Agent_Orange
10-20-2003, 01:47 PM
"Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<g1Jib.3736$Mp6.989@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> "Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
>>
>> >"JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message news:<bln5fv$pgu$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> >> > > At the last count, AA runs 0 treatment centres.
>> >> >
>> >> > You are playing word games. I said "dominates", not "owns" or
"runs".
>> >> > The facilities are owned by another corporation besides
>> >> > Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., and are run by
>> >> > true-believer 12-steppers. In a real sense, those other
corporations
>> >> > act as front groups for A.A.. They "carry the message" while
>> >> > protecting the A.A. headquarters from lawsuits for
malpractice
>> >> > and promoting quack medicine.
>> >>
>> >> As you don't like the current situation, I'm wondering what if
anything you are doing to persuade
>> >> those who support AA that any program of yours is at least as
helpful as the AA programme. To date,
>> >> all I've seen you do is criticise AA.
>> >>
>> >> JB
>> >
>> >There you go, the standard A.A. response:
>> >Create a diversion, avoid answering the question,
>> >just launch an ad hominem attack on the speaker.
>>
>> If you think JB was "launching an ad hominem attack", your
perception
>> really is as seriously off-beam as many have come to believe. She
was
>> making a perfectly accurate observation.
No, it is an ad hominem attack. Learn the definitions of the words.
Ad Hominem is "attack the speaker, rather than debate the points."
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-propaganda.html#ad_hominem
Rather than answering any of my questions, or refuting any of
my points with some facts, her response was merely
"Oh, all you do is criticize."
That is dodging the questions with an ad hominem attack.
Rather than speaking honestly about any of the issues, she
chose to evade the issues.
What happened to the alleged A.A. program of "grasping and
developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty"?
(Big Book, page 58.)
>>
>> >Likewise, I can criticize the ineffective voodoo
>> >medicine of A.A., even without having an alternative
>> >program.
>>
>> So your answer could simply have been "no".
No, my answer could have been that it is good to criticize
quack doctors who are killing people with fake cures.
It is good to reveal to the public that even a leader of Alcoholics
Anonymous, Professor and Doctor George E. Vaillant, who is a
non-alcoholic, Class A, member of the Board of Trustees of Alcoholics
Anonymous World Services, Inc., found with his own 8-year-long test
of A.A. treatment of alcoholics that A.A. killed more of them than
it sobered up -- way more.
Prof. Vaillant's A.A.-based treatment program had the hightest
death rate of any method of treatment that he studied.
Vaillant tried very hard to make A.A. look good, but A.A. totally
failed the test. And that is what Vaillant was forced to report
as the results of his government-funded study (CESNUR).
After 8 years of A.A. treatment, the score with his first 100 patients
was: 5 sober, 29 dead, and 66 still drinking.
Vaillant reported:
"After initial discharge, only five patients in the Clinic sample
never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling
evidence that the results of our treatment were no better than the
natural history of the disease."
And:
"Not only had we failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism,
but our death rate of three percent a year was appalling."
And:
"Once again, our results were no better than the natural history
of the disorder."
"Natural history of the disorder" means how many of them will
survive and recover naturally, with no treatment or help at all.
In addition, the work of Doctors Brandsma, Ditman, Walsh, and
Orford and Edwards supported Vaillant's conclusions.
They found things like that
1) A.A. QUINTUPLED the rate of binge drinking,
2) increased the rate of re-arrests for public drunkenness,
3) caused alcoholics to need more expensive hospitalization
later, and
4) didn't help alcoholics any more than one doctor
spending one hour telling an alcoholic to quit drinking,
respectively.
And the test done by Doctors Jim Orford and Griffith Edwards
was done in Great Britain. They did one of the largest and
most elaborate tests ever, and the results were that A.A.
didn't help alcoholics any more than just telling them
to quit drinking.
It is all in the file
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html
Now those are facts.
You may not like them, but those are the facts.
If you disagree with me, then why don't you come up with
some actual facts to support your opinions?
>> >What percentage of the true believers in A.A. actually
>> >sincerely tried other recovery programs first?
>>
>> Why don't you conduct a survey?
>>
Why don't you? You are the one who is still "in the roomz".
