A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?

sopretty

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Standing on your head reciting the US constitution backwards is as good a solution as the AA given the numbers.

But if you want a proper solution go to a psychiatrist (sp?) who has expertise in the area. Ask your GP.

If you had bothered to read any of my posts, you would know that I attend a psychiatrist (the addiction consultant for this region). In fact it was him who told me that people who attend AA generally do better!

Brian Shanahan

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

This argument has come up a few times now: It will never provide statistics for the simple reason that the AA know that their "solution" doesn't work, and any figures will show their lack of effectiveness.

Fixed your post. And yes this sentence does make sense unlike yours. Figuring out the number of people who are no longer alcaholics is pretty easy if you are really interested in doing so.

For example you just go back to those who enrolled, do a properly random sample take bloods from everybody in each of the sample groups to find who's off the drink and who's not (and other things like what help they get in addition to AA, their general cirucumstances &c in order to help your analysis) and from those groups you can do a proper statistical analysis of the data and come up with a pretty good figure for how effective the AA is, or how much of an effect the AA has if its part of a multi-disciplinary approach.

This kind of stuff is being done all the time for physical and mental illnesses, its part of the approval requirements for medical treatments around the world as is.

So don't go around telling us it can't be done when it is already being done for alcaholism treatment drugs.

Brian Shanahan

sopretty wrote: »

If you had bothered to read any of my posts, you would know that I attend a psychiatrist (the addiction consultant for this region). In fact it was him who told me that people who attend AA generally do better!

Ask him for evidence and watch him squirm trying to duck out of having to provide some for you. And if he says he doesn't have to give it to you run for the hills. Because all the evidence says that my treatment plan is as good as the AAs.

Though to be honest, I'd run from him right now, because any medical professional willing to give you advice without any backing evidence is as bad as a homeopath or a a "faith healer".

sopretty

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Ask him for evidence and watch him squirm trying to duck out of having to provide some for you. And if he says he doesn't have to give it to you run for the hills. Because all the evidence says that my treatment plan is as good as the AAs.

Though to be honest, I'd run from him right now, because any medical professional willing to give you advice without any backing evidence is as bad as a homeopath or a a "faith healer".

Lol - specialist doctors/counsellors/psychiatrists have been unable to find a solution for years.

So - on the one hand you're telling me to go to a psychiatrist. I tell you I'm attending one with years of experience specifically in the speciality of addiction, and now you're telling me he's some sort of 'faith healer'.

Your 'arguments' (and I use that term loosely!!) are becoming increasingly ridiculous.

Waking-Dreams

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Fixed your post. And yes this sentence does make sense unlike yours.

That wasn't my sentence. I was putting it in bold to highlight it and then the rest of the text underneath it points out why that statement doesn't hold water. Maybe I didn't make that clear.

rwg

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Standing on your head reciting the US constitution backwards is as good a solution as the AA given the numbers.

But if you want a proper solution go to a psychiatrist (sp?) who has expertise in the area. Ask your GP.

Do you have the figures for those who have effectively recovered from alcoholism by standing on their head and reciting the constitution?

Or are you just talking sh1te?

mathepac

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

If it can’t be accused of ineffectiveness by measurement then, by the same token, it can’t be accused of effectiveness either (yet that’s what people are doing) because, as you say, it doesn’t gather and analyse data.

Bit of a self-contradicting argument put forward there.

Not at all, your post is arrant nonsense. Like other would-be critics and detractors, your post shows clearly you don't understand AA as an organisation or its philosophy.

Who appointed you (or anyone else) an AA / 12-step effectiveness inspector? As a non-member, if that's what you are, what AA does or does not do is none of your business. Unless and until you develop a drinking problem and I sincerely hope you don't, then just jog on, there's nothing there for you.

AA is a free, (meetings, soft-copy literature, etc.) voluntary organisation, and each local group is run independently by its members for its members and anyone who wants to can join AA / NA / GA for free, provided they want to stop drinking / drugging / gambling / etc - the solitary requirement for membership.

Members of any local AA / NA / GA group owe you no allegiance, they don't ask for your money, they don't take your money or anyone else's, they neither want nor need your help (and haven't for the last 80 or so years) so why do you think you can butt in on their business?

So why not start by educating yourself about AA before posting any more nonsense; I've already provided links to all the information you need and all there is to know.

Amazingfun

sopretty wrote: »

Nozzferratthoo - the thing about AA is, that every single member has walked in those doors, beaten, broken and hopeless. When you hear anyone doing a chair (basically telling their story/experience of addiction and recovery), particularly the old timers, you will generally hear statements about their first encounters of AA, where God might have been mentioned during the meetings, where they said to themselves 'Jaysus - is this the Moonies or what?' 'Oh FFS, this lot must be <insert name of any random religion here>' or 'This is a bloomin' cult - get me out of here!'
Alcoholics in addiction are possibly the most irreligious bunch you could come across.
I would say these days that a vast majority of members have struggled with the spiritual aspect. There is no need to force that. Most of the long-timers I know just stayed sober a day at a time, and the rest fell into place eventually.

Bill (I think?) had gotten sober and had his spiritual experience. But then he found himself craving a drink! Again! So, he got the notion he'd try to find another alcoholic who needed help. He found one (was it Bob?), chatted to him, and stayed sober. He got through the craving (if you have never experienced a craving or compulsion, the significance of that will be lost on you probably - but it's like every cell in your body, including the particularly vocal cells in your brain are SCREAMING AT YOU TO JUST HAVE A DRINK!!!)

