcasm, hostility and hyperbole. I'm not perfect. For some reason ridicule, contempt and mockery thrive on Internet forums. Only a very few sites try to steer posters away from it. Thank you, JREF.
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490

4th December 2011, 11:36 AM	#6105
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490	Originally Posted by causeandeffect Overreached? Is that what you really call it? It seems you have very good recall of this situation. I took issue with an assertion that I made wild claims of stalking, hatred and incitements to violence. I didn't say I never made mistakes.
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490

4th December 2011, 02:14 PM	#6106
Hallo Alfie Alexithymically superadjusted Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,014	Originally Posted by causeandeffect Nobody said there’s no such thing. Really? Gee that certainly was the impression you (and others were giving) Originally Posted by causeandeffect Nobody has even said it’s not common terminology. What I said is that you didn’t know that the word “alcoholism” never appears, even once, in the DSM-IV-TR. I understood then what I understand now (as would anyone with half a brain), that it was a cynical attempt at a "gotcha!" which failed. Now, would you care to comment on this peer reviewed study? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16696626 Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie *Estimating the effect of help-seeking on achieving recovery from alcohol dependence* This confirms some of what I have been saying for a long time that recovery is a three stage process: detox, rehab and maintenance. “Individuals who participated in 12-Step programs in addition to formal treatment had almost twice the chance of recovery and more than more than twice the chance of AR compared with those who received formal treatment alone.” CONCLUSIONS: “Help-seeking plays a significant role in the achievement of abstinent recovery from alcohol dependence, with 12-Step participation playing a major role. Appropriate model selection is critical to assessing the impact of help-seeking.” Well I'll be stuffed! One has twice as much chance of maintaining sobriety using 12 step fellowships that without. Peer reviewed too. Thanks heaps for this one.
	__________________ Alfie is a real goose. Lionking http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=14601 'Sex by surprise is a form of "rape" unknown outside of Sweden.' Bit Pattern http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...91#post8776491 'Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.' Francois Guizot

4th December 2011, 02:26 PM	#6107
DannyB II Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 245	Originally Posted by The Norseman Whoa, hold up there chief! How can you possibly think you're qualified enough to be giving advice on how someone should or should not take drugs or medications? I think you have inadvertently just given us an excellent illustration on how AAs take it upon themselves to dispense advice where it's ignorant or inapplicable. How ironic considering all the discussion about this very topic! I'm sure you think you're just stating common sense, but in the context of addiction and everyone's personal tolerance, physiology, attitudes and so forth, you're really treading into territory that you need to leave to that person and their physician. Norseman you just did the very exact behavior you are criticizing Minoosh for. There is nothing wrong with establishing the motivation behind why a addict wants to take a drug. This is not to say I am telling anyone not to take medication for physical, mental or emotional injuries. I really believe you are splitting hairs here. I believe Minoosh and others have explained clearly their positions concerning folks taking proper medications.
DannyB II Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 245

4th December 2011, 02:27 PM	#6108
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490	Originally Posted by causeandeffect I have seen one poor guy who was having trouble stopping drinking due to his head being wrecked over his sponsor (who was a woman stringing him along sexually). Originally Posted by causeandeffect Personally speaking, the problems I have with AA have more to do with things I saw done to others, than any damage I suffered. OK, can you clarify this for me ... you wrote that you had "seen one poor guy who was having trouble ..." Later you clarified that you weren't speaking literally; you meant you saw posts on an Internet forum. So, when you speak of "things I saw done to others," is that literal, or do you also mean that you saw posts made on an Internet forum? Originally Posted by causeandeffect Many sites will have an option that will allow the site owner to view the IP. Even just for surfers/lurkers? And, do you need to be the site owner or can anyone do it?
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490

