Slashdot Mirror

AA only has about a three percent chance of success and it sets you up to relapse with a binge making much more likely to die than other methods. For me Rational Recovery worked. Said I am not sick just not taking personal responsibility. For a more in depth debunktion of AA see the Orange Papers http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters290.html#iamnotastatistic http://www.orange-papers.org/

AA only has about a three percent chance of success and it sets you up to relapse with a binge making much more likely to die than other methods. For me Rational Recovery worked. Said I am not sick just not taking personal responsibility. For a more in depth debunktion of AA see the Orange Papers http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters290.html#iamnotastatistic http://www.orange-papers.org/

Read The Orange Papers, and watch Penn & Teller's Bullshit: 12 Stepping".

AA's own internal figures show that only 5% of people who start AA are not drinking one year later.
The spontaneous remission rate is also 5%.

So the ones who are stopping were going to stop anyway (and kudos to them).

But what about the 95% who don't stop? Other studies show that when groups of alcoholics were randomly assigned to court ordered AA, no treatment, or a therapy program, the AA group was FIVE TIMES as likely to engage in subsequent episodes of severe binge drinking as the no treatment group, and nine times more likely than the therapy group.

Here's a sampler:
http://www.thefix.com/content/the-real-statistics-of-aa7301
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0DSEdLCAUg

Why don't you sue the statistics from AA of those that complete the 12 step program? Many more start than finish, just like college. Success rates, independently verified for success rates for those who complete AA is 40%. That's not as high as going to a private therapist which is 55%, but then that number doesn't include all the people who start therapy and don't continue, either.

Your whole premise is based on the orange papers which even states that it is "One man's analysis." It is not a scientifically valid study. It is not accepted by those who work with substance abuse. It is what it is - one man's analysis, whether valid or not. But it sure gets a lot of traction on the internet. I know a handful of individuals who have succesfully went through AA and have been sober for as much as 20 years. does that mean I should put my analysis online and say it is 100% effectve? No, of course not. Because that isn't an analysis, but instead is ancedotal information.

The real studies that show the effectiveness of various treatments, have hundreds of particpants, if not more. They are statistically valid and peer reviewed. And those studies show very different results than the orange papers. People respond differently to different types of therapy, so it is easy to understand how a small, unscientific sample can lead to erroneous results. But valid samples show that the program when followed and completed is 80% as effective as dedicated counseling with a therapist. For those who can't afford a $200/hour therapist (and aren't an atheist), it could be a viable alternative.

I had thought there was pretty conclusive evidence that 12-step programs didn't work?
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html.
---
My source is not better, just different. We need some real authoratitive research into "does this work", before "why does this work".

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that 12-step programs are nothing more than window-dressing. That they take credit for spontaneous remission - the percentage of people who just quit on their own.

For example, alcoholics have a spontaneous remission rate of roughly 5% - so if an AA program has a 5% success rate (including the people who give up on the program - the AA people don't like to count them) then AA is just a no-op.

Here's one of many analyses making the argument that 12-steppers are just bad at math.

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html

An article in Scientific American in 2011 (sorry I don't have the direct reference) showed AA had a 40% success rate. Dedicated therapy something like 55% and people going cold turkey or self-treating less than 5%.

I'm not sure why there is a discrepency between the link you quoted and the article in Scientific American. If I recall, the SA article quoted numeous statistically valid independant studies that corroborated their reported findings. Maybe the paper you referenced wasn't a statistically valid sample? I don't know, but given the plethora of studies that show otherwise, while not as successful as dedicated therapy, 12 step programs are universally recognized and accepted as being successful.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that 12-step programs are nothing more than window-dressing. That they take credit for spontaneous remission - the percentage of people who just quit on their own.

For example, alcoholics have a spontaneous remission rate of roughly 5% - so if an AA program has a 5% success rate (including the people who give up on the program - the AA people don't like to count them) then AA is just a no-op.

Here's one of many analyses making the argument that 12-steppers are just bad at math.

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html

That is what has made AA the success it is,

I assume you mean this AA. It's just about as far from success as you can get.

All that's true, but there are drugs and other methods that can deal with pretty much any withdraw symptoms. Part of the problem there is convincing the often religiously motivated treatment fanatics to actually consider using them. Hazelden was so extreme at one point they even banned use of coffee. For addiction science to progress AA has got to be publicly debunked as a religious cult-like group that stagnates science and the governement has to stop sentencing people to it (it's already technically prohibited but may judges don't seem to care.)

