People and dependence

December 4, 1998

In a message dated 12/4/98 7:11:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, dptrs140@...

writes:

> If that individual has a sufficient organic brain insult they may fit right

> in.

Then, in your opinion, AA works for brain-damaged people? This is great. I

love it! <G>

Henders

------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 4, 1998

Dave - Do you have a reference(s) documenting that alcohol use, even in

fairly large amounts, leads to unique, permanant brain damage? This runs

counter to the literature. Actually, alcohol is probably one of the safer

psychoactive chemicals, whose effects are certainly much better known, and

much less injurious, than the hardly-studied and very powerful psychotropic

medications now being prescribed so freely for every minor psychic

complaint. Isn't it more likely that the " unique " nature of alcohol is

just a figment of the AA (and related treatment industry) imagination? As

to cessation of chemical use, you remark " take the chemical away " and the

organism will right itself. I don't much care for the third-person verb.

Who is to do the " taking. " As I am sure you know, the vast majority of

those who cease using tobacco products quit of their own volition. No one

" takes away " the chemical, the individual DECIDES to quit. This is not a

meaningless distinction, as it is as the heart of the " powerless " vs.

" power to the people " debate. The studies of returned Vietnam heroin

users, as I am sure you know, also reveal that the personal decision to

quit is the key factor, but also indicate that individuals gain strength

from social solidarity. " No man is an island. " In the end, that is what

all the debate about " addiction " in American society revolves around: what

new form of " social solidarity " will be devised to cope with the difficult

and pressing problems that now face this nation, and the world. Will it be

a social solidarity - a " recovery " - led by the " higher powers. " Or will

it be a " recovery " - a new form of social solidarity - in which power flows

to the common people themselves? Are we to be " powerless " ? Or are we to

become informed, concerned, and take power over our lives into our own

hands? The whole war on drugs is, really, a political-ideological war over

this question.

----------

>

> To: 12-step-freeegroups

> Subject: People and dependence

> Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 9:08 AM

>

> All people are capable of becoming dependent on certain chemicals. I have

iatrogenically caused a fair number of drug dependencies in my patients as

I treated their pain syndromes. There is nothing baffling about it. There

are certain chemicals which our own neurochemical selves incorporate into

the fabric of who we are as people. Once the chemical becomes incorporated

the organism, not knowing any better on a molecular level, seeks to

maintain that balance it has made with the new chemical. Take the chemical

away and eventually the organism will right itself.

> The most common clear cut examples are nicotine and opiates. Both have

withdrawals that are pretty clearly demarcated. The main reason is there

is not as much, if any, residual brain damage like with heavy drinking. The

alcoholic is unique because often they have permanent residual cognitive

impairments. Incapable of processing new information quickly AA becomes a

safe haven. AA on the other hand becomes an oppressive taskmaster to most

folks with their cognitive abilities intact.

> Now, imagine someone with a life debilitating dependence on some

chemical. Then tell that person the only way to get help and become

healthy again is through some superstitious malarkey promoted by a group of

people incapable of rational critical thought. If that individual has a

sufficient organic brain insult they may fit right in. However, especially

with younger addicts there is not as much brain damage-they instinctively

will not buy it. When AA/NA is promoted as they only alternative, many

folks, unaware of the non-biased molecular nature of dependence, give in to

the tendency to erroneously equilibrate with the same harmful exogenous

chemical.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> +------------------- WIN A FREE T-SHIRT EVERY MONTH! -------------------+

> Peanuts, Madeline, Sailor Moon, Dragonball Z, Humor, Music, ...more!

> +-------CLICK------>http://ads./click/167/0<------CLICK------+

>

December 5, 1998

Hi Dave, list

I agree with much of what you said here, except that some ppl might take

this opinion as support for a simple Exposure Model of addiction - that

almost anyone will inevitably get addicted to opiates (say) with sufficient

exposure, and that the principal motivation for compulsive using is to

avoid withdrawal. I understand the research doesnt support this - mere

exposure, even protracted, is not sufficient to produce addiction in the

great majority of ppl, and that withdrawal-avoidance is not the main

motivation behind addiction.

Pete

------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 6, 1998

Hi Jerry,

I could have sworn that I had responded to this post so if I'm repeating

myself, my apologies.

Jerry Trowbridge wrote:

> >The most methodologically sound studies (e.g. Dittman et al, Brandesma

> >et al, Vaillant) don't show evidence of AA helping. What you are

> >referring to are testimonials more suited to Wednesday night prayer

> >meetings in a Fundamentalist Church or infomercials. There is no other

> >evidence AA works to help people with alcohol problems solve them.

>

> No, I am referring to the fact that most studies that follow the long

> term effects of various modes of treatment find AA-based treatment

> effective for a percentage of its members. Whether these percentages

> are high enough to sustain the kind of claims that have been made by

> others about AA's success is open to question.

>

> If you believe that AA doesn't ever help anybody anytime, then that's

> another matter. That would justify the claim that AA doesn't work, but

> I don't believe that the data support that, at least not what I've

> seen.

>

Let me start with an extreme example and then step back to a less

extreme one.

With the drug Thalidomide, one can not just make the claim that

Thalidomide never helped anybody anytime. When discussing whether a

treatment " works " you can't look at just the " successes, " you have to

also look at the side effects. Sure Thalidomide " worked. " Great for

morning sickness. It wasn't until later, when the side effects became

apparent that the harm caused grossly outweighed the benefits. No more

morning sickness but thousands of children born grossly deformed.

As it turns out, decades later, Thalidomide does have its uses and the

side effects/benefit ratios with certain diseases (e.g. leprosy) as long

as there is no danger of pregnancy.

Side effects are just as important as success. In the three studies I

cite above, doubtless there are those who were " successes " in AA.

In the Dittman study, where the only variable between the three groups

was either AA attendance, psychiatrically oriented community psychiatric

clinic (which more than likely sent clients to AA) or no treatment, the

no treatment group was the most successful. Throw in placebo effects

and it can't be stated that AA _actually_ helped anyone in that

category. The study results, that those who are sent to AA (or the

brand of treatment in the other category) were more likely to have a

negative outcome than _no treatment whatsoever_, so even if there was

resolution due to AA for some, overall it is a terrible choice because

it performs worse than no AA.

