Agent Orange, what an appropriate name.....a caustic defoliant....in this
case you seek to strip away an outlet for people that have run out of them.
Not sure if you are a disgruntled "statistic" that didn't engage the program
or an advocate of some other methodology (rational recovery, moderation,
etc.). Regardless, there are a few points requiring mention:
1. In 3 successive semesters of graduate statistics, I was constantly
reminded that statistical sampling and survey design is every bit as
important (if not more) as the interpretation and summarization of data.
Statistics can be made to prove ANYTHING (e.g., I could even prove that you
are not braindead). My guess, (and forgive me if you are a world class
statistician), is that in your haste to malign the efficacy of the AA
program, you did a good bit of copying/pasting. Bear in mind that a
hypothesis is typically formulated PRIOR TO the actual research. Many times,
sampling and survey design is skewed miserably in order to validate less
than capable "scientists" careers while "proving" faulty hypotheses.
2. Assuming every single data point cited is accurate and the research
designs were ALL perfect, is AA still a detriment to all of the poor
unfortunates that have expended all other resources, programs, etc. Even if
it AA were directly killing some people (as you basically allege), how long
would they live stumbling along roadsides as many do, living under bridges,
doing the drugs that very often go hand-in-hand with booze? For some
"fortunates", AA comes along before they have destroyed too many lives but
for others it is the last stop on the tracks. I am a "fortunate" but MANY
speakers I have listened too arrived at AA as a last stop on the tracks
before death (and not a moment too soon).
3. AA's are required to make an investment. Not an investment in a drug with
only a 5% rate of success as in your FDA analogy, but in themselves.
Regardless of what alternative is suggested (and AA is not the only program
that can help people), the addict must take ownership of their addiction and
embrace their recovery. That is all AA asks. I am not an old-timer in the
program and do not claim to speak for anyone but myself. If I do not take
ownership of my addicition and actively seek to embrace a program of
recovery (AA in my case), I WILL return to my old ways.
My question to you: Can you suggest a more effective program than AA that
will not possibly kill me? Is there something you can share with the "poor
misguided" AA's reading this NG that will help them recover while staying
out of the grasps of AA. Seriously, please share your/any alternative. If
you cannot, I can only assume that you have no value to add to ANY recovery
group and only seek to vent your frustrations or harm those in recovery.
Cheers,
-Cartman
"Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:8e728989.0306261111.790e8f5f@posting.google.c om...
> "rosie readandpost" <readandpost@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<UIBKa.155879$jT4.2766595@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > "pauly" <paul.youles@REMOVETHISvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:mOqKa.2420$wb2.1798@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > > it does seem rosie, if you take this at face value, that getting no
> > > treatment is better than using any 12 step model.
> >
> >
> > NO treatment?
> > we were discussing what was, to date, the most successful treatment.
> >
> > (remember though, that all the statistics gathered and just that,
statistics!)
>
> No, it is not the most successful treatment program.
> It is one of the worst. Read the file.
> http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html
>
> And while you may choose to laugh at statistics, I began that file
> with this quote, which is still quite true:
>
> 'After all, facts are facts, and although we may
> quote one to another with a chuckle the words of
> the Wise Statesman, "Lies - damn lies - and statistics,"
> still there are some easy figures the simplest must
> understand, and the astutest cannot wriggle out of.'
> Leonard Henry Courtney, the British economist and
> politician (1832-1918), later Lord Courtney,
> New York, August 1895.
>
> A zero percent success rate, for instance, is a zero
> percent success rate. Undeniably, a program with such
> a low success rate cannot be the most successful
> program in the world.
>
> And while you are claiming that A.A. is the most successful
> program, please supply some hard numbers -- yes, statistics --
> to back up that claim. In your opinion, exactly what
> success rate does A.A. have?
>
> Bill Wilson's claims in the Big Book of "Rarely have we
> seen a person fail..." are obviously untrue.
> So are his claims that 50% recovered. That was false.
> See:
> http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-ef...l#Bob_memorial
>
> So just what success rate do you claim for A.A.?
>
> * agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
> * AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
> * http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
> * Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
> * that even was Shroedinger's cat. I think *
> * he might have used somebody else's cat..." *