All that's true, but there are drugs and other methods that can deal with pretty much any withdraw symptoms. Part of the problem there is convincing the often religiously motivated treatment fanatics to actually consider using them. Hazelden was so extreme at one point they even banned use of coffee. For addiction science to progress AA has got to be publicly debunked as a religious cult-like group that stagnates science and the governement has to stop sentencing people to it (it's already technically prohibited but may judges don't seem to care.)

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-gulags.html

Color me surprised.

In Step Eleven we saw that if a Higher Power had restored us to sanity and had enabled us to live with some peace of mind in a sorely troubled world, then such a Higher Power was worth knowing better, by as direct contact as possible. The persistent use of meditation and prayer, we found, did open the channel so that where there had been a trickle, there now was a river which led to sure power and safe guidance from God as we were increasingly better able to understand Him. So, practicing these Steps, we had a spiritual awakening about which finally there was no question. Looking at those who were only beginning and still doubting themselves, the rest of us were able to see the change setting in. From great numbers of such experiences, we could predict that the doubter who still claimed that he hadn't got the "spiritual angle," and who still considered his well-loved A.A. group the higher power, would presently love God and call Him by name. Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, pages 108-109.

You call that any sort of medical treatment or religion? Tell the group here how many times god is mentioned in the steps, in the 12&12 and what your definition of sobriety and recovery is. Tell the group her what a "spiritual disease" is? Do you pray to your laws of physics as the 12 steps command? Did you admit your shortcomings to the trees? Do you honestly believe it's them that keep you sober? I'm sorry if i'm harsh, but the simple fact here is that there is no sky fairy of *any* sort and if there is anybody you should thank for being sober, it's you. Give yourself a little credit and stop giving credit to a fruity little group for your own work!

In Step Eleven we saw that if a Higher Power had restored us to sanity and had enabled us to live with some peace of mind in a sorely troubled world, then such a Higher Power was worth knowing better, by as direct contact as possible. The persistent use of meditation and prayer, we found, did open the channel so that where there had been a trickle, there now was a river which led to sure power and safe guidance from God as we were increasingly better able to understand Him. So, practicing these Steps, we had a spiritual awakening about which finally there was no question. Looking at those who were only beginning and still doubting themselves, the rest of us were able to see the change setting in. From great numbers of such experiences, we could predict that the doubter who still claimed that he hadn't got the "spiritual angle," and who still considered his well-loved A.A. group the higher power, would presently love God and call Him by name. Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, pages 108-109.

You call that any sort of medical treatment or religion? Tell the group here how many times god is mentioned in the steps, in the 12&12 and what your definition of sobriety and recovery is. Tell the group her what a "spiritual disease" is? Do you pray to your laws of physics as the 12 steps command? Did you admit your shortcomings to the trees? Do you honestly believe it's them that keep you sober? I'm sorry if i'm harsh, but the simple fact here is that there is no sky fairy of *any* sort and if there is anybody you should thank for being sober, it's you. Give yourself a little credit and stop giving credit to a fruity little group for your own work!

Define "dry drunk". Isn't that where you have quit drinking but have avoided the "spiritual" portion of the treatment? It seems to me like there is a lot more to AA/NA than they let on publicly if that is the case.

I don't smoke weed, never lost a job over weed, barely drink, and never drive under the influence. What would make you conclude such a thing? Is that prejudice I hear... because I couldn't possibly be criticizing the holy church of "sobriety" (different definition in AA) with honorable intentions. I must be in denial!

Your higher power can not be anything. That's bait and switch. AA is a religious organization (court decisions which the supreme court has refused to challenge making it the law of the land) that somehow manages to, despite those decisions, weasel converts from the state (60% of AA members were first coerced into it. Source grapevine magazine Novermber 2001). My Problem with AA stems from the above, the fact that it's no more effective than no treatment at all, the fact that peopel are coerced into it, and the fact that it statistically causes an increase in binge behavior (Brandsma, et al).. What else do you expect when you tell people they are powerless to control themselves and should "let go and let god".

I don't smoke weed, never lost a job over weed, barely drink, and never drive under the influence. What would make you conclude such a thing? Is that prejudice I hear... because I couldn't possibly be criticizing the holy church of "sobriety" (different definition in AA) with honorable intentions. I must be in denial!

Your higher power can not be anything. That's bait and switch. AA is a religious organization (court decisions which the supreme court has refused to challenge making it the law of the land) that somehow manages to, despite those decisions, weasel converts from the state (60% of AA members were first coerced into it. Source grapevine magazine Novermber 2001). My Problem with AA stems from the above, the fact that it's no more effective than no treatment at all, the fact that peopel are coerced into it, and the fact that it statistically causes an increase in binge behavior (Brandsma, et al).. What else do you expect when you tell people they are powerless to control themselves and should "let go and let god".