That is how AA grew organically. Speaking with other alcoholics kept them sober.

AA is not a group of psychiatrists/psychologists/medics/quacks 'marketing' their way. AA is a group of cynical, skeptical, previously desperate drunks, who have managed to stay sober. There are no dues or fees in AA. It is entirely self supporting and non-profitable.

The book suggests a programme of recovery (a list of steps which helped the first 100 people to get and stay sober).

The 12 traditions of AA are extremely important to AA. It's quite the miracle when you think of it. Millions of raging alcos managing to keep manners on themselves

For me, in the early days there were two things that I found great concepts. The first one was to go in and listen and look for similarities in what people were saying, rather than differences, to my own story. I really didn't have to try too hard
And secondly, the concept of 'a day at a time'.

So, basically, while I'm not endorsing nor defending AA, I'm just trying to explain a bit more about it to anyone interested. Some members are hilarious, some are serious, some are religious (no higher rate than any cross section of our society), some are as mad as a box of frogs, but while I don't like all of them, I have a heck of a lot in common with them! The vast majority of them are gifted story-tellers too lol.

I've been in AA for many, many years, and this is just about the best description of it I've ever seen, lol. I'm impressed

Waking-Dreams

mathepac wrote: »

Not at all, your post is arrant nonsense. Like other would-be critics and detractors, your post shows clearly you don't understand AA as an organisation or its philosophy.

Who appointed you (or anyone else) an AA / 12-step effectiveness inspector? As a non-member, if that's what you are, what AA does or does not do is none of your business. Unless and until you develop a drinking problem and I sincerely hope you don't, then just jog on, there's nothing there for you.

AA is a free, (meetings, soft-copy literature, etc.) voluntary organisation, and each local group is run independently by its members for its members and anyone who wants to can join AA / NA / GA for free, provided they want to stop drinking / drugging / gambling / etc - the solitary requirement for membership.

Members of any local AA / NA / GA group owe you no allegiance, they don't ask for your money, they don't take your money or anyone else's, they neither want nor need your help (and haven't for the last 80 or so years) so why do you think you can butt in on their business?

So why not start by educating yourself about AA before posting any more nonsense; I've already provided links to all the information you need and all there is to know.

Again, you didn’t address the point. Why not? I think it’s because you know that by claiming AA is effective for many individuals while trying to assert that it can never be measured is about as contradictory as it gets.

In short, your response is more or less saying: “Who the heck do you think you are questioning AA? It’s none of your damn business. It’s voluntary and non-profit. Go read up more and come back when you have nice things to say”.

Sacred cows indeed.

You freely admit that AA is not evidence-based and it never will be. Fine. Therefore, it is faith-based (faith meaning belief in the absence of evidence). And that’s why it merits critical discussion on this forum. You can provide all the links you want for us to read in order to come around to your point of view but this does not change the fact that it is a faith-based programme.

I don’t think any more needs to be said.

sopretty

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Again, you didn’t address the point. Why not? I think it’s because you know that by claiming AA is effective for many individuals while trying to assert that it can never be measured is about as contradictory as it gets.

In short, your response is more or less saying: “Who the heck do you think you are questioning AA? It’s none of your damn business. It’s voluntary and non-profit. Go read up more and come back when you have nice things to say”.

Sacred cows indeed.

You freely admit that AA is not evidence-based and it never will be. Fine. Therefore, it is faith-based (faith meaning belief in the absence of evidence). And that’s why it merits critical discussion on this forum. You can provide all the links you want for us to read in order to come around to your point of view but this does not change the fact that it is a faith-based programme.

I don’t think any more needs to be said.

Arguably then, any medical intervention undertaken/agreed to by a patient is somewhat faith-based!
When you put your trust in someone or something else - be it individual or institution, you are making a 'faith-based' decision.
If you decide to undergo a medical procedure/treatment which has a 1% or 5% or even 20% success rate (say for e.g. in terms of cancer treatment), are you believing in some sort of quackery? Are you putting your 'faith' in something a bit random? Or are you simply taking the decision to avail of the best treatment available to you?

mathepac

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

... In short, your response is more or less saying: “Who the heck do you think you are questioning AA? It’s none of your damn business. It’s voluntary and non-profit. Go read up more and come back when you have nice things to say” ...

Sorry if the longer version was too much to digest, but you almost got it right. You were doing fine up to here "... Go read up more ..." I don't care if you come back or not, but if you follow my suggestions your posts might display better insight than heretofore. I'm sure AA members don't care a fig one way or the other.

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

... Sacred cows indeed....

I cooked and ate some lovely cow today for lunch with my family. I don't think it was a sacred one though.

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

... You freely admit that AA is not evidence-based and it never will be. ...

I didn't make that statement or anything even approximating it.

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

... Therefore, it is faith-based (faith meaning belief in the absence of evidence). And that’s why it merits critical discussion on this forum. ...

So what if its Marsbar-based or Mars-based. If you are not a member it's none of your business how AA groups conduct their affairs. Has the notion sunk in yet? You're apparently a non-member, so butt out, mind your own business, get on with your busy life. The AA groups will get on with theirs without the help of a non-AA oversight committee.

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

... And that’s why it merits critical discussion on this forum. ...

