Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<922f2cbd5fbbf06560590ced5481305c@free.terane ws.com>...
> Curious how nobody else has managed to come up with a working solution
> to the problem.

And Harry wrote:
> As far as I know, no one has yet been able to come up
> with a program that works better for most people than the AA
> program.

The constantly-repeated chant that A.A. is the best, most-successful
alcoholism treatment program in the world is just another
example of the Big Lie propaganda technique.
See:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-pr...a.html#big_lie

The simple truth is: A.A. Does Not Work. It is quack medicine.
It has failed every rigorously-controlled, fair, unbiased test to
which it has ever been put. The A.A. program is no better than
no treatment at all, and has often proven far worse than no treatment --
producing a higher death rate and a higher rate of binge drinking.
Teaching alcoholics that they are powerless over alcohol is a
terrible mistake, and it causes big problems.

See:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html


* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
* that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
* he might have used somebody else's cat..." *

no one HAS come up with a better treatment, than the 12 step model.


--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie



"Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message news:8e728989.0306251115.77f88526@posting.google.c om...
> Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<922f2cbd5fbbf06560590ced5481305c@free.terane ws.com>...
> > Curious how nobody else has managed to come up with a working solution
> > to the problem.
>
> And Harry wrote:
> > As far as I know, no one has yet been able to come up
> > with a program that works better for most people than the AA
> > program.
>
> The constantly-repeated chant that A.A. is the best, most-successful
> alcoholism treatment program in the world is just another
> example of the Big Lie propaganda technique.
> See:
> http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-pr...a.html#big_lie
>
> The simple truth is: A.A. Does Not Work. It is quack medicine.
> It has failed every rigorously-controlled, fair, unbiased test to
> which it has ever been put. The A.A. program is no better than
> no treatment at all, and has often proven far worse than no treatment --
> producing a higher death rate and a higher rate of binge drinking.
> Teaching alcoholics that they are powerless over alcohol is a
> terrible mistake, and it causes big problems.
>
> See:
> http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html
>
>
> * Agent Orange *
> * agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
> * AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
> * http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
> * Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
> * that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
> * he might have used somebody else's cat..." *

it does seem rosie, if you take this at face value, that getting no
treatment is better than using any 12 step model.
"rosie readandpost" <readandpost@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RhoKa.152148$jT4.2712414@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> no one HAS come up with a better treatment, than the 12 step model.
>
>
> --
> read and post daily, it works!
> rosie
>
>
>
> "Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:8e728989.0306251115.77f88526@posting.google.c om...
> > Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<922f2cbd5fbbf06560590ced5481305c@free.terane ws.com>...
> > > Curious how nobody else has managed to come up with a working solution
> > > to the problem.
> >
> > And Harry wrote:
> > > As far as I know, no one has yet been able to come up
> > > with a program that works better for most people than the AA
> > > program.
> >
> > The constantly-repeated chant that A.A. is the best, most-successful
> > alcoholism treatment program in the world is just another
> > example of the Big Lie propaganda technique.
> > See:
> > http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-pr...a.html#big_lie
> >
> > The simple truth is: A.A. Does Not Work. It is quack medicine.
> > It has failed every rigorously-controlled, fair, unbiased test to
> > which it has ever been put. The A.A. program is no better than
> > no treatment at all, and has often proven far worse than no treatment --
> > producing a higher death rate and a higher rate of binge drinking.
> > Teaching alcoholics that they are powerless over alcohol is a
> > terrible mistake, and it causes big problems.
> >
> > See:
> > http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html
> >
> >
> > * Agent Orange *
> > * agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
> > * AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
> > * http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
> > * Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
> > * that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
> > * he might have used somebody else's cat..." *
>
>

"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!)

it can only be taken at face value though as non of the stats are
referenced. If someone is going to use stats to back up an argument they all
need to be referenced.

"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..." *

"Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:8e728989.0306261111.790e8f5f@posting.google.c om...
>>
> Bill Wilson's claims in the Big Book of "Rarely have we
> seen a person fail..." are obviously untrue.


Obvious to whom? If you are planning on quoting passages from the BB
.....best you use the whole thing in context. You conveniently left off the
rest of the sentence which accurately quoted says "Rarely we have seen a
person fail WHO HAS THOROUGHLY FOLLOWED OUR PATH." If one sets out on a
hike on a well-marked path, they rarely get lost. Even a dipshit like
yourself should be able to understand that.



> So just what success rate do you claim for A.A.?
>


"I" only claim myself as a success. That's one fer one.

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..." *

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.


Aren't we supposed to hand that ownership over to our higher power? Your
interpretation makes more sense to me though, in that I need to take
responsibility for my own behaviour.

> 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


AMEN!
i remember learning this back in my college days, (soc.101 i believe)

rosie