The other two studies cited had similar outcomes in that those who went

to AA didn't fare well overall either. Any positive outcomes were more

than offset by negative outcomes (from whatever " side effects " ).

Project MATCH was supposed to show the value of matching clients to

particular treatments. The results were essentially that the treatment

didn't matter. If anything, other treatments were _inferior_ to AA

which has been show elsewhere to be inferior to nothing. (There

evidently were serious methodological problems so this is questionable

too.)

Ken Ragge

> --Jerry Trowbridge

------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 6, 1998

MWaters77@... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 12/4/98 11:55:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> kenr1@... writes:

>

> >

> > Jerry Trowbridge wrote:

> > >

> > > On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 22:24:54 -0600, " E Diener "

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Data just

> > > >don't show any better result than we observe in spontaneous recovery.

> > > >Actually, the evidence seems to indicate a low level of " harm " was

> caused

> > > >to some people. Sort of all intuitively obvious, of course. How can a

> > > > " treatment " work, when the disease is non-existent!! ---------

> > >

> > > I suppose then this all depends on what you call " spontaneous

> > > recovery. "

> > >

> > > AA is a support system for people who wish to make a change in their

> > > life with respect to their drinking patterns. There are other support

> > > systems as well, but I suppose you've lumped all of these into a

> > > category which you have then labeled " spontaneous recovery. "

> >

> > Jerry,

> >

> > I'm not at all suprised to hear AA described as a support system. I've

> > heard it a million times. What other support system tell you you are

> > " Powerless, " can't manage your life, and must turn over your " will and

> > life " in order to avoid " jails, institutions and death " and _still_

> > never get well, be able to leave the group and must proseletyze to avoid

> > going back to the bottle?

> >

> > > People have trouble with alcohol. I did, and to some extent still do.

> > > There are lots of ways I have addressed this, and AA was one of them,

> > > and I met a lot of people who have addressed it successfully through

> > > AA.

> >

> > The most methodologically sound studies (e.g. Dittman et al, Brandesma

> > et al, Vaillant) don't show evidence of AA helping. What you are

> > referring to are testimonials more suited to Wednesday night prayer

> > meetings in a Fundamentalist Church or infomercials. There is no other

> > evidence AA works to help people with alcohol problems solve them.

> >

> > Ken Ragge

>

> How can anyone deny that AA has helped people? Everyone knows someone who's

> life had been changed for the better after going to AA. What is the purpose

> of denying it?

Mike,

It would be suprising for someone's life _not_ to be better after

" hitting bottom " whether they go to AA, _any_ religious group, _any_

therapy, or even to Butte, Montana.

> I question that I have to go there for the rest of my life, but denying that

> is has helped people doesn't seem honest.

I don't deny that it has helped some people. I also don't deny that

Thalidomide has helped some people, either. Negative consequences must

be counted too.

Ken Ragge

> Mike

>

> > > There are lots of others who pass through AA and it does not help

> > > them. There are also some people that AA hurts.

> > >

> > > You appear to want to take the most successful methodology and say

> > > that it works, and therefore extrapolate that everything with a lower

> > > success rate doesn't.

> > >

> > > I take great exception to your first sentence, " It is important that

> > > you get this straight. "

> > >

> > > I feel that I have it quite straight, and that you are bound and

> > > determined to contend that AA doesn't work, no matter what arcane

> > > logic you must use to prove it.

> > >

> > > Therefore I don't believe you are in much of a position to be

> > > condescending.

> > >

> > > --Jerry Trowbridge

> > >

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> [image]

>

December 6, 1998

You just don't get it. People have problems with alcohol. There is a

recovery rate. It is the SAME for people exposed to AA, and for people NOT

exposed to AA. What AA does is grab people in spontaneous recovery, then

TAKE CREDIT FOR WHAT WAS HAPPENING NATURALLY, AS PART OF A NORMAL PROCESS

OF SELF-MODERATION. Virtually everyone who has a period of alcohol abuse

in their life (and this is VERY common), ends the abuse on their own, with

the help of family and friends, life-situation changes, etc. AA jumps into

peoples lives, prattles socio-political ideology in a cultic fashion, and

ties it to spontaneous recovery. Look. We could claim children have an

addiction to " shortness, " and that it is really a problem (virtually all

children are short). We could form a " shortaholics " group for kids, get

the war on drugs to fund it, and force every damn kid in the country to go

to meetings. (We'd make them get court-cards signed). Then we would watch

who got over their addiction to shortness. Know what, virtually all of

them would. Just about every kid would get taller - some a little taller,

some a lot. Boy, does that ever prove the 12-steps work, huh?! 100%

effective recovery rate. Spontaneous recovery, Jerry, spontaneous

recovery. ----------

>

> To: Ken R

> Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

> Subject: Re: People and dependence

> Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 11:07 PM

>

> On Fri, 04 Dec 1998 20:04:48 -0800, Ken R

> wrote:

>

> >I'm not at all suprised to hear AA described as a support system. I've

> >heard it a million times. What other support system tell you you are

> > " Powerless, " can't manage your life, and must turn over your " will and

> >life " in order to avoid " jails, institutions and death " and _still_

> >never get well, be able to leave the group and must proseletyze to avoid

> >going back to the bottle?

>

> Most religions involve some kind of similar system, and while I eschew

> them for my personal involvement, a good portion of society wants

> them. Most of the fundamentalists have a " support system very much

> like the one you describe. Watch ol' and Jan Crouch's channel if

> you doubt me.

>

> >The most methodologically sound studies (e.g. Dittman et al, Brandesma

> >et al, Vaillant) don't show evidence of AA helping. What you are

> >referring to are testimonials more suited to Wednesday night prayer

> >meetings in a Fundamentalist Church or infomercials. There is no other

> >evidence AA works to help people with alcohol problems solve them.