You're like the uninvited viewing guests at a dinner-party from outside, passing critical comments on a bunch of people inside whom you don't know and they in turn couldn't care less about your uninformed opinions.

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

... You can provide all the links you want for us to read in order to come around to your point of view but this does not change the fact that it is a faith-based programme. ...

Gee, now your hurting me. After all the pretence at rationality, you'd still like to continue a discussion about an organisation you clearly know zip about. Are you "running on faith" to quote Eric Clapton?

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

... I don’t think any more needs to be said.

Great- I look forward to a long-lasting silence from you on the matter.

sopretty

mathepac wrote: »

Sorry if the longer version was too much to digest, but you almost got it right. You were doing fine up to here "... Go read up more ..." I don't care if you come back or not, but if you follow my suggestions your posts might display better insight than heretofore. I'm sure AA members don't care a fig one way or the other.
I cooked and ate some lovely cow today for lunch with my family. I don't think it was a sacred one though.
I didn't make that statement or anything even approximating it.
So what if its Marsbar-based or Mars-based. If you are not a member it's none of your business how AA groups conduct their affairs. Has the notion sunk in yet? You're apparently a non-member, so butt out, mind your own business, get on with your busy life. The AA groups will get on with theirs without the help of a non-AA oversight committee.
You're like the uninvited viewing guests at a dinner-party from outside, passing critical comments on a bunch of people inside we couldn't care less about your uninformed opinions.
Gee, now your hurting me. After all the pretence at rationality, you'd still like to continue a discussion about an organisation you clearly know zip about. Are you "running on faith" to quote Eric Clapton?
Great- I look forward to a long-lasting silence from you on the matter.

Lol - good post. Spoken like only one of my own could speak.

I always remind myself when blue in the face trying to explain alcoholism or anything related to it indeed! of a lovely old member's 'take' on trying to explain alcoholism to a non-alcoholic. In his words - 'it's like trying to teach a dog to appreciate Beethoven'. Then he'd chuckle to himself and go on to explain (when no further explanation was needed), that 'you know - you can't teach a dog to appreciate Beethoven - could you imagine trying haha - and you can't teach someone who's not alcoholic about what it's like either'

roosh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet the 12 steps themselves impart an understanding to you. Not one of your own devising. They refer not just to "god" but directly to attributes and capabilities of this god.

It sounds good on paper to say that it is all down to your own opinion and understanding but how true is this in reality, across the board?

It is a lot like the Burka argument to me. The pro argument there says that women in certain communities are free to wear it or not as they choose. That sounds great on paper. But in reality a woman in a society where all the other women are wearing it... where to not wear it would cause her to stand out and even be ostracised or suspected..... does she REALLY have a choice anywhere BUT on paper?

Similarly if you go to a religiously dominated meetup of this type are you REALLY free to espouse your own understanding of this "higher power" or are you going to keep wearing your mental burka and just go about what the others are doing?

And that's just "normal" healthy people. Here we are talking about people who have issues, addictions, will power problems, vulnerability and more. Are they going to be strong enough to break the mold?

So this peer pressure.... coupled with the actual text of the 12 steps..... leaves me unable to buy into the "Of your own understanding mantra". No matter how many times you might repeat it, or type it in all caps.

It is kind of difficult to talk in hypotheticals if there is no prior experience.

On the one hand you talk about "the actual text of the 12 steps" but on the other seem to ignore what "the actual text" states i.e. "as we understood him". Also, the idea of peer pressure within meetings, I think, is born more out of a preconception of the meetings, rather than an appreciation for the number and diversity of meetings. That's not to say that normal social dynamics won't apply to AA/NA groups but that doesn't necessarily mean that it manifests in peer pressure to adhere to a certain conceptualisation of "God".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

t would be interesting to know what you read then because AAs own figures.... such as they release and people can actually get to read..... suggest their success rate is in the order of 5% which is coincidentally around the same success rate as if you had done nothing at all.

It was in another thread on here, from what I can remember; someone posted some articles I think.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Of course there is. There is also some very practical things in even the most nonsense of new age dietry routines such as the cayenne pepper diet. That is the insidious nature of fraudsters and charlatans. They do not just espouse or sell 100% nonsense. No, they wrap their own brand of nonsense around a small core of genuinely useful and practical things.

What people do then notice a benefit ascribe that benefit to whatever program.... be it AA or cayenne pepper or vitamin pills.... it was they signed up for when in fact the program itself had nothing to do with it.... just the core useful parts that exist in ALL such programs.

At the very very core of it, AA is just a social mutual support group. And social mutual support groups are a GOOD thing. It is the woo, damaging claims and agendas and other nonsense built up AROUND that useful core that makes the package being sold.... and the package that people object to.

I might be ignorant to the agendas and other nonsense built up around the core, but AA is essentially a mutual support group with a set of steps that aims to rehabilitate. I might also be ignorant to the damaging claims, but from my experience the only claims that are made are that if the steps are followed then sobriety can be achieved and maintaned.

The woo you are referring to, I imagine, can only be to do with the idea of "God". But as mentioned, the actual text of the steps says "power greater than ourselves" and "God as we understood him". If your understanding of a higher power and "God" is simply the universe coupled with evolution then you will not be ostracised from any meetings, even if you openly express this.

