The key wrote:
I doubt anyone here is looking for any real help, they've already made up their minds. But as far as I'm concerned, the real key to AA and similar programs is interaction with other people who have experienced similar self-inflicted trauma. They understand in a way that no one else does or ever could. Also, you look around and get reminded how f***ed up alcoholics are and that you don't want to be like those other losers.
Perfect.
We ALL know plenty of alcoholics (not judging, just say'in) in our lives, friends, family members, celebrities,...If not a program like AA or NA, You tell me what works in getting these people sober or clean???
Lots of hot chicks in AA and especially NA
If drinking is a problem for you, find a solution. Maybe you are one of those all or nothing types. If so; stop drinking. If AA helps; do it.
Or maybe just stop blaming all the bad stuff in your life on alcohol and grow up. I really hope you are a troll, because if you are real you are just a douche.
a shocked physician wrote:
It's a cult. As a physician, I'm shocked that doctors allow such nonscientific drivel into their specialty. I would never tell a patient who comes to me for a supposed 'disease' to enroll in 12 steps. Quite a few pieces of literature have argued that AA may actually hurt more than it helps.
Sounds like you are in the minority of doctors that believe it is a disease so what do you prescribe?
I believe it is an issue of willpower and choice, but if joining a slightly loopy cult can improve their lives over other failed attempts, it is probably a good cult. Like running.
Steve on a cell in Brooklyn wrote:
Madbro wrote:I read that Peele's famous book when it came out. Truth about addiction and recovery. It's a good book. I wouldn't knock the 12 steps, but being in one of those programs however helpful they sometimes are, is not necessary to living a good life after compulsive use of drugs and compulsive behaviors that the other 12 step programs try to help modify.
I am one of those fortunate enough to have, to this point, left a life of addiction behind. Despite some shortcomings of AA which I found in my own situation, I would never criticize a program which helps in recovery for anyone. I will say that some of the ideas I got from those meetings I did and still put into practice today.
That's the bottom line. Does AA do good? Do they help struggling addicts find a path to recovery?
Think most of the critics are so blinded by their hatred of God That they can't see all the good that is done in his name. All efforts are dismissed without any objective evaluation.
subordinate wrote:
12 steps, higher power, helpless over your addition blah blah blah...it can maybe be useful as a support group...
Agreed. Support in part of a larger, more comprehensive treatment program that addresses both behavioral issues and aspects of the disease model of alcoholism.
Not all treatments work the same for all people. Finding the right combination of therapeutic modalities is part of the recovery and maintenance processes for any addiction.
This message serves as final confirmation of AA as a harmful cult. Motion passes.
a shocked physician wrote:
I should clarify: I am shocked that psychiatrists allow such non-scientific drivel into their specialty. AA and its precepts are densely interwoven throughout the addiction treatment industry as well as some non-addiction psychiatric disorders, despite the fact that AA itself is a decentralized organization.
All of the 12 steps are highly problematic and non-scientific, but the first step takes the cake for extreme illogic: you are required to admit powerlessness over your habit. Thereafter, you must submit to a higher power. This automatically coerces you to castigate yourself and deprives you of your free will. Ultimately, the concepts in AA are quite rigid and certainly not backed by science.
The last point I'd make is the broad concept of addiction as a disease. It's important to note that despite some extraordinarily destructive behaviors resulting from addiction, defining addiction as a disease and then comparing it to other diseases, like diabetes, heart disease, or cancer, is inordinately dishonest. Addiction refers to a a strongly ingrained habit that brings about incremental reward. Examples include habitual overeating, drinking too much, and even good habits like running. Most such habits engage the dopaminergic mesolimbic-prefrontal cortex pathways. Some structural changes take place in these and other brain areas with 'addiction,' but there is evidence that such changes reverse with stopping the habit. Defining destructive habits as a disease 'medicalizes' the individual and plugs him into the treatment industry, for better or worse (most rehabs are 12 steps). It is absolutely the case that some people are much better off without ever engaging some bad habits again, but for those who seek AA as a 'treatment,' they are recommended to go to as many 'meetings' as possible. Many of the 'success' stories of AA end up going to a few meetings a week for the rest of their lives - an incredible time commitment. Note that while it is extremely difficult to perform long-term statistical outcomes studies on individuals in AA due to the anonymous part, some estimates place the 'success rate' at no better than 5%.
