A.A. Secrets
I have opened this thread as a result of criticism over my postings about AA.
There is a suggestion that AA recovery should be treated equally with Baclofen.
If that is the case then, just as we have been open, and chillingly honest about the side effects of Baclofen, we should also look at the side effects of going down the abstinence route of AA. Out of respect for those on the General Discussin Forum I have opened the thread here.
While I accept that AA is a good meeting place and can provide a lot of support to people, one has to be mindful of the studies that have been carried out in respect of its success rate. A lot of people mention this success figure of 5%. Of course, that is very low.
But, then there is the issue of how that figure is arrived at. I am not at all sure that figure is accurate or reliable. If anyone can find out where that figure came from I would be interested to know.
My recollection from Joan Larson's book is that the figure is not accurate in any event and that the statistics on AA recovery are actually not accurate at all.
Right, just got the book. Here we go.
Page 13: AA "keeps no statistics".
Then there is the 1962 study at p. 18 of alcoholics who used abstinence and rehab as a way of beating the illness:
After one year, 82% resumed drinking.
Of the rest, 54% were "overtly disturbed", angry, withdrawn, anxious, restless, overtly psychiatrically ill to a psychotic degree.
24% were inconspicuously inadequate: meagerness of involvement with life, no positive sense of ecitement, purpose or interest in life.
12% were deemed AA successes having acquired a sense of purpose and value in life thorough their AA membership. They remained, however, dependent on AA in their relationships.
10% were rated as independent successes, not disturbed and their success was not dependant on institutional support.
So, 1.8% fully recovered back to normal after a year and who knows how many relapsed in the second year.
Not really something that inspires confidence and maybe it is doing people a disservice on the General Forum not to be open about these "side effects" of that form of treatment, ie., abstinence. This forum is open about the risks and benefits so I think the criticism of people on the meds forum is unwarranted. If those using AA did as much research into their own method of treating this illness they would probably scare people away more than anything we here have posted.
Just a thought.
And an afterthought. I have come back to this post because I have generated a lot of antagonism here.
There is obviously a lot of bad feeling about AA and also a lot of support for it. What is wonderful about the MWO meds forum is the spirit of happiness in recovery here, precisely because Baclofen works. I have not found that feeling on the General Discussion thread but rather a sombre sense of despair. Would it not be a good thing for all of us to try to break down these barriers and accept that medical treatments, and by that I mean Baclofen, must have a part in every discussion about recovery from alcoholism.
This is what Bill Wilson would have wanted and it is quite wrong for anyone to say otherwise without having read what he himself said on the subject. He plainly envisaged a day when medicine and AA would join hands in helping to cure alcoholism.
Bill W. would have been the first person posting here. He would have loved this forum and he would have been the first to embrace Baclofen as would anyone who was truly open minded about the subject of alcoholism.
I hope by starting this thread to get people engaging in this debate and to find some way forward to spreading the word about Baclofen and its amazing power for good.
I have opened this thread as a result of criticism over my postings about AA.
There is a suggestion that AA recovery should be treated equally with Baclofen.
If that is the case then, just as we have been open, and chillingly honest about the side effects of Baclofen, we should also look at the side effects of going down the abstinence route of AA. Out of respect for those on the General Discussin Forum I have opened the thread here.
While I accept that AA is a good meeting place and can provide a lot of support to people, one has to be mindful of the studies that have been carried out in respect of its success rate. A lot of people mention this success figure of 5%. Of course, that is very low.
But, then there is the issue of how that figure is arrived at. I am not at all sure that figure is accurate or reliable. If anyone can find out where that figure came from I would be interested to know.
My recollection from Joan Larson's book is that the figure is not accurate in any event and that the statistics on AA recovery are actually not accurate at all.
Right, just got the book. Here we go.
Page 13: AA "keeps no statistics".
Then there is the 1962 study at p. 18 of alcoholics who used abstinence and rehab as a way of beating the illness:
After one year, 82% resumed drinking.
Of the rest, 54% were "overtly disturbed", angry, withdrawn, anxious, restless, overtly psychiatrically ill to a psychotic degree.
24% were inconspicuously inadequate: meagerness of involvement with life, no positive sense of ecitement, purpose or interest in life.
12% were deemed AA successes having acquired a sense of purpose and value in life thorough their AA membership. They remained, however, dependent on AA in their relationships.
10% were rated as independent successes, not disturbed and their success was not dependant on institutional support.
So, 1.8% fully recovered back to normal after a year and who knows how many relapsed in the second year.
Not really something that inspires confidence and maybe it is doing people a disservice on the General Forum not to be open about these "side effects" of that form of treatment, ie., abstinence. This forum is open about the risks and benefits so I think the criticism of people on the meds forum is unwarranted. If those using AA did as much research into their own method of treating this illness they would probably scare people away more than anything we here have posted.
Just a thought.
And an afterthought. I have come back to this post because I have generated a lot of antagonism here.
There is obviously a lot of bad feeling about AA and also a lot of support for it. What is wonderful about the MWO meds forum is the spirit of happiness in recovery here, precisely because Baclofen works. I have not found that feeling on the General Discussion thread but rather a sombre sense of despair. Would it not be a good thing for all of us to try to break down these barriers and accept that medical treatments, and by that I mean Baclofen, must have a part in every discussion about recovery from alcoholism.
This is what Bill Wilson would have wanted and it is quite wrong for anyone to say otherwise without having read what he himself said on the subject. He plainly envisaged a day when medicine and AA would join hands in helping to cure alcoholism.
Bill W. would have been the first person posting here. He would have loved this forum and he would have been the first to embrace Baclofen as would anyone who was truly open minded about the subject of alcoholism.
I hope by starting this thread to get people engaging in this debate and to find some way forward to spreading the word about Baclofen and its amazing power for good.
Comment