If your understanding is that through evolution we have evolved into a species where self-examination and making amends to people can have a transformative effect on the mind, as well as the understanding that the practice of meditation can have a transformative effect on the mind, then I don't think there is a lot of woo in there and you will feel no pressure from the group to change your understanding - it might even help people develop a better understanding for themselves.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed. Since there is no real regulatory body around AA, people are free to set up any kind of meeting they want.... keeping or ditching as much of the tenets and claims of AA as they want..... and still stick "AA" on the door. But is it still AA then? Putting "AA" on the door does not make it "AA". So if people are setting up meetings that are "AA" in name only then why even use the name? I guess because it is a marketing success and a household name, so use of "AA" automatically sells your group rather than you having to establish your own group in the awareness of your target market yourself.

But it worries me that people can set up any kind of meeting they want without any kind of regulatory body. Imagine oncologists did this for example, simply setting up any practice and keeping or ditching whatever "best practice" guidelines they subjectively please themselves with.

At the end of the day we are treating a condition here and those purporting to treat it should at least be answerable to some iterativly improved best practice guidelines and regulatory body. Otherwise even those with the best intentions in the world, who set up such groups, could end up doing more harm than good.

Are there best practices for treating addiction? I'm not entirely sure that there are. AA started bcos there were no best practices for treating addiction. It was started by individuals who found a way to get sober themselves and then spread that to others who were afflicted by addiction. Starting a private oncology practice and starting a support group for addicts I believe are quite far apart, that the analogy doesn't really apply. If a group was started that actively harmed it's members, or encouraged them to harm themselves then there would be a major issue, but as you said, if this was done under the guise of AA then it wouldn't really, in practice, be AA, even if it had AA on the door. To my knowledge I've never heard of an incidence of such a thing, but if such was to happen then it would certainly be cause for concern and I'm sure AA would probably consider it a very serious issue and take measures to prevent such a thing.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I agree. And what should make people comfortable is a group with a program that is clear and regulated. That publishes not only their success figures but how they were compiles. Can show that such figures and studies are fed back into the system to improve it by iterations. And that adherence to this established "best practice" is assured and regulated.

THAT would make me comfortable if I were seeking such a group. Alas I am personally unaware of what groups, if any, in Ireland adhere to such standards. Someone else more in the know than me will have to enlighten us on this one I am afraid.

AA is subject to the laws of the land as any voluntary support group would be. If the government decides to regulate such voluntary support groups with imposition of rules such as "best practice guidelines" then AA will have to adhere to those. Also, research into the efficacy of treatment programs will often come from outside the programs themselves.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I agree. One of our users around here gives free guided meditation sessions to groups to students of one of the Irish colleges. He talks often however of how his group evolved from just students to people suffering from addiction, anger issues and more. In fact he purports to have an ordained priest and a trainee priest among his regulars. He says, anecdotally at least, that meditation has clearly helped his addiction members. I laud him for his generosity of spirit and his personal time to give so freely to such people for no reason at all.

On the subject of counselling. There has been studies showing that self help meetup groups of this sort work best when done in CONJUCTION with professional counselling. If however you go back to the original AA documents related to AA, guess what? Yes, you guessed it. They recommend strongly that AA be used EXCLUSIVELY and professional counselling be avoided.

One of the many examples of how AA not only fails to help people, but actively and positively espouses notions that HARMS those people by cajoling or admonishing them into avoiding things that actually will help them.

I'm not familiar with where that is stated in the literature and I know of many, many AA members who combine both.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Often it is yes. But not exclusively. So by wary of painting too wide a brush stroke. Sometimes Addiction IS the problem. Sometimes as you say Addiction is only the symptom of a problem. The trick, on a case by case basis, is to figure out which it is.

Using the term "addiction" is painting with broad brush strokes, because addiction encompasses more than just the act of drinking or using. Someone who drinks is not necessarily alcoholic, so it isn't the act of drinking that makes someone alcoholic. It is the excessive drinking and the adverse effects it has on their life which qualifies them as "alcoholic". Simply stopping drinking will not necessarily address the underlying issues which lead to the person drinking alcoholically. Often times people will replace one addictive behaviour for another e.g. alcohol for drugs, or over eating. Simply addressing the symptom, in this case, doesn't address the cause.

I'd be fairly confident that this would be how addiction is viewed by nearly all treatment programs.

Amazingfun

nozzferrahhtoo says:

On the subject of counselling. There has been studies showing that self help meetup groups of this sort work best when done in CONJUCTION with professional counselling. If however you go back to the original AA documents related to AA, guess what? Yes, you guessed it. They recommend strongly that AA be used EXCLUSIVELY and professional counselling be avoided.

Care to cite where you got this from?

My guess is you made it up

nozzferrahhtoo

roosh wrote: »

On the one hand you talk about "the actual text of the 12 steps" but on the other seem to ignore what "the actual text" states i.e. "as we understood him".

I directly commented on this. How is directly commenting on something "ignoring" it. You appear to have a unique definition of "ignore". The very fact it uses the word "him" already imparts an implicit understanding of this "god". The very word itself already carries meanings and implications. And this is not unique within the 12 steps at all. Other attributes are directly implied for what this "god" is and does.

The description of this "god" one sees when reading the 12 steps is a very clearly theistic one. You might on paper claim people can understand it whatever way they want.... and it sounds good on paper I am sure..... but it does not change the fact that the interpretation the actual 12 steps makes is very clearly theistic in nature.

roosh wrote: »

The woo you are referring to, I imagine, can only be to do with the idea of "God".