If a patient with a melanoma on his back came to see his physician for treatment, he would almost certainly laugh if the physician told him to go to meetings and profess his powerlessness over melanoma, and that only a higher power could cure him. Currently, the psychiatric treatment industry first disingenuously calls addiction a chronic disease (and thus any patient with addiction is a lifelong addict despite abstinence), and then proceeds to 'treat' this serious disease by filling your ears with plates of asinine tripe.
George Washington died after his physicians repeatedly bled him for an epiglottitis, a serious but survivable upper respiratory infection. In Medicine today, AA is the equivalent of bloodletting.
This is the most honest assessment that I've heard. Alcohol is no more of an addiction than sugar.
And what "Scientific" advances have been made since the begin of recorded time with Alcoholism?
Yes, not one.
A.A. has saved millions of lives and it is mentioned right in it's literature that it is not for everybody and wishes them well with other methods of recovery.
fisky wrote:
Why are we attacking AA? Is this a slow week for climate change news?
Jamin is conflicted over the fact that he's an addict.
The point is to get to a point in your life where your drug of choice isn't damaging everything else. How you get there is personal. AA doesn't work for everyone. But it's cheap and more effective than other therapies.
Jimmy Bags wrote:
And what "Scientific" advances have been made since the begin of recorded time with Alcoholism?
Yes, not one.
A.A. has saved millions of lives and it is mentioned right in it's literature that it is not for everybody and wishes them well with other methods of recovery.
Actually, quite a few. I'd urge you to examine the neuroscience, neurology, psychology, and psychiatry literature. Be well.
Safe Space Odyssey wrote:
This is the most honest assessment that I've heard. Alcohol is no more of an addiction than sugar.
How many addictions to sugar require librium to assist with the potentially deadly withdrawal?
Actually, several drugs have been approved for helping with alcoholism and have been available for decades. The couple trials I've read about have said these drugs in combination with therapy sessions have been far more effective than the therapy alone. It's hard to directly compare the effectiveness of these treatments because AA isn't keeping good data about it's effectiveness (it doesn't consider itself a clinical treatment plan, so why should it?).
The reason you haven't heard of these drugs is because, unlike just about everything else produced by pharmaceutical companies, they're not widely prescribed:
"For me, the biggest issue is not whether these medicines work, it's why they're not being used more often," says addiction specialist Joseph Volpicelli, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/features/fighting-alcoholism-with-medications
I am over four years sober in AA and it's probably the best thing I've ever done. I have incredible friends from all walks of life, a deeper spiritual connection than ever, a tremendous sense of purpose, and, most importantly, I am not literally killing myself with drugs and alcohol anymore and no longer wish to escape from my life.
It's not perfect and It's not for everyone. All I do is share my experience, and my experience is that AA made an incredibly tough journey much easier and has made the good times so much better. Your experience may vary and you can do whatever you want.
stop practicing wrote:
Safe Space Odyssey wrote:This is the most honest assessment that I've heard. Alcohol is no more of an addiction than sugar.
How many addictions to sugar require librium to assist with the potentially deadly withdrawal?
His point was that they are both addicting. The precise pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and immediate consequences of use and discontinuation of use are different between substances.
I would note, however, that type 1 diabetics who enter hypoglycemic coma would take issue with your statement.
Also, there's no question that withdrawal from some drugs, especially alcohol, constitutes a serious medical condition. The chosen thought processes and behaviors that led to this becoming a habit that now has multiple real health effects, such as cirrhosis or life-threatening withdrawal, must be distinguished from the serious health conditions themselves.
Any habit taken to an extreme can lead to serious issues. Too much running? Stress fractures, hamstring tears, premature osteoarthritis with disabling pain, anovulation, hypogonadism, etc. Too much eating? Obesity, diabetes, fatty liver with cirrhosis (NASH), atherosclerosis, heart disease, vascular insufficiency, amputation, death. Worrying too much? Too much stress, hypercortisolism, decreased immunity, increased infections.