>> >If they did not give all of the other recovery
>> >programs and techniques a real try, then they cannot
>> >very well say that A.A. is the only thing that
>> >works for them, now can they?
>>
>> So everyone should try all other methods and carry on drinking
just to
>> satisfy your curiousity? I had absolutely no need to try MM to
know
>> it couldn't work for me. As for others, if I get what you have I
>> don't want to try those either. Some people really do seem to
stay
>> sober on irrational obsession with AA.
Nonsense. That is not what I said at all.
What I said was, "If you haven't tried all of the different programs
or methods, then you cannot say that only one of them works for you.
You don't know that. You can't know that without having tried all
of them, and then found that only one of them works."
>> >And for that matter, how many alcoholism and drug
>> >addiction treatment facitilities in this country
>> >*are not* based on the 12-step cult religion?
>>
>> What country? In the UK, there are many such facilities.
Yes, from what I hear, the 12-step madness has not taken over the
recovery industry in the UK to the degree that it has in the USA.
A study done by the University of Georgia found that 93% of all
treatment facilities in the USA used 12-step "therapy".
>> Your own agenda here is clear, and has nothing to do with recovery
>> from anything.
>>
>> --
>> Blue Moon
My agenda should be clear. I have stated and restated it many
times:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-letters3.html#agenda
I want to end:
1. Coercive recruiting, using the legal system and health care
systems to shove more people into the 12-step cult.
2. Medical malpractice, foisting cult religion and faith healing
on people as treatment for alcoholism or drug addiction, and then
charging people's health insurance plans for such voodoo medicine.
3. Constantly spreading misinformation about alcoholism, addiction,
and recovery. Such false information hurts people by making their
recovery harder. It even kills people. In particular, I want people
to know that A.A. does not have an effective treatment or cure for
alcoholism. The over-all success rate of A.A. is zero or less, when
compared to the normal rate of spontaneous remission.
And my agenda most assuredly does have something to do with recovery.
The first thing I want to stop is people dying from 12-step
misinformation. Then I want to offer people alternatives that
won't kill them. Try SMART, SOS, WFS, MFS, or LifeRing for starters.
* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* True infomation, human intelligence, *
* and Reason are the mortal enemies of *
* cult leaders... *
> "Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
>>
>> >"JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message news:<bln5fv$pgu$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> >> > > At the last count, AA runs 0 treatment centres.
>> >> >
>> >> > You are playing word games. I said "dominates", not "owns" or
"runs".
>> >> > The facilities are owned by another corporation besides
>> >> > Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., and are run by
>> >> > true-believer 12-steppers. In a real sense, those other
corporations
>> >> > act as front groups for A.A.. They "carry the message" while
>> >> > protecting the A.A. headquarters from lawsuits for
malpractice
>> >> > and promoting quack medicine.
>> >>
>> >> As you don't like the current situation, I'm wondering what if
anything you are doing to persuade
>> >> those who support AA that any program of yours is at least as
helpful as the AA programme. To date,
>> >> all I've seen you do is criticise AA.
>> >>
>> >> JB
>> >
>> >There you go, the standard A.A. response:
>> >Create a diversion, avoid answering the question,
>> >just launch an ad hominem attack on the speaker.
>>
>> If you think JB was "launching an ad hominem attack", your
perception
>> really is as seriously off-beam as many have come to believe. She
was
>> making a perfectly accurate observation.
No, it is an ad hominem attack. Learn the definitions of the words.
Ad Hominem is "attack the speaker, rather than debate the points."
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-propaganda.html#ad_hominem
Rather than answering any of my questions, or refuting any of
my points with some facts, her response was merely
"Oh, all you do is criticize."
That is dodging the questions with an ad hominem attack.
Rather than speaking honestly about any of the issues, she
chose to evade the issues.
What happened to the alleged A.A. program of "grasping and
developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty"?
(Big Book, page 58.)
>>
>> >Likewise, I can criticize the ineffective voodoo
>> >medicine of A.A., even without having an alternative
>> >program.
>>
>> So your answer could simply have been "no".
No, my answer could have been that it is good to criticize
quack doctors who are killing people with fake cures.