I don't smoke weed, never lost a job over weed, barely drink, and never drive under the influence. What would make you conclude such a thing? Is that prejudice I hear... because I couldn't possibly be criticizing the holy church of "sobriety" (different definition in AA) with honorable intentions. I must be in denial!

Your higher power can not be anything. That's bait and switch. AA is a religious organization (court decisions which the supreme court has refused to challenge making it the law of the land) that somehow manages to, despite those decisions, weasel converts from the state (60% of AA members were first coerced into it. Source grapevine magazine Novermber 2001). My Problem with AA stems from the above, the fact that it's no more effective than no treatment at all, the fact that peopel are coerced into it, and the fact that it statistically causes an increase in binge behavior (Brandsma, et al).. What else do you expect when you tell people they are powerless to control themselves and should "let go and let god".

I am very well informed about AA. And if somobody doens't get help with AA it doesn't mean they will not get help at all or will not stop drinking at all. AA does oppose naltrexone. See this video at about 7:50 or the article it's sourced from. AA mentiones god in the 12 steps and has been ruled by the courts, including the SC to be religious. You can do your own research on that but it's not an incredibly hard argument to make considering how often the word "God" and spiritual are used in the 12 steps and associated literature. AA gets 70% of it's membership from the health care or justice system. Source: AA's grapevine magazine, November 2001. It's so common, it's nicknamed a "nudge from the judge". AA has a central leadership (AAWS) and has chapters. It's also sued a chapter in Germany. While there are no "rules" in AA, it's implied on countless occasions that if you don't follow the steps exactly *you will DIE*. I could care less what you attribute your sobriety to but you can't prove you wouldn't be sober without AA. You also can't prove that AA works other than through anecdotal evidence. You say it works... provide a double blind peer reviewed study. One study you might be interested in is the 1970s study by Jeffery Brandsma et. al. It found that court ordered AA attendees engaged in 5 TIMES as much binge drinking as the control group with no treatment at all and 9 TIMES as much as a group with RBT. Just because you believe it worked for you doesn't mean it actually did. It's a placebo... but hey. Pat yourself on the back. You quit. It was you. You weren't powerless. You were powerful.

Lots of "statistics" that aren't cited there. You claim it works? Prove it! Also, 12 step is religious. The courts are quite clear on that. There isn't a single case where the "we're spiritual not religious" argument has won, and rather than rehash it here, I suggest you read the caselaw. What you choose to call your higher power is irrelevant. There is one thing it cannot be: yourself. And regardless of your higher power you choose, it's directives are dictated by the organization/sponsor, and not directly. You might think you're anti-cult and anti-religion, but, sorry, bud... you most likely got conned. You got sucked in for "recovery" and ended up staying with the believe that if you quit, you'll inevitably die. Admit it. If you stop going, you fear for your sobriety and very life. That's not freedom. That's a prison of the mind. Religious or not, you become dependent on the group. Cults and cult-like groups don't necessary have to be overtly religious. All that is required is some sort of sacred teaching that is held up to be perfect and without flaw from which deviation is fatal.

I saw "treatment" in this article title and was immediately interested for many reasons, but I expected alcohol/drug abuse problems to come up. My main "hobby horse" is that MAINSTREAM alcohol and drug treatment consists of, and is run by, members of 12-step groups (Alcholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, etc.), which are interently religious (despite the "spiritual, not religious" claim) and have no scientific basis. The influence of "steppism" is so pervasive that it strongly influences addiction research in the USA to the point of looking for genetic causes of addictive behaviors and for other evidence that such behaviors are "diseases" (ideas promoted by the step groups, whose members' PR efforts through front groups such as NCADD and CASA have been so effective that much of the general public believes these things). Any research that involves attempting to REDUCE drinking or drug use, rather than demanding abstinence from its subjects, is verboten and regarded as dangerous!

AC, you're very lucky you didn't get sucked into Al-Anon or ACOA or some such (or maybe you did and you immediately rejected it and/or didn't tell that part of your story). Twelve step groups are the LEAST trustworthy environment I can think of. I was in AA and was a "true believer" for two years (see Box 1980/letters section, April 1990 AA Grapevine magazine for how "grateful" I was), but then I started seeing the cracks in the "perfect" program and started analyzing (going against the slogan "utilize, don't analyze) the step programs, and it took several more years to deprogram myself, verify that these things had NO basis in science or logic, and finally stop going to meetings. Meanwhile I saw too many people commit suicide due to the cognitive dissonance and conflicting messages, with their action always being blamed on "this disease," "he could not be honest with himself" or "he could not see our way of life."