Every choice is bound to have health consequences, but the health consequences don't automatically follow, and they are a separate entity from the free will that led to them.
Walter Rudin Principles wrote:
stop practicing wrote:How many addictions to sugar require librium to assist with the potentially deadly withdrawal?
His point was that they are both addicting. The precise pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and immediate consequences of use and discontinuation of use are different between substances.
I would note, however, that type 1 diabetics who enter hypoglycemic coma would take issue with your statement.
Also, there's no question that withdrawal from some drugs, especially alcohol, constitutes a serious medical condition. The chosen thought processes and behaviors that led to this becoming a habit that now has multiple real health effects, such as cirrhosis or life-threatening withdrawal, must be distinguished from the serious health conditions themselves.
Any habit taken to an extreme can lead to serious issues. Too much running? Stress fractures, hamstring tears, premature osteoarthritis with disabling pain, anovulation, hypogonadism, etc. Too much eating? Obesity, diabetes, fatty liver with cirrhosis (NASH), atherosclerosis, heart disease, vascular insufficiency, amputation, death. Worrying too much? Too much stress, hypercortisolism, decreased immunity, increased infections.
Every choice is bound to have health consequences, but the health consequences don't automatically follow, and they are a separate entity from the free will that led to them.
All of which have nothing to do with the fact that AA or other support groups can assist with the lifestyle change that absolutely must occur for the inflicted to survive.
Whether you wish to determine it as a disease is up to you but it requires treatment no matter the path to getting there.
Absolutely. Each individual has free choice and power to determine what path to take in order to get better.
a shocked physician wrote:
The last point I'd make is the broad concept of addiction as a disease. It's important to note that despite some extraordinarily destructive behaviors resulting from addiction, defining addiction as a disease and then comparing it to other diseases, like diabetes, heart disease, or cancer, is inordinately dishonest. Addiction refers to a a strongly ingrained habit that brings about incremental reward. Examples include habitual overeating, drinking too much, and even good habits like running. Most such habits engage the dopaminergic mesolimbic-prefrontal cortex pathways. Some structural changes take place in these and other brain areas with 'addiction,' but there is evidence that such changes reverse with stopping the habit. Defining destructive habits as a disease 'medicalizes' the individual and plugs him into the treatment industry, for better or worse (most rehabs are 12 steps). It is absolutely the case that some people are much better off without ever engaging some bad habits again, but for those who seek AA as a 'treatment,' they are recommended to go to as many 'meetings' as possible.
Whatever works, buddy.
What's your success rate?
I can't speak for that individual, but there's plenty of literature on much more effective approaches with higher rates. You can do the Google and PubMed searches for you, as the process of discovering 'truth' and wading through factual data is an enlightening one. There is evidence that quitting 'cold turkey' and without ANY formal psychiatric 'treatment' has a higher success rate than AA. (The AA response to this might be that the person probably wasn't an x-oholic, although in all other instances the -oholic label is liberally applied).
Just because AA has been around for a while and has stories of 'success' does not imply it is not causing net harm (nor is it the case that some of the 'success stories' from AA wouldn't have gotten better either way with some other approach). Prevalence of an approach in Medicine or any other undertaking doesn't imply efficacy. As mentioned previously, bloodletting was used by physicians for centuries.
Today, wealthy East Asians frequently use poached rhino horns and elephant tusks for a variety of 'health reasons.' Nobody will argue that it helps with anything. Even in the US, healthy, nourished individuals frequently use vitamin C when they get a cold (!), even though the overwhelming majority is not deficient, and even if they were, the time frame of deficiency correction would far exceed the length of the common cold. Backwards practices are prevalent, and the placebo effect is strong (unless the practice causes actual harm!).
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
Official Suzhou Diamond League Discussion Thread (7-9 am ET+ Instant Reaction show at 9:05 am ET)
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
2024 Boston marathon - The first non-carbon assisted finisher ran..... 2:34
16-year-old Quincy Wilson splits 44.37 in 4x400 prelims at Penn after teammate fell on earlier leg
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year