4th December 2011, 02:36 PM	#6109
DannyB II Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 245	Quote: Joey McGee wrote: "Many" suicides as the direct result of sponsors telling sponsees to go off their medications. Minoosh wrote: Do you have statistics? I see anecdotes. Grief involves anger and grieving a suicide must involve a boatload of it. I believe the anger sometimes latches on to a proxy target. If the anecdotes appear on forums devoted to trashing AA, I take them with a grain of salt. I'm not saying it's never happened. Joey McGee wrote: Statistics? What, is this a joke? Where am I supposed to be getting statistics from? How many people Yeah, many, enough that it's a concern for a lot of people. From a pro 12-step website... Joey this 12 step program "Dual Addiction" out of Kansas, you quoted as a link is not any more a advocate then AA,NA,CA,OA,GA,EA and DA is when then ask their members to not give out advice about prescribed medication. Are there idiots who will run around and spout off about doing sobriety totally drug free yep I am sure there will be. But in no way is this a epidemic.
DannyB II Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 245

4th December 2011, 03:11 PM	#6111
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490	Originally Posted by Gunthar2000 Sure there were sponsors in early AA. My somewhat snotty response was tempered immediately afterward by an article I read in a "Grapevine" compendium. It does indeed show that as early as the mid-'40s, Bill W. had already hashed out much of the language codified in the 12 & 12. I don't think I was entirely wrong, though. I also read stories that indicated that in early AA, the "sponsor" relationship wasn't dwelt upon. Someone would, say, give a ride to an alcoholic, but the group as a whole "sponsored" the newcomer. And, this to me seems like alternative that could be healthier than telling a newcomer how to "pick" someone. Simply because individuals are so fallible, and the newcomer is not necessarily equipped to make such a critical decision. I picked a sponsor who happened to work for an umbrella agency that encompassed my workplace. In other words, she was convenient. Our relationship was productive, but as it happened several people at my work site were in the program and the overlap was handy. It really was useful to have multiple points of contact rather than one person to whom I ceded control. A big part of that was pride - I didn't want to humble myself enough to "turn it over" to a single individual. But, there were legitimate self-protective instincts as well. The potential power a sponsor holds is cause for concern. If someone is just playing different sponsor figures against one another - looking for the response one wants to hear - then I'd say, it's unhealthy to keep "shopping." But not always; the desire to get several opinions can be perfectly legitimate. Like a lot of other issues it boils down to motive. Are you trying to get broader feedback, or just trying to find someone who will tell you what you want to hear? Really, you're the only one who can answer that question.
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490

4th December 2011, 03:59 PM	#6112
Hallo Alfie Alexithymically superadjusted Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,014	Originally Posted by DannyB II Thanks Alfie and Minoosh for your constant devotion for setting the record straight. A pleasure. Originally Posted by Minoosh .. respectful snip .. Like a lot of other issues it boils down to motive. Are you trying to get broader feedback, or just trying to find someone who will tell you what you want to hear? Really, you're the only one who can answer that question. I largely agree with this post and would like to extend it slightly. For some years (early on) I had one sponsor that got me through the first 12 months. Then I had another that took me through my first effort at the steps, then another for some years. Each of them served a particular purpose for me - I tend to think something instinctive told me it was time to move on. Each of them remain firm friends. Today I have any number of sponsors (including the three mentioned above - sort of). Each of these sponsors have something - an area of expertise that I like to refer to them about: One is very good with relationships, another spirituality, teenagers, life balance, and so on. This works very well for me. A well intentioned older member once suggested that by doing this I was not allowing anyone to see the whole me, the whole picture. This made me think long and hard about whether I was hiding parts of me and hunting for advice I wanted rather than needed and/or keeping secrets. In the end I determined that I wasn't simply hunting answers; I was seeking feedback from individuals whom I respect in areas that I choose to give them respect. I hope that makes sense. Cheers
	__________________ Alfie is a real goose. Lionking http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=14601 'Sex by surprise is a form of "rape" unknown outside of Sweden.' Bit Pattern http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...91#post8776491 'Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.' Francois Guizot