>

> No, I am referring to the fact that most studies that follow the long

> term effects of various modes of treatment find AA-based treatment

> effective for a percentage of its members. Whether these percentages

> are high enough to sustain the kind of claims that have been made by

> others about AA's success is open to question.

>

> If you believe that AA doesn't ever help anybody anytime, then that's

> another matter. That would justify the claim that AA doesn't work, but

> I don't believe that the data support that, at least not what I've

> seen.

>

> --Jerry Trowbridge

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> +------------------- WIN A FREE T-SHIRT EVERY MONTH! -------------------+

> Peanuts, Madeline, Sailor Moon, Dragonball Z, Humor, Music, ...more!

> +-------CLICK------>http://ads./click/167/0<------CLICK------+

>

December 6, 1998

Who can deny that astrology has helped people? I know at least half a

dozen people who CLAIM that their lives have been changed by it. Ahhh.

That is the rub. Anecdotal claims do not prove effectiveness. That is why

we do scientific evaluations. By the way, people use to swear there were

witches. Everyone KNEW that was a fact.

----------

> From: MWaters77@...

> To: 12-step-freeegroups

> Subject: Re: People and dependence

> Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 11:16 PM

>

> In a message dated 12/4/98 11:55:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> kenr1@... writes:

>

> >

> > Jerry Trowbridge wrote:

> > >

> > > On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 22:24:54 -0600, " E Diener "

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Data just

> > > >don't show any better result than we observe in spontaneous

recovery.

> > > >Actually, the evidence seems to indicate a low level of " harm " was

> caused

> > > >to some people. Sort of all intuitively obvious, of course. How

can a

> > > > " treatment " work, when the disease is non-existent!! ---------

> > >

> > > I suppose then this all depends on what you call " spontaneous

> > > recovery. "

> > >

> > > AA is a support system for people who wish to make a change in their

> > > life with respect to their drinking patterns. There are other

support

> > > systems as well, but I suppose you've lumped all of these into a

> > > category which you have then labeled " spontaneous recovery. "

> >

> > Jerry,

> >

> > I'm not at all suprised to hear AA described as a support system. I've

> > heard it a million times. What other support system tell you you are

> > " Powerless, " can't manage your life, and must turn over your " will and

> > life " in order to avoid " jails, institutions and death " and _still_

> > never get well, be able to leave the group and must proseletyze to

avoid

> > going back to the bottle?

> >

> > > People have trouble with alcohol. I did, and to some extent still

do.

> > > There are lots of ways I have addressed this, and AA was one of

them,

> > > and I met a lot of people who have addressed it successfully through

> > > AA.

> >

> > The most methodologically sound studies (e.g. Dittman et al, Brandesma

> > et al, Vaillant) don't show evidence of AA helping. What you are

> > referring to are testimonials more suited to Wednesday night prayer

> > meetings in a Fundamentalist Church or infomercials. There is no

other

> > evidence AA works to help people with alcohol problems solve them.

> >

> > Ken Ragge

>

> How can anyone deny that AA has helped people? Everyone knows someone

who's

> life had been changed for the better after going to AA. What is the

purpose

> of denying it?

> I question that I have to go there for the rest of my life, but denying

that

> is has helped people doesn't seem honest.

> Mike

>

> > > There are lots of others who pass through AA and it does not help

> > > them. There are also some people that AA hurts.

> > >

> > > You appear to want to take the most successful methodology and say

> > > that it works, and therefore extrapolate that everything with a

lower

> > > success rate doesn't.

> > >

> > > I take great exception to your first sentence, " It is important that

> > > you get this straight. "

> > >

> > > I feel that I have it quite straight, and that you are bound and

> > > determined to contend that AA doesn't work, no matter what arcane

> > > logic you must use to prove it.

> > >

> > > Therefore I don't believe you are in much of a position to be

> > > condescending.

> > >

> > > --Jerry Trowbridge

> > >

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Know someone who deserves flowers? At proflowers.com, it's only $29.95

> plus S & H ($5.95 for most domestic locations) for one dozen roses and

> shipped direct from the grower via Fedex Priority Overnight.

> http://ads./click/149/0

>

December 6, 1998

The Thalidomide example may not be a good one, Ken, for, as you note,

Thalidomide has some (limited) legitimate medical uses. Does AA? This

requires a social, cultural and historical analysis of AA. As you note, AA

does NOT prove to be an effective treatment for drinking problems (we

should avoid the word " alcoholism, " since the disease concept of alcohol

abuse is illegitimate). People who just live their lives get over alcohol

problems just as fast, just as well. However, AA DOES " work " for a certain

group of people, but the " problem " that AA " works " for is a somewhat

different one. Many studies show that persons who tend to stay in AA

(whether they have serious drinking problems or not, and many AA recruits

show only minimal alcohol problems) are lonely, ill at ease, authoritarian

personality types, middle class in background, and conformist in thinking.

The F Scale on the MMPI, and other objective-test measures of

" authoritarianism, " select AA-affiliators from non-affiliators. What does

this mean? People who are " helped " by AA tend to be predisposed to

conservative cultism, and AA " helps " them by providing this milieu. I

suppose this is a sort of " help, " just not for drinking problems. By the

way, there is a literature on recruits to SA and SS groups in Germany, and

also a number of revealing autobiographies. Such recruits were often quite

joyful and relieved when they joined the movement. Nazism " helped " them be

much happier than they had been. ------

>

> To: 12-step-freeegroups

> Subject: Re: People and dependence

> Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 12:52 PM

>

> Hi Jerry,

>

> I could have sworn that I had responded to this post so if I'm repeating

> myself, my apologies.

>

> Jerry Trowbridge wrote:

>

> > >The most methodologically sound studies (e.g. Dittman et al, Brandesma

> > >et al, Vaillant) don't show evidence of AA helping. What you are

> > >referring to are testimonials more suited to Wednesday night prayer

> > >meetings in a Fundamentalist Church or infomercials. There is no

other

> > >evidence AA works to help people with alcohol problems solve them.

> >

> > No, I am referring to the fact that most studies that follow the long

> > term effects of various modes of treatment find AA-based treatment

> > effective for a percentage of its members. Whether these percentages

> > are high enough to sustain the kind of claims that have been made by

> > others about AA's success is open to question.