It includes that but is not limited to that by far. I have explained at length on the thread what my issues are, not just in the post(s) replying to you. I can only suggest you go read them all before replying as otherwise I just have to repeat what I have already said, which will just bore any users who have actually been following the thread.

One big example though is the idea of telling people they are powerless over alcohol. I find that to be as baseless as it is misleading and dangerous.

roosh wrote: »

Are there best practices for treating addiction? I'm not entirely sure that there are.

There are, but they are off topic to the thread any my point. As my point is, regardless of whether there already are or not, our goal should be to establish them. And continuously improve them iteratively over time. That is my point regardless of whether there actually is or is not CURRENTLY such a thing.

roosh wrote: »

If a group was started that actively harmed it's members, or encouraged them to harm themselves then there would be a major issue

Which is _exactly_ why people like myself want to see the research being done. To find out IF over all it is actively harming people. There are genuine reasons for suspecting this is possible and therefore it is the responsible thing to do to go in and find out.

nozzferrahhtoo

sopretty wrote: »

Ah here - this has gone beyond ridiculous at this stage! Good luck!

Not sure what luck has to do with the points I have been making. If you want to specifically discuss any of them I am here for you. But just throwing out words like "Ridiculous" and then running for the hills is not really helping.

sopretty wrote: »

You all seem to want facts and figures. The only fact available is that NO facts, figures, statistics will ever be made available by AA.

And that is not a good thing. At all. It calls their methods and methodology and efficacy under question. If people running AA really did genuinely want to help people.... then it would be in their interest to bring the modern methodologies of epidemiology and statistical analysis to bear.

If however they simply want to maintain a cult and get bums on seats, clearly they will not want to engage in common best practice guidelines and transparency.

sopretty wrote: »

I personally would never want to satisfy some nosey parker's interest in my sobriety. It is a very personal and difficult journey . I am no statistic, nor do I wish to be.

Except you are, like it or not. We all are. And it is nothing to do with "nosey parkerism" as you falsely throw out. It has everything to do with wanting as a society to research and implement best practice guidelines on how to best treat people who have a genuine problem that needs to be addressed, rather than taking an irresponsible, harmful, gung ho approach for no reason other than some people are emotionally invested in the idea.

sopretty wrote: »

Why are you so interested in statistics?

Because information, correctly collated and interpreted, really does save lives. In the medical field having the correct data is genuinely the single best tool we could have, ask for, or implement. We are invested in statistics and epidemiology because it actually does work, has been shown to work, and there are examples abound of how lack of information has literally caused deaths.

sopretty wrote: »

It's not medical or otherwise. It will never provide statistics for the simple reason that it's not really measurable.

I in no way agree. It is measurable. Perhaps since you do not know all that much about statistics, statistical analysis, or epidemiology you simply do not know the methods that are out there. But we have honed and refined such methodologies over a long period of time.

sopretty wrote: »

It is also worth noting that a lot of suicides are by alcoholics (anecdotally of course). I've been diagnosed as being alcohol dependent. That's nice.

And we of course wish you luck in your battle and every success in your goals. It is a genuine problem and the issue here is that people like me want to implement methodologies.... that we know from many fields actually do work..... to find and roll out a common best practice treatment program. Just like we do for every other medical and psychological condition.

We want to look at the problem, find out what genuinely helps people that have that problem, and roll that out. What your issue is with us wanting something like that is really opaque to me I am afraid.

sopretty wrote: »

If you had bothered to read any of my posts, you would know that I attend a psychiatrist (the addiction consultant for this region). In fact it was him who told me that people who attend AA generally do better!

This is something of an "appeal to authority" here. Just because he is a psychiatrist his OPINION on the matter is no more valid. He would still have to back up his claim with actual evidence.

This is why we have the practices of epidemiology. So the personal impressions and opinions and biases of doctors "on the ground" do not color the data set. We do not implement best practice policies, or roll out new drugs, based on the personal impression of a single doctor.

nozzferrahhtoo

celticcrash wrote: »

Yes, 2 ears and 2 eyes. 67 meetings in Limerick alone. (in one week)

Anecdote is not evidence.

Nor is a profundity of meetings a measure of the success or efficacy of those meetings. 67 meetings in a week or 670 meeting in a week.... does not make a difference..... this is not a measure of their effectiveness.

celticcrash wrote: »

You disregard and disrespect what we are saying, because you read ONE book. (one book)

False. My issues with what is being said is that anecdote is not evidence. The success figures of AA are horricically small. Many of the things they teach in their core literature positively harmful. And it is all an apparent attempt to sell religion to the already vulnerable.

I have explained, in other words, my issues with AA at great length. So I do not need you ignoring that and inventing issues I have not expressed and then acting like I did.

Keep your words out of my mouth, I have more than enough of my own.

celticcrash wrote: »

It just shows that you are dogmatic in your narrow views. I know some fanatical religious people who are more broad minded than you and thats coming from an atheist.

Baseless ad hominem adds nothing to the conversation from you, and just makes your posts look ugly.

Can you rebut what I am actually saying or are you just going to call me names?

celticcrash wrote: »

We know AA works.

Except no we do not. If we "knew" this we would not having this conversation at all. How do we "know" it in your view? Alas it appears you are simply making it up, or at best making a "faith claim" here.

celticcrash wrote: »

Theres people on here who are not satisfied with this number.