4th December 2011, 05:21 PM	#6113
The Norseman I Void Warranties Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The Treasure Valley Posts: 3,237	Originally Posted by Minoosh First off, there wasn't a lot of advice in there. I made a few statements saying stuff like "in my view ...," etc. The gist was that sponsors shouldn't play doctor. Some doctors shouldn't play doctor. Here are a few clarifications and warnings: * "Marijuana maintenance is frowned on" is a statement of fact - it's between you and your conscience if you call that "clean and sober." It's a much safer drug than alcohol (there I go again!), but it's also relatively easy to learn to mimic that high naturally. * Sometimes narcotics are needed - this isn't advice, it's fact. If they amputate your leg, they're not going to start you with Advil. (If you're on naltrexone, better hope someone tells them!) I wrote "narcotics are handled with care" - a general statement - but I'll go further and say they should be handled with care. If you have an 80 mg OxyContin tablet (160 in the olden days), don't peel it, grind it and snort it all at once unless you're used to this dose. There's a good chance you'll die. Its manufacturers were found criminally liable for a rash of fatal ODs, facilitated by doctors who were told OxyContin was less addictive than short-acting pills. (It didn't occur to them that people would grind them up, or sell them, doh!) I could have told them that putting 32 Percocets in one pill - with few binders to impede shooting, snorting or smoking - was dangerous. Doctors who didn't realize this were idiots. It's always a good idea to know more than your docs do about what your taking. * Speaking of narcotics: My old addiction doc said when I switched to suboxone that some people stay on 2 mg of suboxone indefinitely. I didn't want to do that. He may have been right; however a week later he was busted for relapsing and I'm leery of his advice. Previously, at the methadone clinic, medical professionals told me I had to get counseling to go down 5 percent on my dose. So I jumped early to suboxone. The clinics want to keep your business. I heard dozens of stories like this. * Fact: Anxiety may be useful in recovery. You're trying to reset your brain so it can begin to function without controlled substances. It's useful to learn that mild anxiety will not kill you, and that you can calm down without drugs (hot shower, exercise, melatonin, etc). But, it's no good if you're crippled with panic. Use the lowest effective dose, but go down slowly. Your doctor may not think to tell you that. Also, your doctor may tell you to take more than you need. I know mine did. Thankfully I didn't follow his instructions. Going from 0 mg of alprazolam a day to 3 mg is stupid - I knew that. I didn't tell him, though. I wanted the extra pills. * Welbutrin and SSRIs are "in my view" out of play (also in the view of most addiction docs). * I didn't address barbiturates at all. Prescribing Seconal or Nembutal to someone who's already detoxed (and not hospitalized) would be imprudent. If people happen to drink on top of them, they have a tendency to stop breathing. Phenobarbital continues to be a necessity for some people. * Methamphetamine? If you have ADD or life-threatening narcolepsy, maybe. Cocaine's not really an issue. That about does it for controlled substances but there's one I wanted to add: a muscle relaxer called Soma may be risky. * Oh, and it's a bad idea to use general anesthetics for simple insomnia, as Michael Jackson's doc found out. Who coulda thought a doc could make a mistake. Where in my original statement did I fail to take into account tolerance, physiology and attitudes? Can you back up your claims? And what does failing to take into account "attitudes" even mean? Are you a physician? An addictionologist perhaps? Where is your drug expertise learned? Anyway, what claims are you thinking I made? That you don't have any expertise to be giving unasked-for advice about drugs to addicts in AA groups or online is perfectly obvious. I bring it up and your first response is to defensively reiterate how you think you're giving common sense advice. This is typical for AAs though and my point was made. If the gist was that sponsors shouldn't play doctor, then neither should the rest of AAs. Quote: You said I made wild claims of stalking, hatred and incitements to violence. That is, to put it politely, untrue. Your answer is shrugs. What does that mean? That you can't be bothered to vet your posts for fact? I said I couldn't stand the site anymore, which is true. I shrugged. It's a debatable point about how you came across; you obviously heartily disagree and it's not worth the time and effort to me to hurl invective at one another over it. Quote: I also got concerned after a poster told me he tracked IP addresses from the site. I didn't know if that applied to surfing, or only to comments. I really, really don't want anyone from that site to get my IP address. I can understand some concern; I don't particularly want anyone at all to get mine, though after having studied computers and networking for many years (well, practically lived computers for the past twenty something years) I may have an edge over you when it comes to that sort of thinking and it's really not as easy as perhaps implied. Even though we disagree on the particular topic of AA, I hope I may reassure you of this fact.
	__________________ "I have always thought that a wild animal never looks so well as when some obstacle of pronounced durability is between us." "Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics." -tsig