> >

> > If you believe that AA doesn't ever help anybody anytime, then that's

> > another matter. That would justify the claim that AA doesn't work, but

> > I don't believe that the data support that, at least not what I've

> > seen.

> >

>

> Let me start with an extreme example and then step back to a less

> extreme one.

>

> With the drug Thalidomide, one can not just make the claim that

> Thalidomide never helped anybody anytime. When discussing whether a

> treatment " works " you can't look at just the " successes, " you have to

> also look at the side effects. Sure Thalidomide " worked. " Great for

> morning sickness. It wasn't until later, when the side effects became

> apparent that the harm caused grossly outweighed the benefits. No more

> morning sickness but thousands of children born grossly deformed.

>

> As it turns out, decades later, Thalidomide does have its uses and the

> side effects/benefit ratios with certain diseases (e.g. leprosy) as long

> as there is no danger of pregnancy.

>

> Side effects are just as important as success. In the three studies I

> cite above, doubtless there are those who were " successes " in AA.

>

> In the Dittman study, where the only variable between the three groups

> was either AA attendance, psychiatrically oriented community psychiatric

> clinic (which more than likely sent clients to AA) or no treatment, the

> no treatment group was the most successful. Throw in placebo effects

> and it can't be stated that AA _actually_ helped anyone in that

> category. The study results, that those who are sent to AA (or the

> brand of treatment in the other category) were more likely to have a

> negative outcome than _no treatment whatsoever_, so even if there was

> resolution due to AA for some, overall it is a terrible choice because

> it performs worse than no AA.

>

> The other two studies cited had similar outcomes in that those who went

> to AA didn't fare well overall either. Any positive outcomes were more

> than offset by negative outcomes (from whatever " side effects " ).

>

> Project MATCH was supposed to show the value of matching clients to

> particular treatments. The results were essentially that the treatment

> didn't matter. If anything, other treatments were _inferior_ to AA

> which has been show elsewhere to be inferior to nothing. (There

> evidently were serious methodological problems so this is questionable

> too.)

>

> Ken Ragge

>

> > --Jerry Trowbridge

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> More trinkets than the 1996 Olympics. Fewer lines than the Goodwill Games

> ESPN gear, SportsCenter gear, NBA NHL MLB NCAA NFL gear, Memorabilia

> http://ads./click/147/1

>

December 7, 1998

In a message dated 12/7/1998 12:12:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,

railroadrita@... writes:

> As I related in previous posts, I was required to participate in 9 months

> of outpatient " treatment " and 5 AA meetings a week following a single "

> positive " (it's being disputed) Breathalyzer at work. I never had any job

> performance problems, health problems, or absenteeism. I took complete

> responsibility for having foolishly consumed alcohol at an inappropriate

time

> and decided that I would NEVER do so again. However, the " treatment " people

(

> all proud AA members eager to " carry the message " ) repeatedly told me it

wasn'

> t my fault that I drank beer with lunch, that " the disease " made me do it,

> and that nobody can state with certainty that they'll never drink

> irresponsibly again, since the (incurable!) " disease " can make ANYONE "

> relapse " , whenever it wants! Had I swallowed this hogwash, I would have

been

> directly harmed by AA ideology. I continued to maintain that I was not an "

> alcoholic " (even brought in letters attesting to this from M.D.,

psychologist,

> and my own supervisors) but was told by my agency's EAP that I would not be

> allowed to return to work until I accepted that I had a " disease " and

started

> to " actively participate in treatment " (i.e. pretend to believe in the

> necessity of " meetings " , that I have " triggers " that will make me drink

> against my will, and other things that I know to be false). This plunged me

> into a deep depression, and yes, I would say that 12-step, disease concept

> ideology HARMED me! Sure, the EAP asshole is a control freak and doesn't

get

> his orders or his power from AA, but if the ideology wasn't there and wasn't

> accepted by America-at-large as legitimate, he couldn't use it to harm

people

> this way.

> Of course, random body fluid testing was required in the program (the

> only legitimate part of it, IMO). By the time I was released I had been

> tested 107 times (all negative, of course). They were still calling me "

> diseased " though, and the final kicker is that they counted me as a success

> statistic: " You're sober today. This proves our program helped you! "

> Jerry, I hope this illustrates to you the fallacy in asserting that if

> someone is sober after exposure to AA or 12-step treatment, it means AA

> helped them or that they couldn't have become sober without it. Actively

> discouraging people from acknowledging misbehavior and from taking personal

> responsibility (and credit) for correcting it is, IMO, inherently harmful.

> ~RRRita

>

Rita,

I just wanted to say that I really enjoy reading your posts. They have helped

point out futher just how coercive the whole system can be and often is.

At the time I dicided to stop using, I went to my boss because I was so strung

out I could no longer work. The thought of being that fucked up really

frightened me. I had been a heavy user of alcohol and drugs since my teens,

but had always felt that I had a grip, and since I had always managed to put a

roof over my head and food on the table, I guess I had it together enough to

suit me at that time. Anyway, my boss sent me to the EAP and they sent me into

a treatment facility. The part that I find interesting in hindsight is that I

had managed to stay drug free for 3 days or so on my own before I went through

treatment. That was never acknowledged anywhere along the line through the

whole treatment regimen. I had never been to a detox or rehab before, so I had

no history of abuse as far as they knew, and yet I was immediately channeled

into a program. In treatment, they tried to channel me into a 6-12 month half-

way house as well, but I managed to have the good sense to put my foot down on

that one. Nonetheless, I did come out of treatment pretty well indoctrinated

to 12 step recovery, and I became more of a 12 step clone as time went on for

a long while. I am amazed at those that so easily recognized the 12 steps for

what they are so quickly as you did. Personally, I figure if someone wants

that type of regimen, then OK---but it should not be forced on anyone.....and

I agree that many are channeled into 12 step recovery(for reasons such as your

story) and are counted among their " success " statistics that never really had

an alcohol problem to begin with.