It is good to reveal to the public that even a leader of Alcoholics
Anonymous, Professor and Doctor George E. Vaillant, who is a
non-alcoholic, Class A, member of the Board of Trustees of Alcoholics
Anonymous World Services, Inc., found with his own 8-year-long test
of A.A. treatment of alcoholics that A.A. killed more of them than
it sobered up -- way more.
Prof. Vaillant's A.A.-based treatment program had the hightest
death rate of any method of treatment that he studied.
Vaillant tried very hard to make A.A. look good, but A.A. totally
failed the test. And that is what Vaillant was forced to report
as the results of his government-funded study (CESNUR).
After 8 years of A.A. treatment, the score with his first 100 patients
was: 5 sober, 29 dead, and 66 still drinking.
Vaillant reported:
"After initial discharge, only five patients in the Clinic sample
never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling
evidence that the results of our treatment were no better than the
natural history of the disease."
And:
"Not only had we failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism,
but our death rate of three percent a year was appalling."
And:
"Once again, our results were no better than the natural history
of the disorder."
"Natural history of the disorder" means how many of them will
survive and recover naturally, with no treatment or help at all.
In addition, the work of Doctors Brandsma, Ditman, Walsh, and
Orford and Edwards supported Vaillant's conclusions.
They found things like that
1) A.A. QUINTUPLED the rate of binge drinking,
2) increased the rate of re-arrests for public drunkenness,
3) caused alcoholics to need more expensive hospitalization
later, and
4) didn't help alcoholics any more than one doctor
spending one hour telling an alcoholic to quit drinking,
respectively.
And the test done by Doctors Jim Orford and Griffith Edwards
was done in Great Britain. They did one of the largest and
most elaborate tests ever, and the results were that A.A.
didn't help alcoholics any more than just telling them
to quit drinking.
It is all in the file
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html
Now those are facts.
You may not like them, but those are the facts.
If you disagree with me, then why don't you come up with
some actual facts to support your opinions?
>> >What percentage of the true believers in A.A. actually
>> >sincerely tried other recovery programs first?
>>
>> Why don't you conduct a survey?
>>
Why don't you? You are the one who is still "in the roomz".
>> >If they did not give all of the other recovery
>> >programs and techniques a real try, then they cannot
>> >very well say that A.A. is the only thing that
>> >works for them, now can they?
>>
>> So everyone should try all other methods and carry on drinking
just to
>> satisfy your curiousity? I had absolutely no need to try MM to
know
>> it couldn't work for me. As for others, if I get what you have I
>> don't want to try those either. Some people really do seem to
stay
>> sober on irrational obsession with AA.
Nonsense. That is not what I said at all.
What I said was, "If you haven't tried all of the different programs
or methods, then you cannot say that only one of them works for you.
You don't know that. You can't know that without having tried all
of them, and then found that only one of them works."
>> >And for that matter, how many alcoholism and drug
>> >addiction treatment facitilities in this country
>> >*are not* based on the 12-step cult religion?
>>
>> What country? In the UK, there are many such facilities.
Yes, from what I hear, the 12-step madness has not taken over the
recovery industry in the UK to the degree that it has in the USA.
A study done by the University of Georgia found that 93% of all
treatment facilities in the USA used 12-step "therapy".
>> Your own agenda here is clear, and has nothing to do with recovery
>> from anything.
>>
>> --
>> Blue Moon
My agenda should be clear. I have stated and restated it many
times:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-letters3.html#agenda
I want to end:
1. Coercive recruiting, using the legal system and health care
systems to shove more people into the 12-step cult.
2. Medical malpractice, foisting cult religion and faith healing
on people as treatment for alcoholism or drug addiction, and then
charging people's health insurance plans for such voodoo medicine.
3. Constantly spreading misinformation about alcoholism, addiction,
and recovery. Such false information hurts people by making their
recovery harder. It even kills people. In particular, I want people
to know that A.A. does not have an effective treatment or cure for
alcoholism. The over-all success rate of A.A. is zero or less, when
compared to the normal rate of spontaneous remission.
And my agenda most assuredly does have something to do with recovery.
The first thing I want to stop is people dying from 12-step
misinformation. Then I want to offer people alternatives that
won't kill them. Try SMART, SOS, WFS, MFS, or LifeRing for starters.
* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* True infomation, human intelligence, *
* and Reason are the mortal enemies of *
* cult leaders... *