Why would we be? Exactly what do you think the number is saying?

celticcrash wrote: »

They want the scientists to come and measure the members soberity. And maybe have the Government in there to regulate the unruly drunks.

Who is "they"? I see no "they" on this thread espousing the things you are saying here. Misrepresent much?

What "They" on this thread (including me) want is research into best practice methods of treating a very real and concerning condition people have. The same way we do with any other medical or psychologoical issue.

"They" simply want to ask "Does AA actually work/help, if so how much, if not then how damaging is it?"

And I certainly do not apologise for that.

celticcrash wrote: »

Knocking something that can save peoples lives is very dangerous.

As is promoting something that does not save lives. As is implementing ad hoc cures that do nothing and do not follow any kinds of best practice guidelines. Lots of things are dangerous, the whole point of the research I suggest is that we identify which is which.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ivaniayo wrote: »

AA does not work in every case, no one is claiming that.

Nor is anyone rebutting that or acting like anyone did claim it. "Not every case" is a real dilution of the actual issue. The figures that we do have, which are few, suggest it does not work in 95% of cases. A lot more serious that "not every case" I feel, no?

mathepac wrote: »

Where in AA literature do you imagine you came across that gem of dis-information?

I was referring to a claim made in a story that I linked to earlier. Please go back and read my posts before actually replying to them, thank you.

mathepac wrote: »

AA locally and at a global level participates willingly, but only by invitation. They carry a message of hope and recovery and nothing else.

So does homeopathy, often at the price of people not taking actual treatment in favor of it. Promising false hope is not a good thing. You make it sound like you are suggesting it is. I do not care what the PURPORT to offer. I care what they ACTUALLY delivery.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think your second last paragraph is both needless and insensitive considering the issue at hand. I'd think better of you if you were to remove it and put it down to a momentary lapse of judgement caused by the insults targeted at yourself.

That paragraph is suggesting that throwing out invective and insult rather than addressing anything I was actually saying is likely a bad thing and not worth engaging in. It does not further the conversation, and it just looks ugly. So I think I stand by the paragraph. I shall "take it under advicement" as Captain Picard used to say

rwg wrote: »

Do you have the figures for those who have effectively recovered from alcoholism by standing on their head and reciting the constitution?

Or are you just talking sh1te?

The point he is making is that no matter what policy you implement, we statistically expect a minimum success rate anyway. That rate is about 5%. So if you got people to recide the constitution backwards you will expect to get a 5% success rate.

This is simply a statistical fact we are used to. There is always a minimum bar of success due to things like conditioning, confirmation bias, return to the mean, placebo and so forth.

mathepac wrote: »

As a non-member, if that's what you are, what AA does or does not do is none of your business.

Of course it is our business. We can not have a society where people throw out ad hoc cures to the conditions of genuinely needy and vulnerable people. It is dangerous and it is irresponsible. It is our business _ as a society_ to research and implement best policy treatment of all conditions, and speak against those who.... while their heart may be in the right place.... lead people astray from genuine treatment in favor of their own thrown together ones.

Be it snake oil sales men or faith healers or whatever.... we can not have people effectively practicing medicine willy nilly.

mathepac wrote: »

so why do you think you can butt in on their business?

Why would you think we should not would simply be my answer. You are protecting it like a religion. Doing the verbal equivalent of screaming "Blasphemy" at anyone who even suggests it would be the responsible thing to do to stop and say "Ok lets ask is this program genuinely helping people or harming them over all".

Amazingfun wrote: »

My guess is you made it up

Thats what guessing will do for you. As I said already I was referring here to a claim made in an article I references, cited and linked to. Please do keep up, thanks.

mathepac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... I was referring to a claim made in a story that I linked to earlier. Please go back and read my posts before actually replying to them ...

I have read your posts, mostly with amusement and incredulity. The article you referred to was a literature review - an article commenting on other articles, at several removes from AA materials, none of which are even cited.

IIRC your source is famous for its articles and favourable reviews of “perpetual motion machines”.

I have asked you a number of times to substantiate your erroneous and outlandish claims from AA material. You have failed to do this, relying on the old "well this single article said it so it must be true" hearsay argument.

Please substantiate your claims from AA literature. I challenge you to either put up or shut up.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... So does homeopathy, ...

AA does not offer its members medications in liquid, tablet or any other form and its programme of suggested work is descriptive, not prescriptive, so comparisons with homeopathy are just more ridiculous nonsense.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... Promising false hope is not a good thing. You make it sound like you are suggesting it is. ...

I never suggested AA offered false hope, and never came remotely close to suggesting that false hope was good.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... I do not care what the PURPORT to offer. I care what they ACTUALLY delivery. ..

You don’t KNOW what an AA group purports to offer or what it actually delivers; you rely on a single third-party commentary on other commentaries to attempt to substantiate your consequently unfounded allegations.

Amazingfun

As I said already I was referring here to a claim made in an article I references, cited and linked to. Please do keep up, thanks.

You what?
You're referring to a "claim made in an article" you "references"??. Then it certainly wasn't located in the "literature" you said it was in! I am indeed keeping up with your imaginary claims then, thanks

gaynorvader

sopretty wrote: »

Also - just to add - there are two more questions!

What time limit do you set while measuring the efficacy of a treatment? 3 months? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? Till death do us part?