It is stories such as this in concert with some of 's remarks that affect

my attitudes on the political nature of " alcoholism. "

Thanks,

Bette

------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 7, 1998

Jerry Trowbridge wrote:

>

> > When one quotes studies that either look at the success rate of AA for

> > people who are forced, coerced, or even referred to AA, and then lumps

> > all of the " other " into _no treatment whatsoever_, AA is going to look

> > poor.

> >

> I'm not familiar with the studies, and whether the coerced

> people were drug tested, but if this is the case it would

> seem a very strong incentive to abstain. FPG on addict-l

> asserted that coerced treatment working is evidence that XA

> was working. What he fails to take into account is that

> those coerced into treatment (and I suspect those used for

> the studies he cited) are often attending as a condition of

> parole, probation, or employment and that such people must

> pass drug tests as a condition of their freedom or income.

> Given this, and providing that such studies have no randomly

> assigned control and treatment groups, one would expect

> those exposed to XA to do better.

>

> >

> > Addictive behavior is a problem in this society, and people wind up in

> > trouble for abusing all kinds of things, so when you argue that _no

> > treatment_ is better than any treatment, it has a really hollow sound.

>

> >

> A lot of people do not have health insurance and a lot of

> insurance will only pay for 12-step programs.

> >

> > I just keep coming back to the obvious. People change

> > their lives

> > through abstinence, and they use AA as a support system to

> > do that,

> > and we know they do from studies that prove they stay

> > sober.

> >

> > So trying to argue that " nothing " is better than AA begs

> > the question.

> > The very data used to prove that AA is not as effective as

> > another

> > category of recovery proves that some people find success

> > with AA.

>

> Jim Yelverton

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I related in previous posts, I was required to participate in 9 months

of outpatient " treatment " and 5 AA meetings a week following a single " positive "

(it's being disputed) Breathalyzer at work. I never had any job performance

problems, health problems, or absenteeism. I took complete responsibility for

having foolishly consumed alcohol at an inappropriate time and decided that I

would NEVER do so again. However, the " treatment " people (all proud AA members

eager to " carry the message " ) repeatedly told me it wasn't my fault that I drank

beer with lunch, that " the disease " made me do it, and that nobody can state

with certainty that they'll never drink irresponsibly again, since the

(incurable!) " disease " can make ANYONE " relapse " , whenever it wants! Had I

swallowed this hogwash, I would have been directly harmed by AA ideology. I

continued to maintain that I was not an " alcoholic " (even brought in letters

attesting to this from M.D., psychologist, and my own supervisors) but was told

by my agency's EAP that I would not be allowed to return to work until I

accepted that I had a " disease " and started to " actively participate in

treatment " (i.e. pretend to believe in the necessity of " meetings " , that I have

" triggers " that will make me drink against my will, and other things that I know

to be false). This plunged me into a deep depression, and yes, I would say that

12-step, disease concept ideology HARMED me! Sure, the EAP asshole is a control

freak and doesn't get his orders or his power from AA, but if the ideology

wasn't there and wasn't accepted by America-at-large as legitimate, he couldn't

use it to harm people this way.

Of course, random body fluid testing was required in the program (the only

legitimate part of it, IMO). By the time I was released I had been tested 107

times (all negative, of course). They were still calling me " diseased " though,

and the final kicker is that they counted me as a success statistic: " You're

sober today. This proves our program helped you! "

Jerry, I hope this illustrates to you the fallacy in asserting that if

someone is sober after exposure to AA or 12-step treatment, it means AA helped

them or that they couldn't have become sober without it. Actively discouraging

people from acknowledging misbehavior and from taking personal responsibility

(and credit) for correcting it is, IMO, inherently harmful.

~RRRita

-----

See the original message at /list/12-step-free/?start=1060

------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 7, 1998

Jim worte:

" Most

social workers; marriage, family, and child counselor's;

psychologists; and psychiatrists are convinced that the only

thing that has been shown to work is XA. It is unfortunate,

because it feeds into the XA's denomination (*) of people

who

fail to make it in the program. "

(*) I presume you meant 'demonisation'!?

this is a funny typo, because I repeatedly make the

opposite one, typing " Demoniation " instead of

" denomination " .

P.

----------

Pete Watts

PERSONALITY-DISORDERS SUPPORT LIST:

http://rdz.acor.org/athenaeum/lists.phtml?personality-disorders

------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 7, 1998

>I am sure that there probably are such cases, but the systematic

>indoctrination stories far exceed them. I just don't hear about a lot of

>people that find XA recovery through any means I would call

>attraction......XAs have been advertising and proselytizing for a long time

>now, IMO.

Very true, for a whole variety of reasons.

I probably should have been more specific, but I did, indeed, mean

pure " attraction rather than promotion. " This doesn't mean hospitals

that lock you up and provide an AA meeting.This doesn't mean judges

who decide, often on the basis of 12-steppers unofficial claims of

success, that since AA appears to be a machine that turns

alcohol-related offenders into teetotalers, that you just force your

convicted into AA's funnel. This doesn't mean jails that will let you

have a 12-step meeting but not a rave party.

This means people who seek out AA because THEY believe they have a

proble, and have a pretty good idea of what they're going to find, and

GO ANYWAY!

AA is screwing with its own success rate, (and let's measure that as

people who keep on going to meetings--to steer clear of the " what is

an alcoholic and what is recovery debates), by encouraging all these

people to be sent in the front door who don't want to be there, don't

think they need to be there, and can't wait to get out.

I went to AA because I had a problem with alcohol, and abstinence

solved that problem. It didn't solve it nearly as well as it could be

solved, and if I had been forced in the front door, it wouldn't have

solved it at all, and I would have been at least as mad as many of you

are.

----------------

Jerry Trowbridge

------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 7, 1998

Through connections with the Rockefeller clique, AA was already forcing its

ideas on mental hospital patients by 1939 (NY Rockland State Hospital).

Bill had been pushing his Oxford Group theories about " alcoholism " at Towns

Hospital in Manhattan even earlier, again with Rockefeller backing.