4th December 2011, 05:43 PM	#6114
DannyB II Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 245	Originally Posted by Gunthar2000 Here is more evidence that AA sponsorship was around at least as early as 1944 silkworth.net/aahistory/aapamplet_clarences.html This is a article written by a member of AA (A.A. Sponsorship Pamphlet 1944 - by Clarence S.). Gunthar there are literally thousands of articles out there that members have written and in many cases published. This doesn't mean they are AA/GSO approved or that any measure of credence should be given. It is really the readers choice. Clarence may have thought he was speaking for AA or not I don't know. But I do not agree with most of what he said. This is why Bill, Bob and the hundred members stayed away from this subject in the Big Book. Now let me note that later on (I am not sure what year the GSO started this) certain pamphlets were approved by the GSO and are/were available on this very topic, sponsorship. This was IMO a appeasement to the Treatment Industry. I am of the opinion and belief that sponsor/mentoring is done by the community you are in. I allowed many to help me yet I gravitated towards one in particular who has gone on to become a great friend of mine. I will not act as if sponsorship is not routinely brought up to new members and even strongly encouraged because it is. As many other things you folks disagree with concerning AA I too disagree with forcing a person onto another, in the name of helping said individual. I will also say that most members I know reject suggestions that they feel are being forced on them.
DannyB II Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 245

4th December 2011, 08:12 PM	#6115
causeandeffect Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 146	Originally Posted by Minoosh Any chance you could drop the sarcasm? Probably not. I suppose I could keep pointing out your errors and repeated digs about how I can become an AA big shot, but gloating is bad for me. Minoosh, I thought you were joking with me in a sarcastic way when you said you were afraid I would stalk you, so I responded in kind in a sarcastic joking way. But it occurs to me that you may really feel I’m a threat to you, and if so, I’m sorry. To answer your question, some site owners can see the IPs of those who post. Others cannot. It depends on how sophisticated the site is. But the visitors to the site can’t see those things. So if you’re really worried that I would stalk you, I most definitely would not, even if I could. And I can’t. And, let me say this again, I would not. The IP in question was posted on the original thread about “X”. It was not his own personal IP, it was the public IP of the hotel from where he sent the threatening posts. Since he never posted from his home, nobody would have access to his personal IP either. As far as surfers or lurkers, I know that some sites can track how many hits they get from different IPs, but I seriously doubt they could track individual ones. I do know that members of that blog were stalked by AA supporters, even to gardening sites if they had an unusual username. Quote: So, when you speak of "things I saw done to others," is that literal, or do you also mean that you saw posts made on an Internet forum? Both. When I was going to AA, I saw people treated very badly, before, during, after meetings, on the phone and in person. I’m not saying that those people were bad people. I’m saying they were very misguided. They truly believed they were doing the right things per the program. But these incidents often left me feeling very disturbed because I recognized both the potential for, as well as, the very real damage that resulted from their actions. For the most part, these actions stemmed from the program itself. It’s simply the way they had learned to be. It’s like growing up in an abusive household. It just looks normal to them. I also recognized the unhealthy way they were treating themselves and that used to bother me a lot as well. So I tried different groups etc, and found they just had a slightly different flavor of the same thing. So when I found that there are numerous sites on line, and oldtimers and newcomers alike from all over the US, and in fact, different countries, who were being very honest about what their experiences were, and that it was much the same everywhere, I knew the problems weren’t just regional. And I knew I had to speak out too. Minoosh, these aren’t just memes. These are the actual experiences of very real people. And all those unhealthy ways of relating to others and to the self are completely unnecessary for recovery. You may have come to terms with them, but I cannot. I feel people deserve much better. Despite any accusations some like to throw around, AA detractors are just as sincerely concerned with recovery as you AA members. They just recognize unhealthy behaviors and abuses are not conducive to mental health and sobriety. For what it’s worth, Minoosh, I sincerely wish you all the best in your recovery. I’m sorry you’ve been going through all this. I know it’s hard and hope you will soon get back to doing what you love—which includes AA. I wish there was something I could do to help, but I’m sure you wouldn’t like any of my suggestions. So all I can do is wish you the very best. That’s all I can do for anybody who has a very different idea of what recovery should look like.
causeandeffect Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 146