All of them. The question is not just "was this successful?" but "how successful was this?".

sopretty wrote: »

and.....

How do you measure the quality of the recovery? If a fella hasn't touched a drop in 7 years, but has attempted suicide 3 times during that period, is that treatment/lack of treatment, to be considered effective?
Or, if you've a woman who gave it up because social workers were on her case, who is now addicted to valium, is she considered recovered? Was her treatment/lack of treatment effective?
What about the fella who is happy as Larry for three months and who then goes on a massive bender and ends up in jail for being drunk and disorderly, was his treatment or lack of it effective?

These are just some of the reasons why I am stating that recovery rates through various treatments isn't really measurable.

In the first case the treatment was effective at stopping his addiction, but he should be seeking help for his suicidal tendencies.
In the second case the treatment was ineffective at tackling her substance abuse.
In the third case the treatment was effective only for 3 months. Either the course needs to be longer or needs to have some kind of after care check in type system.


Again I see people saying that AA has nothing to do with religion. Again I feel obliged to point out that this is irrefutably false. Anything that requires you to believe in a higher power is a religion. It might not be any established religion, but it is still a religion. It is also irrefutable that the AA helps some people and that it doesn't help all people through its doors.
Nozz is right he/she says that we need to look at improving AA, in the same way that we should always be looking at improving any treatment whether it works or not. Dirty needles worked for stitching most of the time until we found out that sterilised ones were better for example.
I also think that some people are just not suited for AA, so alternate treatments need to be looked into anyway.

sopretty

gaynorvader wrote: »

All of them. The question is not just "was this successful?" but "how successful was this?".



In the first case the treatment was effective at stopping his addiction, but he should be seeking help for his suicidal tendencies.
In the second case the treatment was ineffective at tackling her substance abuse.
In the third case the treatment was effective only for 3 months. Either the course needs to be longer or needs to have some kind of after care check in type system.


Again I see people saying that AA has nothing to do with religion. Again I feel obliged to point out that this is irrefutably false. Anything that requires you to believe in a higher power is a religion. It might not be any established religion, but it is still a religion. It is also irrefutable that the AA helps some people and that it doesn't help all people through its doors.
Nozz is right he/she says that we need to look at improving AA, in the same way that we should always be looking at improving any treatment whether it works or not. Dirty needles worked for stitching most of the time until we found out that sterilised ones were better for example.
I also think that some people are just not suited for AA, so alternate treatments need to be looked into anyway.

Ok, so how would you go about compiling statistics on those three cases?

You're going to have to compile several different 'measures of efficacy'.
A: Length of sobriety
B: Evidence of depression during sobriety
C: Instances of suicide attempts during sobriety
Addiction to other substances.
E: Criminal behaviour during sobriety or relapse

Plus then - how are you going to cross reference them to see what type of treatment(s) each had undergone plus cross reference the incidences of A,B,C,D,E within each patient.

Now, multiply that by 1,000 different patients. You're not really going to come up with any interpretable data as far as I'm concerned!
Maybe you could - please enlighten me as to how you would go about it though!

Amazingfun

Nozz is right he/she says that we need to look at improving AA,

LOL! You are not a member of AA, how on earth would you imagine you have any say in "improving" AA. This thread is hilarious.

gaynorvader

sopretty wrote: »

Ok, so how would you go about compiling statistics on those three cases?

I'm not a statistician, but here goes.

sopretty wrote: »

You're going to have to compile several different 'measures of efficacy'.
A: Length of sobriety

This is probably the easiest. You either have follow up care or even just survey people and ask them if they've ever been to AA, if they drank afterwards, if they went back, if they tried other things, etc, etc.

sopretty wrote: »

B: Evidence of depression during sobriety

Not even relevant to whether it works or not tbh.

sopretty wrote: »

C: Instances of suicide attempts during sobriety

Again, it can work and cause suicide attempts, but it'd still work.

sopretty wrote: »

Addiction to other substances.

Again follow up care and/or surveys. Even finding people with substance abuse and seeing if they previously attended AA for alcohol abuse.

sopretty wrote: »

E: Criminal behaviour during sobriety or relapse

Again, the treatment would still be successful. But you could ask criminals if they had ever attended AA.

sopretty wrote: »

Plus then - how are you going to cross reference them to see what type of treatment(s) each had undergone plus cross reference the incidences of A,B,C,D,E within each patient.

Now, multiply that by 1,000 different patients. You're not really going to come up with any interpretable data as far as I'm concerned!
Maybe you could - please enlighten me as to how you would go about it though!

It's the same as any data gathering for anything. I don't know why you think AA should be special or different to any other form of treatment.

Amazingfun wrote: »

LOL! You are not a member of AA, how on earth would you imagine you have any say in "improving" AA. This thread is hilarious.

I do know a few people that have attended, but even if I didn't I'd be in a better position to see flaws in AA than someone who attended. It's easier to observe a system from the outside.
For any of you saying AA is absolutely bulletproof and in no way ever fails anyone who goes to it ever. I'll be the first to call you a liar and a charlatan. I personally know people whom it has failed. I also personally know people for whom it has worked. But any treatment can be improved on. It's hilarious and quite telling that you think AA is an exception.

sopretty

Gaynorvader - you're looking at this way too simplistically!