Remember, there was no " AA " at this time. Bill broke with Buchman in 1937

in New York City, but he had only three or four followers. They broke away

from the Oxford Groups because the Rockefeller people told them this was a

condition of getting financial support, and Bill was angling for money to

start a chain of treatment centers. In Akron, Dr. Bob et al stayed in the

Oxford Groups until late 1939, and many individual AAs stayed with Buchman

years longer, attending both sets of meetings. Remember that some of the

Oxford Groups in the 30s were using Mein Kampf as a " recovery manual, " and

the whole movement was pro-fascist in orientation. The movement spread

into the federal prison system by the early 1940s, where it was pushed on

prisoners by enthusiastic wardens. In my hometown, Milwaukee, AA was born

in the 1940s as the result of an enthusiastic local judge, who suspended

sentences for people who went to meetings. The judge trumpeted AA in the

local newspaper, claiming that social problems could be eliminated if

people were forced to attend 12-step meetings. Today, the 12-Step Movement

is merely the Oxford Groups revived. Temporarily, AA went 'low profile'

because its extreme right-wing ideas were out of touch during the liberal

heyday. The rich never gave up on it, tho, as a " cure " for democracy and

liberalism. AA focused upon alcohol problems - or at least claimed to - as

a defensive measure. And AA claimed to be disinterested in politics,

because liberals ruled in the political forum. But that was a long time

ago, long before Betty Ford, Reagan, and the war on drugs. Today's

12-step movement is full-blown Buchmanism. Buchman focused on " all

compulsions, " and especially upon sex. He wanted the rich to force these

ideas on the poor, who he saw as too stupid and weak to accept them freely.

Bill W. says in AA Comes of Age that the AA program comes " straight from

the Oxford Groups and directly from Sam Shoemaker, their former leader in

America, and nowhere else. " (p. 39) If you go to THE OXFORD GROUP

CONNECTION, at alt.recovery.aa, you will note how AAs today brag about

their origin in the Oxford Groups. 12-Step treatment pros have published

books extolling Buchman. (eg, The Oxford Group and Alcoholics Anonymous,

by Dick B.; or AA: The Way it Began, by Bill Pittman). It helps to read a

bit about the Great Depression in America to understand. Mussolini and

even Hitler were widely admired in this country, and there was a very big

pro-fascist following amongst the wealthy, especially in Akron (a city with

a violent labor-business conflict - guess which side Bill was on). All

over America, the pro-fascist movement was led by self-proclaimed

" Christians, " many ordained ministers. Some, like the radio priest Father

Coughlin and the Rev. N. D. Buchman, openly praised Hitler. (We

aren't quite to the same level of crisis today, but the extreme right,

again, is led by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Rev. Pat on, etc. Even

today's neo-Nazi movement is headed by so-called " Christian " ministers).

Buchman's opponents saw clearly what he was up to. For example, The

Christian Century, a mainstream, liberal Protestant publication, said in an

editorial in 1936, " Thus as plainly as it could be done Buchman

points to fascism as the way out of our social difficulties. " When the war

started, it was no longer possible to praise fascism overtly. So, AA - a

tone down version of Buchmanism was born. But the basic fascist ideas were

never rejected. America was at war, after all, with Germany and Japan.

The battle was for world dominance, and NOT against fascism. After the

war, with the unexpected prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s, fascism laid

dormant in AA for awhile. But these ideas were always attractive to the

rich and powerful. They have always distrusted democracy, and distained

the common people. Now we are in worldwide economic crisis, and the

fascist seed of Buchmanism, latent for years within AA, has bloomed again.

The basic idea remains as it was: the rich are to be the powerful " higher

powers, " the average man and women are to be indoctrinated, to be made

" powerless. " Buchman, who was brought up in a German-speaking family in

the Pennsylvania Dutch country, called this totalitarian philosophical idea

by its German label: the fuhrerprinzip. ----------

> From: Betche2@...

> To: 12-step-free@...

> Subject: Re: People and dependence

> Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 10:24 PM

>

> In a message dated 12/7/1998 10:31:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> jtlist@... writes:

>

> > Discouraging people from taking responsibility for their own actions

> > may be wrong, but people have a right to be wrong. When the state does

> > it, that's another matter, but that doesn't reflect on AA's efficacy

> > among people who got there the " good old fashioned way. "

> >

> > --Jerry Trowbridge

>

> I am curious as to just what the " good old fashioned way " is. I don't

know

> much in particular about AA because I was never involved in it, but I do

know

> that NA, at least here where I live, spends a great deal of time and

> effort(and has for years and yuears) cultivating relationships with

treatment

> facilities, prison systems and other institutions with two separate

> subcommittees devoting all their efforts to this task.

>

> Most people that I have known, that were not mandated to attend NA to

satisfy

> a state agency such as a probation officer or Dept. of Soc Services, were

> convinced by some form of professional service that 12 step recovery was

> necessary......or you are told that you need to go into a treatment

facility

> where you are then systematically convinced that you know nothing about

what

> is best for you and then turned over to 12 step recovery. I know of very

few

> people that came into NA because they heard about it from a friend, or

saw a

> member in their family doing so much better so that they were attracted

to it.

> I am sure that there probably are such cases, but the systematic

> indoctrination stories far exceed them. I just don't hear about a lot of

> people that find XA recovery through any means I would call

> attraction......XAs have been advertising and proselytizing for a long

time

> now, IMO.

>

> Bette

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Great gifts for the Holidays or birthdays or anyday for that matter

> Bugs Life action game, Thanksgiving Pooh, Disney videos, toys and CD-ROMs

> http://ads./click/145/3

>

December 7, 1998

This is getting tedious, I know, but it needs to be repeated each time

Jerry gives misinformation, as new surfers may happen in: there is NO good

scientific evidence that AA helps people recover from drinking problems.