There's much more info about the step group phenomenon and its dangers online at these links:
http://www.morerevealed.com/
http://www.orange-papers.org/
http://www.peele.net/

Just so people know, Alcoholics Anonymous isn't the answer either.

The reason one of every hundred US citizens is in prison is MOSTLY due to the War On Drugs. Furthermore, drug offendors get "good behavior points" toward earlier release for attending religious (not just "spiritual") 12-step based groups in prison, clearly against the First Amendment (even those on death row are guaranteed freedom of religion, yet many are required to attend Alcoholics Aonymous and other groups by Government agents), yet the ACLU wants every prisoner to have access an electrical power outlet.

Let's see. World War 2. FDR, Democrat, won a war. Big Business types like Henry Ford tried to tie patriotism to appeasing the Nazis because of his right-wing beliefs. And he was awarded the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, a Nazi decoration for distinguished foreigners.

Picture of Henry Ford being rewarded by the Nazis. I'm sure he was "a good American."

I'm sure the Bush family wouldn't get involved with... ah, whoopsie. ...newly-uncovered government documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his "enemy national" partners...

Conservatives. Always on the wrong side of history. Take the Kosovo War. Remember that one? Let's look at a few comments on that...

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

(Why was Sean such a surrender monkey in the face of a tyrant and his concentration camps?)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

(Would this be the same Kosovo War that resulted in ZERO US COMBAT DEATHS?)

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

(Is this the same Milosevic that raised the white flag? Why did Senator Nickles question the abilities of our brave boys in uniform?) ...and finally...

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

I'm sorry: you were saying "something, something, peace-activist liberals, something, non-confrontational"?

Was that it.

Yeah. I thought so.

You're on the wrong side of history again, and there are enough Progressive Americans (you know, the ones that value the US Constitution and don't treat it like a dish rag) that are willing to remind you of it every single day.

I'm just waiting for someone to mention BJs. Whoo boy, do I have a reply for that!!!

From your post, it sounds like you have such an addiction, and won't go to a 12 step program because the belief in a higher power offends you. Aside from the fact that you appear to be confusing the higher power with the Judeo-Christian God (there are plenty of atheists in AA), that's your choice to make.

That is, not to put too fine a point on it, a bunch of crap. When you write "God as we understood Him"(1) you are making an explicit reference to the Judeo-Christian God (henceforth JCG) Yahweh/Jehovah. It is made clear by using the word "God" as if it were a name (it is not, and should not be capitalized, unless you are referring to the JCG. Incidentally, even the Supreme Court was able to figure this one out, as pertained to the pledge of allegiance, so you should be able to draw the parallel as well.

Simply by forcing you to attend a program in which people are thanking "God" and exhorting you to give your life over to "Him" as an alternative to finding an actual purpose in your life the state is promoting Christianity (their goal is obviously not to promote Judaism.)

The simple truth is that AA is not about personal growth. It's about transferring your addiction. Actual growth to become a person who doesn't need a crutch to fall back on is the real way to keep people from being addicted to things, and might actually be effective, unlike AA.

(1) http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/en_is_aa_for_y ou.cfm?PageID=197

I've been in a 12 step program before and they told me that it was better to believe in a ROCK then to stick with REASON.

The success rate of a year in AA is equal to the success rate of a year not in AA. http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness. html

In other words - the few people who it works for have simply replaced a chemical addiction with a social addiction (going to meetings everyday). Is that better? Sure it's better, cleaner, and gets people living again. Does it work for everyone or is it even CLOSE to a comprehensive solution to addiction? Not by a looooooooooooooooong shot.

Check it out for yourself:

http://orange-papers.org/

I recall an NPR All Things Considered story circa 2000-2001 (ISTR around the time of the big tire recall story) with interviews with Microsoft employees who had monotonous voices, except when asked why they liked working at Microsoft and they said how "Microsoft is such an innovative company...", you could hear their excitement... geez, it was scary. Something like the Moonies and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Apologies to members of the Sun Myung Moon Church and Jehovah's Witnesses for the comparison.

Commonly cited problems with AA are:

1. It relies on an external (spiritual) force to enable you to quit. It reinforces the perception of the addict as helpless victim, when in fact your addiction is a choice, at least at some level. If you don't want to stop, you won't.

2. It doesn't work that well. You are never considered cured, and studies (including one commissioned by the AA themselves) have shown the 12 step program to have a worse failure rate for remission than just deciding to stop.