That you would state that a treatment had worked, by a simple measure of the fact that someone hadn't drank for a period of time, is unreal.
So, someone quits, is depressed, miserable, anxious, suicidal and then takes their own life (while sober), you say that treatment WORKED?
"Right - well - I know you're dead and all now - but hey - at least you didn't drink! See! You can rest in peace now, content that your treatment worked."

Ah, bless.

Nobody said AA works for everyone. That simply is not true. It is simply a programme which is in place, which you choose to attend and participate in - or not. It is simply an option that's out there. (Personally I think the US system of ordering someone to attend AA is ridiculous if it is true - and would actually go against AA traditions, as it is meant to be a programme of attraction, rather than promotion - i.e. participation should never be forced, or even promoted or 'marketed' in any way).
I'm sure there are several other alternative programmes out there. You could try and pick apart the programme of AA as it stands, and 'improve' it or 'alter' as much as your heart desires to and plonk a different name on it and off you go. Everyone is welcome to do that if they so wish. But it wouldn't be AA.

gaynorvader

sopretty wrote: »

Gaynorvader - you're looking at this way too simplistically!

That you would state that a treatment had worked, by a simple measure of the fact that someone hadn't drank for a period of time, is unreal.
So, someone quits, is depressed, miserable, anxious, suicidal and then takes their own life (while sober), you say that treatment WORKED?
"Right - well - I know you're dead and all now - but hey - at least you didn't drink! See! You can rest in peace now, content that your treatment worked."

Ah, bless.

{...}

So chemotherapy never treats cancer because it causes hair loss, lowers your immune system and can cause depression?
The things you listed are side effects. They certainly should be monitored and collated if at all possible, but they don't mean that the treatment hasn't worked.

sopretty

gaynorvader wrote: »

So chemotherapy never treats cancer because it causes hair loss, lowers your immune system and can cause depression?
The things you listed are side effects. They certainly should be monitored and collated if at all possible, but they don't mean that the treatment hasn't worked.

So, you'd be happy to compile a report on various alcoholism treatment options and then judge their merit, solely and utterly on the length of time a patient did not drink? Fair enough - you could do that - but it would be a bit of a useless statistic quite frankly!

gaynorvader

sopretty wrote: »

So, you'd be happy to compile a report on various alcoholism treatment options and then judge their merit, solely and utterly on the length of time a patient did not drink? Fair enough - you could do that - but it would be a bit of a useless statistic quite frankly!

Ah their merit as opposed to whether they work or not. No, if I were attempting to judge merit, possible side effects and cost would have to come into it.

nozzferrahhtoo

mathepac wrote: »

I have asked you a number of times to substantiate your erroneous and outlandish claims from AA material.

I told you already the source of my complaint. If you do not like the source thats not my issue. The points I am making still remain unchallenged, even addressed, that ad hoc well meant attempts to cure genuine conditions without any research, reference to best practices, or any kind of statistical or epidemiological examination.... is as dangerous as it is irresponsible.

Sitting around being dismissive by pretending to be amused, will not change this point. Addressing it might, but you have not.

mathepac wrote: »

so comparisons with homeopathy are just more ridiculous nonsense.

Except it is not. The comparison I made was a sound one. Which is that if people are led away from genuinely beneficial treatments by useless and ineffectual ones.... then this is a bad thing. Homeopathy is a good example of that, regardless of whether you like it or not. It is an entirely ineffectual treatment, with no basis outside placebo, that runs the risk of distracting or leading people away from real medication.

I am making the same suggestion about AA. If it has a 5% success rate, then those investing time in it are likely doing so at the risk of a better option. My call for statistical and epidemiological analysis is because we need to answer that clear question.

Now you can go around throwing out empty phrases like "unfounded allegations" or you can address these open questions and the genuine reason why they need to be asked.

Amazingfun wrote: »

I am indeed keeping up with your imaginary claims then, thanks

It would seem not no. Read my reply to the user above. All the same applies to you quite well.

Amazingfun wrote: »

LOL! You are not a member of AA, how on earth would you imagine you have any say in "improving" AA. This thread is hilarious.

How on earth would you imagine we do NOT have a say in it? It is incumbent upon us as a society to find the best treatments for the ailments that befall our fellow man. What is "hilarious" is the idea that we should not be concerned or involved in this.

There are genuine questions that need to be asked and genuine concerns about the fact they are not being asked, and what the answers will be when they are.

Brian Shanahan

rwg wrote: »

Do you have the figures for those who have effectively recovered from alcoholism by standing on their head and reciting the constitution?

Or are you just talking sh1te?

No I have the figures for people who stop drinking (ie stop being alcaholics) on their own, which turns out to be, suprise, suprise, 5%. Yeah the exact same figures that the AA have published*.

So given that my solution does nothing to change the likelihood of a person sucessfully giving up the drink, I can claim that my solution (without any tests) is as effective as the AA.

*Given that the AA have refused to publish proper figures (what they do publish is doctored numbers designed to make themselves look good without revealing how many give up drink) since 1989, that's 25 years folks, leads me to believe that their bad numbers have actually gotten worse, and they are now like the UK back to work companies worse at what they are supposed to be doing than doing nothing at all.

P.S. I'd also like to point out the massive similarity in argument and posting style (not the ellipses, blind grammar and random bolding, but the defensiveness, obnoxiousness and lack of any evidence for sweeping claims made) between the AA defenders here and JC any time we start talking about evolution.