Side effects of AA
There are a lot of mixed feelings here but I really like beatle's last post. I can't go back in time 75 years and see what AA was like when it was first founded but I have a feeling that it was much different and how its evolved in that time has been for the worst. This is just my guess.
It seems as though the folks of AA put Bill Wilson on this pedistal and regard him as being 'the one that knew all' and 'AA is the only way' where in reality it doesn't seem as though it was really intended to be like that at all. Quite the contrary. This was a man that scooped bums out of the Bellevue and the Bowery and put a roof over there head no matter what walk of life they came from. I don't see anywhere in the literature from the past where he didn't have an open mind about anything that could work and you also have to take into consideration that this was at a time when medications like we have today didn't exist and at that time 'that was all they had'. When I was in my third inpatient (12 step) a while back I thought it was interesting when a religious AA member with some time of sobriety under his belt came to speak and brought up statistics comparing AA in its earlier years having a way higher success rate than today (something like 90% vs 8% from what I can remember). My guess is that this must have to do with the way the program has evolved. But then again, where do these stats really come from? In my experience almost everyone in AA relapses whether it be 3 months of sobriety or 30 yrs and baclofen has not been around long enough to measure a success rate imho. If you ran the low stats rate of AA by a member of AA they will get up in arms and come back by saying things like 'what stats'? or 'AA is an anonymous program, there are no stats', blah, blah, blah... who knows... but I bet Bill Wilson would have given it consideration just like he got really into herbal remedies toward the end of his sobriety before he relapsed and met his demise. Something not one AA member knows about. He 'did' eventually succumb.
Quite simply, I have found that the debate about AA vs other forms of treatment goes absolutely nowhere and is a waste of time. No need to fight a losing battle on both fronts. With that being said, it probably seems odd that I am writing such a lengthy post here but I feel that I may have stirred up a great deal of contoversy with a thread that I started not too long ago about a horror story I had. My intentions were not to bash baclofen although that's definitely how it came across and I regreted doing so afterward. I am still taking a low dose right now but think I might scrap the whole thing due to anxiety and insomnia that is unreal. According to Dr. L as of 2 weeks ago, he has treated 300 people with baclofen and 297 were a success so, we are dealing with a large enough population where it is safe to make the conjecture that baclofen has a 99% success rate so far. I am very sadenned to maybe have to come to terms with the fact that I may be of the 1% of the population that has to come up with yet another plan being that my alcoholism exceeds that of any of the other experiences I have ever heard about. I'll have to see what Dr. L says though.
I was told that it wasn't that AA didn't work but its that I didn't work. TSM kept landing me back in emergency rooms. I increased my dose gradually on baclofen going up to 400mgs/ a day trying to find the switch, felt like a dog on rabies, relapsed cuz I couldn't take it anymore and was put in a medically induced coma for nine days where I was brought back from flatlining 3 times. So I really don't know what works and what doesn't work anymore but I'm all tapped out from it... one thing I do know for sure is that alcohol has completely ruined my life. I went from living the life of a Wall Street baller to food stamps and homeless shelters and its devistating and sad. maybe that's why this thread caught my attention.
There are a lot of mixed feelings here but I really like beatle's last post. I can't go back in time 75 years and see what AA was like when it was first founded but I have a feeling that it was much different and how its evolved in that time has been for the worst. This is just my guess.
It seems as though the folks of AA put Bill Wilson on this pedistal and regard him as being 'the one that knew all' and 'AA is the only way' where in reality it doesn't seem as though it was really intended to be like that at all. Quite the contrary. This was a man that scooped bums out of the Bellevue and the Bowery and put a roof over there head no matter what walk of life they came from. I don't see anywhere in the literature from the past where he didn't have an open mind about anything that could work and you also have to take into consideration that this was at a time when medications like we have today didn't exist and at that time 'that was all they had'. When I was in my third inpatient (12 step) a while back I thought it was interesting when a religious AA member with some time of sobriety under his belt came to speak and brought up statistics comparing AA in its earlier years having a way higher success rate than today (something like 90% vs 8% from what I can remember). My guess is that this must have to do with the way the program has evolved. But then again, where do these stats really come from? In my experience almost everyone in AA relapses whether it be 3 months of sobriety or 30 yrs and baclofen has not been around long enough to measure a success rate imho. If you ran the low stats rate of AA by a member of AA they will get up in arms and come back by saying things like 'what stats'? or 'AA is an anonymous program, there are no stats', blah, blah, blah... who knows... but I bet Bill Wilson would have given it consideration just like he got really into herbal remedies toward the end of his sobriety before he relapsed and met his demise. Something not one AA member knows about. He 'did' eventually succumb.
Quite simply, I have found that the debate about AA vs other forms of treatment goes absolutely nowhere and is a waste of time. No need to fight a losing battle on both fronts. With that being said, it probably seems odd that I am writing such a lengthy post here but I feel that I may have stirred up a great deal of contoversy with a thread that I started not too long ago about a horror story I had. My intentions were not to bash baclofen although that's definitely how it came across and I regreted doing so afterward. I am still taking a low dose right now but think I might scrap the whole thing due to anxiety and insomnia that is unreal. According to Dr. L as of 2 weeks ago, he has treated 300 people with baclofen and 297 were a success so, we are dealing with a large enough population where it is safe to make the conjecture that baclofen has a 99% success rate so far. I am very sadenned to maybe have to come to terms with the fact that I may be of the 1% of the population that has to come up with yet another plan being that my alcoholism exceeds that of any of the other experiences I have ever heard about. I'll have to see what Dr. L says though.
I was told that it wasn't that AA didn't work but its that I didn't work. TSM kept landing me back in emergency rooms. I increased my dose gradually on baclofen going up to 400mgs/ a day trying to find the switch, felt like a dog on rabies, relapsed cuz I couldn't take it anymore and was put in a medically induced coma for nine days where I was brought back from flatlining 3 times. So I really don't know what works and what doesn't work anymore but I'm all tapped out from it... one thing I do know for sure is that alcohol has completely ruined my life. I went from living the life of a Wall Street baller to food stamps and homeless shelters and its devistating and sad. maybe that's why this thread caught my attention.
Comment