5th December 2011, 11:20 AM	#6116
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490	Originally Posted by The Norseman Where is your drug expertise learned? The semi-snotty answer is, I can't believe you have to ask. The straight answer is, my experience, other people's experiences, observation, reading, being in treatment, talking to experts, etc. I've been studying this for more than 30 years. Originally Posted by The Norseman That you don't have any expertise to be giving unasked-for advice about drugs to addicts in AA groups or online is perfectly obvious .... If the gist was that sponsors shouldn't play doctor, then neither should the rest of AAs. The stuff I say is pretty much medical consensus. Think about this. If you want to quit smoking, the advice of ex-smokers might well be more useful than that of a doctor who's never gone through it. Some people do best with a two-step approach: Quit smoking "cold turkey" while using alternative nicotine-delivery systems to wean yourself from the physical addiction. Others just swear off. What a lot of people find it hard to do is wean down on the number of cigarettes. Over time a seeker of knowledge can learn a lot, both from accumulated case histories and quantitative research. You're right that there's a line between sharing general knowledge and giving an individual specific advice. But various detox protocols are well-known. Getting off benzos abruptly is a famously bad idea. The life-threatening nature of alcohol withdrawal has been well-known for decades. Experts widely believe that opiate withdrawal is not life threatening. You can go cold turkey, with or without non-narcotic drugs to ease the symptoms; or you can wean down and experience less discomfort (though possibly for a longer period of time). Or, hell, you can stay on them forever; in themselves, they're probably less physically damaging than booze or cigarettes. I don't have any moral opinion about that. It's just that some people do want to quit narcotics, and the accumulated experience of generations of junkies counts for something. Originally Posted by The Norseman ... it's not worth the time and effort to me to hurl invective at one another over it. I can do without the hurling myself. Originally Posted by The Norseman I can understand some concern ... it's really not as easy as perhaps implied. I'm not an optimist when it comes to the subject of computer/Internet privacy. It amazes me how many people want their surfing to be transparent, so they can get targeted ads. Sometimes I feel like people are wiring themselves for surveillance. I find it creepy, but lots of people don't.
Minoosh Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,490

5th December 2011, 12:31 PM	#6117
Hallo Alfie Alexithymically superadjusted Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,014	I am waiting on some to comments on this science based research: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16696626 Estimating the effect of help-seeking on achieving recovery from alcohol dependence This confirms some of what I have been saying for a long time that recovery is a three stage process: detox, rehab and maintenance. “Individuals who participated in 12-Step programs in addition to formal treatment had almost twice the chance of recovery and more than more than twice the chance of AR compared with those who received formal treatment alone.” CONCLUSIONS: “Help-seeking plays a significant role in the achievement of abstinent recovery from alcohol dependence, with 12-Step participation playing a major role. Appropriate model selection is critical to assessing the impact of help-seeking.” Well I'll be stuffed! One has twice as much chance of maintaining sobriety using 12 step fellowships that without. I would also challenge C&E, Joey etc to provide this information to the hate group they love - given that they want to help people to get sober and all that. I think the answers we sought from the start of the thread have been answered, namely: Is AA religious? No: It is a spiritual program but it can be (religious) if one wants it to be. Does AA work? Yes, in conjunction with other treatments (detox and rehab/counselling etc), people have twice as much chance of attaining and maintaining sobriety as they would without. What is the efficacy of other treatments? Unknown, but they will work better with AA. End thread.
	__________________ Alfie is a real goose. Lionking http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=14601 'Sex by surprise is a form of "rape" unknown outside of Sweden.' Bit Pattern http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...91#post8776491 'Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.' Francois Guizot