People who aren't exposed to AA become abstinent at statistical rates equal

to or better than the rates of those who are exposed to AA. AA does appeal

to a small percentage of persons who come into contact with it, some of

whom have had drinking problems, others of whom haven't, but join AA

anyway. These persons tend to measure higher than controls on

psychological tests for authoritarianism. AA, for them, offers a " cure "

for their need to be involved in a right-wing social movement. These are

the people Jerry. They do extoll AA, and Jerry has uncritically accepted

their endorsement as evidence of AA's treatment efficacy, apparently

without reading the " outcome " literature. The enthusiasm is real enough,

but the supposed treatment effectiveness is entirely spurious. You can

compare it to astrology enthusiasts, UFO abducteees, or other spurious

" health " cults. People believe in it - but that does not mean it is real,

or that it works. Some people believe magnets can cure cancer. Finally,

AA's crazy emphasis on " alcohol " as a mystical concept seems to PROMOTE

" slipping, " and AA's who do drink seem to have worse lapses than non-AA

persons at a similar stage in dealing with their alcohol difficulties.

And, of course, many people suffer terrible iatrogenic psychological stress

from forced AA treatment. These tend to be the people on the other side of

the coin - those who do NOT have authoritarian personality styles, as

measured, for example, by the F scale on the MMPI. Jerry seems to believe

that if he repeats the big lie over and over ( " It Works! " ) that eventually

we will give up and concede the point. I won't. The evidence is all to

the contrary. And, for me, it is the evidence that counts, not Jerry's

attraction to authoritarian dogma.

----------

>

> To: 12-step-freeegroups

> Subject: Re: People and dependence

> Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 8:45 PM

>

> On 7 Dec 1998 16:57:33 -0000, " Railroad Rita "

> wrote:

>

> > Jerry, I hope this illustrates to you the fallacy in asserting that if

someone

> >is sober after exposure to AA or 12-step treatment, it means AA helped

them

> >or that they couldn't have become sober without it. Actively

discouraging people

> >from acknowledging misbehavior and from taking personal responsibility

(and credit)

> >for correcting it is, IMO, inherently harmful.

>

> I am asserting that AA has a success rate higher than zero. I am

> asserting that the very studies quoted on this list to attempt to

> prove that AA is not one bit effective do not prove that at all, nor

> were they designed to measure AA's effectiveness for its existing

> members.

>

> I am not an advocate for AA, but I am also not willing to engage in

> the kind of intellectual dishonesty that appears to have free rein

> around here because we all hate AA so much that we'll do anything or

> advance any argument to trash it.

>

> I am not asserting that people forced into any treatment program have

> outcomes that are higher than not forcing them into a treatment

> modality, and that goes for the programs we like around here, as well

> as the ones we don't.

>

> I am asserting that the best way to counter AA is with reason, and

> with the admission that AA does work for some of the people who choose

> it. As another poster on here mentioned, this fact is obvious to

> anyone who has ever met a 12-stepper.

>

> To deny this requires such an arcane argumentum ad absurdum that it

> effaces any credibility we'd have to point out AA's very real

> problems, and the very real inapplicability of AA's methodology

> outside of the percentage of the population that has the pre-existing

> religious and social beliefs to underpin it.

>

> Discouraging people from taking responsibility for their own actions

> may be wrong, but people have a right to be wrong. When the state does

> it, that's another matter, but that doesn't reflect on AA's efficacy

> among people who got there the " good old fashioned way. "

>

> --Jerry Trowbridge

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Don't lose your email when you move, change jobs, or switch ISP's.

> Click here to get free and permanent email from NET@DDRESS!

> http://ads./click/154/0

>

December 7, 1998

> (parody)

Hahahah! Oh, God, this is hilarious! Are you

sure you aren't DryDrunk from arf12s? Hey--

you oughta post this on arf12s. Wait, never mind.

Better not. Though I think you'd appreciate the

works of Nestique on araa. Look him up in

Dejanews sometime--he does terrific dark humor

recovery stories. He's pretty windy though.

I like your newstory format.

Now--when am I getting my true Horror Story?

>

> Gathering in Billville

>

> Billville, OH. AP. Today millions converged on a spot seen by many to be the

> Twelve-Step Holy Land, Billville, OH. While some were regular visitors to the

> home of Bill W -- a shrine and Mecca of sorts to " Anonymous Group " members,

> most gathered for the annual " Billapalooza " concert, where the band Serenity

> is starting its Cliche Tour. Among the crowd, Twelve Steppers talked dreamily

> of their addictions to drugs, alcohol, sex, food,

> television, computers, lack of food, work, lack of work, other people, and an

> infinite number of other people, places or things. The official sponsor of

> this even is a group called MOM, " Maniacs of the Movement, " which seeks world

> 12 step domination. Says MOM founder Nannie Coercion, " Twelve Step theology

> can, and WILL, be applied to anything and everything. The populace is sick

> and MUST surrender to my way of life. We have infiltrated the

> nations court system and the treatment industry, and WE SHALL coerce at will.

> Those who disagree are in DENIAL. " Among Nannie's other ideas:

>

> Nightly News in a 12-step format.

> 12-Slice Pizzas.

> 12-Step Obedience Treatment for compulsively drug-sniffing dogs.

> 12-Step Oriented children's programming

>

> Of the latter idea, Nannie became almost fanatic. " Who cares about English!, "

> Nannie scoffed. " Most good 12-steppers are illiterate anyway. Conjunction

> Junction, " HA! How about this, " Dysfunction Junction, what's your function?

> Pickin' up addicts and maken' 'em 12 step... "

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

December 8, 1998

>This is getting tedious, I know, but it needs to be repeated each time

>Jerry gives misinformation, as new surfers may happen in: there is NO good

>scientific evidence that AA helps people recover from drinking problems.

>People who aren't exposed to AA become abstinent at statistical rates equal

>to or better than the rates of those who are exposed to AA. AA does appeal

>to a small percentage of persons who come into contact with it, some of

>whom have had drinking problems, others of whom haven't, but join AA

>anyway.

It is extremely tedious, because in attemping to perform this great

public service for that poor surfer who happens to wander in here and

might be terribly misled by my postings, you contradict your own

statement in your first two sentences.

I have never said AA is better than anything else, in fact its worse,

but I have not tried to use this to prove that AA is ineffectual.