3. Its cult-like properties.

I have never gone through a 12 step program myself, just interested in the subject. And from what I have read, the effectiveness of the whole method is greatly in doubt.

"The study"? OK, there are three things really stupid about that. First, you don't really give anybody enough information to find the study you're referring to. Not even the title. Makes me wonder if you could find "the study" yourself if you had to.

Second, I doubt if there's only one study on the effectiveness of 12-step programs. Given the size of the rehab industry, there must be thousands.

Third (and this is the bigee): it's stupid and dangerous to make health care or mental health decisions on the basic of ONE STUDY.

It's bad enough when people cite research results out of context in order to justify their personal prejudices. But justifying your prejudices on the basis of a study you can't even cite is the purest degree of assholedness.

"The study"? OK, there are three things really stupid about that. First, you don't really give anybody enough information to find the study you're referring to. Not even the title. Makes me wonder if you could find "the study" yourself if you had to.

Second, I doubt if there's only one study on the effectiveness of 12-step programs. Given the size of the rehab industry, there must be thousands.

Third (and this is the bigee): it's stupid and dangerous to make health care or mental health decisions on the basic of ONE STUDY.

It's bad enough when people cite research results out of context in order to justify their personal prejudices. But justifying your prejudices on the basis of a study you can't even cite is the purest degree of assholedness.

Sadly, many people think that the cult of the "twelve-steppers" is their only recourse for support in their attempts at addiction recovery. One poster here suggests a "more secularly-oriented AA" rather than mentioning any groups that are secular by charter. One such group is LifeRing Secular Recovery, which provides support, through FTF meetings and online chat rooms, without demanding that you submit to a higher power, say prayers, admit you are "powerless" or any such falderal. There are no steps, just guidelines, which everyone is encouraged to use in formulating their own plan for recovery. For those of us who subscribe to a naturalist world-view, it is a welcome alternative to the rigidity of the AA mindset. If AA demands honesty, they ought to first examine the hypocrisy of their founder, a notorious womanizer who simply traded one addiction for another and then used his status and fame to fuel it. Personally, I can do without the prayers, the deadly indoor smoking and the cult mentality that will get you hounded out of their clubhouse if you dare to question any of their dogma. Sure, they have helped a lot of people (while downplaying the rampant recidivism among their ranks), but that argument is like using the fact that seat belts have saved a lot of lives as an excuse to continue manufacturing unsafe automobiles. There are alternatives.

is what can happen to you after you're convicted of an alcohol-related crime. I may get modded off-topic (as if it weren't bad enough being an AC) but I gotta say it.

Part of your sentencing may involve mandated attendance at 12-step groups such as AA:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/12-step_Coercion_Wat ch/
Judges who send people to AA are often AA members themselves, but never state this. How's THAT for a conflict of interest?
What is AA like? Google for all the glurge sites from members and compare them to these:
http://www.orange-papers.org/
http://www.morerevealed.com/

Yes, I read TFA. Been there, got the "Easy Does It" and "Sh!t Creek/up-and-back" t-shirts...

Ninety five percent of all US "Treatment Centers" are really 12-step indoctrination centers, and websearches bring up vast numbers of 12-step glurge sites by anonymous members. Virually everyone you ask will say "I don't know anything about it but AA is where you go if you have a drinking problem." Here are the needles in the haystack for anyone who is considering ot has had any 12-step involvement:

http://www.aadeprogramming.com/
I'll write my book on it someday, but meanwhile read the books online on this site:
http://morerevealed.com/

http://www.orange-papers.org/
http://www.peele.net/

If you're not familiar with 12-step programs, here is the "On-Line Gamers Anonymous" version of "How It Work", taken straight from the first three pages of chapter 5, "How It Works" of AA's "Big Book", "Alcoholics Anonymous"

http://p198.ezboard.com/folgafrm31.showMessage?top icID=4.topic

This is the original AA version (as originally PUBLISHED, not the "original manuscript"):
http://www.recovery.org/aa/bigbook/ww/chapter_5.ht ml

With organizations such as http://www.ncadd.org/ and judges ordering defendants to AA without revealing their own AA memberships, most other "high demand" groups would give up the equivalent of personal body parts to have the same PR and good image as AA. But at least the other cults, er, "high-demand coercive groups" have at least some negative images in the minds of the public.

One more link:
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/
Click on "Religious Group Profiles" for a list of just about every group you've probably heard of.
It even lists multilevel marketing schemes under "Para-Religious Movements."

Excessive drinking or other activity done to excess can create substantial problems in one's life, but 12-step groups are NOT the answer.