I had a logic professor who propounded the theory that if someone was

provably correct 70% of the time, it didn't matter by what method they

came to their decisions. This was very hard for me to accept.

The fact is, I don't give a damn that most AAers are right wing, or

that AA's dogma is authoritarian when it comes to ascertaining its

effectivess. It is one of the big reasons I am no longer there, but I

am not going to decide other people's politics for them.

I am going to stand by your statement that the percentage of AA's

effectiveness may be equal to the effectiveness of people who are not

exposed to AA (and therefore chose other methods to confront their

problems).

You just can't hide the problems in your own arguments, but I have

grown tired of pointing them out, so I'll just let them fall by

themselves, and you therefore can benefit from that " constant

repetition " you extoll (and have practiced on your own behalf far

better than I have).

I am quite amused, however, by the strong possibility that a

percentage of those who were not exposed to AA, confronted what they

or others believed to be a problem, through unscientific methods such

as spiritual healers, shamans, or spiritualists.

This would really find you arguing out of both sides of your mouth...

----------------

Jerry Trowbridge

------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 8, 1998

Jerry:

When you say that AA is effective for some people, I am not sure what you mean.

If you simply mean that some people do go to AA and do stop drinking, I think

everyone can acknowledge that, but how do you know it was the causative factor?

Many people (parolees, probationers and licensed professionals) are subject to

random drug tests. That can be a pretty powerful motivation. There are other

powerful motivators that may be sufficient without AA, such as hanging on to a

job or keeping a marriage intact. And what about Rita's story? As she

correctly pointed out, AA can claim her as a " success. "

Even though it is a stretch, however, let us assume that the 5% of people who

are new to the program and remain in AA at the end of it are not monitored, do

not have other motivators and are not incorrectly diagnosed. If that is true (if

my reasoning is correct, tho I stand ready to be corrected) then AA is less

effective than the placebo effect. (Maybe Pete can help me out here.)

In any event, if fewer people are helped by AA than recover on their own, this

seems to be evidence that AA is more harmful than it is helpful. Despite its

" effectiveness " for this small hypothetical group of people, it should be

banned, because the harm it does outweighs the good.

I don't think that logic is the issue here. I think that statistics and

probability theory are the issue.

---

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

|\ z _,,,---,,_

/,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

>

>>This is getting tedious, I know, but it needs to be repeated each time

>>Jerry gives misinformation, as new surfers may happen in: there is NO =

>good

>>scientific evidence that AA helps people recover from drinking problems.=

>=20

>>People who aren't exposed to AA become abstinent at statistical rates =

>equal

>>to or better than the rates of those who are exposed to AA. AA does =

>appeal

>>to a small percentage of persons who come into contact with it, some of

>>whom have had drinking problems, others of whom haven't, but join AA

>>anyway.=20

>

>It is extremely tedious, because in attemping to perform this great

>public service for that poor surfer who happens to wander in here and

>might be terribly misled by my postings, you contradict your own

>statement in your first two sentences.

>

>I have never said AA is better than anything else, in fact its worse,

>but I have not tried to use this to prove that AA is ineffectual.=20

>

>I had a logic professor who propounded the theory that if someone was

>provably correct 70% of the time, it didn't matter by what method they

>came to their decisions. This was very hard for me to accept.=20

>

>The fact is, I don't give a damn that most AAers are right wing, or

>that AA's dogma is authoritarian when it comes to ascertaining its

>effectivess. It is one of the big reasons I am no longer there, but I

>am not going to decide other people's politics for them.

>

>I am going to stand by your statement that the percentage of AA's

>effectiveness may be equal to the effectiveness of people who are not

>exposed to AA (and therefore chose other methods to confront their

>problems).=20

>

>You just can't hide the problems in your own arguments, but I have

>grown tired of pointing them out, so I'll just let them fall by

>themselves, and you therefore can benefit from that " constant

>repetition " you extoll (and have practiced on your own behalf far

>better than I have).

>

>I am quite amused, however, by the strong possibility that a

>percentage of those who were not exposed to AA, confronted what they

>or others believed to be a problem, through unscientific methods such

>as spiritual healers, shamans, or spiritualists.

>

>This would really find you arguing out of both sides of your mouth...

>----------------

>Jerry Trowbridge

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

December 8, 1998

True believers like Jerry can't be argued with. These pro-12-steppers just

" know " the system works, because the " higher power " tells them so. Some of

the rest of us like evidence. Tests of AA have been performed over and

over again, evaluating AA versus " no treatment. " No treatment is as good

or better than AA, as Peele (1989) and many others have observed. Some

people believe wearing amulets can protect you against witches. Using his

" logic, " Jerry could " prove " that this is an effective technique. That is,

magnet-wearers get " bewitched " just as seldom as those who seek other means

of " protections. " Hence, in his true-believer mysticism, he could

pronounce magnets " effective against witchcraft for some people. " I sneeze

often. Does that keeps wild elephants away from my house? I guess Jerry

would think so. After all, I am not bothered by wild elephants any more

frequently than are those people who use " no protection " against elephants.

This kind of idiotic nonsense does not deserve serious debate, but it is

typical of 12-Step " reasoning. " Jerry, like other pro-12-steppers, is too

lazy to read the outcome literature, too arrogant and/or stupid to master

basic research design, and too narcissistic to ever consider that his dumb

ideas might just be his dumb ideas. This is the " Betty Ford " school of

scholarship, where the dumber and more idiotic you are, and the more loudly

you repreat the mantra, the more " certain " you are that you know the truth.

It becomes a bit like arguing with Koresh. These people just KNOW

they are right. Evidence, for them, is totally irrelevant.

----------

To: PAULDIENER@...

Cc: 12-step-freeegroups

Subject: Re: Re: People and dependence

Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 7:55 AM

>This is getting tedious, I know, but it needs to be repeated each time

>Jerry gives misinformation, as new surfers may happen in: there is NO good

>scientific evidence that AA helps people recover from drinking problems.

>People who aren't exposed to AA become abstinent at statistical rates

equal

>to or better than the rates of those who are exposed to AA. AA does

appeal