My life with addiction

Morning,

Dan, apologies for taking liberties on your diary, this might be better on your separate thread about GA or on Debates.

Glint, I disagree with the premise of your questions. Scientific data, studies and stats are simply not relevant to GA or the Fellowships.

The Twelve Steps of Recovery work just fine IF they are worked and practised in every day affairs as a way of life. Not everyone wants to work them, they can be hard and painful but those who do work them know for themselves that the Steps work, they are their own scientific study and they are happy to share their experience with fellow members.

The Fellowships are anonymous, their purpose is not scientific data and research, and any record keeping would be contrary to what they do. So any scientific study is impossible. The Fellowships are simply available to help anyone who wants to take their help and they make no comment about outside enterprises or whether other methods work or don't.

It's always worth a try. Have a good day.

CW

Good input CW.

I'm trying to get a balanced view of this, I'm taking all things into consideration. Dan clearly has an interest in what the research scientists say, so think it's reasonable to ask for the information to be shared and will be helpful for others to read.

Who needs scientific data, studies and stats anyway...Dan has facts!

Who wouldn't be interested in these facts?

I don't think it would be better in 'debates'. I'm not looking for a debate. You cannot debate facts!

I cannot imagine Dan would encourage people to try GA based on false facts then sponsor someone on a program based on honesty.

If you believe gambling addiction is a disease (I'm not saying it isn't) I think scientific study of a disease is very important. Dan clearly states his research scientists agree it's a fact that 12-step programs are the best way to manage addiction, so it must be possible to scientifically study it if the research scientists have.

AA's text states "we have ceased fighting anything or anyone." Recently Alcoholics Anonymous World Service went to court to stop the auction of a book.

Going to court is contrary to what they do but they did. Keeping stats is contrary to what they do but Dan has a survey from Alcoholics Anonymous from 2015. I've found it, checked it, I'm happy it's accurate.

I don't think it's a bad thing to question contradiction.

I don't think it is unfair of @glint to ask for the stats and references on how successful GA is. On these forums I regularly read you are not taking recovery serious if you don't go to GA. Or that it is the most successful way to combat being a CG.

Surely people cannot make these statements if the only way they can back it up is by saying "it's true because Dan said so and he's been GF for 10 years".

I am not saying that GA isn't the best way to recover, I am simply saying it would be good to have some kind of data to substantiate the claims.

That's my uneducated view on the matter.

The Fellowships offer the help to anyone who is ready to take it but they don't produce stats and data. Such evidence as exists comprises the stories of those who attend the meetings and the meetings are closed to outsiders - anonymous. All of which eliminates the Fellowships' participation in studies but none of which changes the fact that those who work the program find that it works. The help is based on the idea of addressing addiction by bringing about a change in personality and there is some very smart psychology in the literature.

Ultimately, how does research, stats and data actually help an individual person's recovery? It's not a substitute for taking the action needed to bring about change.

I still think this belongs on Dan's other thread.

Have a good day.

CW

You must appreciate my confusion here CW.

Dan in post #887 uses AA statistics. You tell me AA doesn't produce them. You and Dan disagree on this. I have seen the statistics - AA produced them.

I'm confident Dan is right.

You say the fellowship don't participate in studies. Dan strongly, factually even disagrees. Dan is very clear:

"So here are some facts.

12-step groups are the most effective way to manage addiction. Who says so? Not GA or AA or any other anonymous program. But research scientists do, addiction psychologists do, the medical institutions do."

How could they come to this conclusion without doing studies? Are you questioning Dan's facts?

Now a fact from yourself: "none of which changes the fact that those who work the program find that it works."

The literature you follow disagrees - chapter 5 of Alcoholics Anonymous:

"Rarely have we seen a person fail who has throroughly followed our path."

Can you factually say: people who work the program find it works? Have you asked them all? Is this fact something you know or have been told?

I agree there's some smart psychology. I've learned things I had never even considered from the literature. Worth reading.

I will question what I don't understand. That's how I learn - that's what I'm trying to do.

AA says addiction is a disease, the 12-steps are the treatment. How can science not further the understanding and treatment of a disease?

Dan has facts from research scientists.

It has been studied. You say that's impossible. You couldn't disagree more. It's Fact Vs. Impossible.

I still think these are Dan's facts and stats. Makes sense to show us here. You cannot debate facts.

Are you not interested in seeing Dan's facts?

Project Match. As for Dodes, a cash motivated therapist who backs up his own method with...... absolutely nothing, either scientific or anecdotal

Two Harvard Medical School professors of Psychiatry wrote a response entitled In Defense of 12 Steps: What Science Really Tells Us about Addiction.
John f. Kelly and Gene Beresin don't share Dr. Dodes' opinion. At all.
Here's a snippet from the opening of their article:
“In fact, however, rather than support Dr. Dodes' position, the science actually supports the exact opposite: AA and 12-step treatments are some of the most effective and cost-effective treatment approaches for addiction.”
Let's see if they offer studies to back up their claims, which Dr. Dodes conveniently left out of his article. It also seems Dr. Dodes likes to use research that actually supports the 12 steps by presenting it as if it doesn't.
“Dr. Dodes begins his criticism of AA and related treatment by citing a 1991 study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. This paper studied the treatment of a large number of individuals with alcohol problems. Dr. Dodes notes in his book that compulsory inpatient treatment had a better outcome than AA alone. But what he fails to mention is that the inpatient unit is a 12-step-based program with AA meetings during treatment, and requirements to attend AA meetings three times a week after discharge in the year following treatment.
Importantly, too, when you compare the alcohol outcomes (average number of daily drinks, number of drinks per month, number of binges, and serious symptoms of alcohol use), AA alone was just as good as the AA-based inpatient treatment. Yet Dr. Dodes uses this study to argue that AA is poor while inpatient treatment is good — a bizarrely distorted, misleading and incorrect interpretation of the study's findings.”
12 Steps: 1 Dr. Dodes: 0

“Perhaps not surprisingly, given his apparent agenda, Dr. Dodes doesn't acknowledge the more recent randomized controlled trials of addiction treatment (that is, studies in which individuals with addictions were randomly assigned to different treatment approaches, comparing outcomes. See here, here, and here. Such studies are considered the most reliable sort of research.) These studies show that 12-step treatment improves outcomes by up to 20% for as long as two years post-treatment via its ability to engage patients, and also tends to produce much higher rates of continuous abstinence than other forms of treatment.”
12 Steps: 2 Dr. Dodes: 0

Finally, in the largest randomized controlled study of treatment for alcohol use disorder ever undertaken (Project MATCH), which he does mention, he fails to state that compared to the cognitive-behavioral and motivational-enhancement treatments included in that study, the 12-step treatment had more than double the number of patients who were continuously abstinent at one year after treatment and about one third more at three years after treatment.
12 Steps: 3 Dr. Dodes: 0

In fact, studies published in prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals have found that 12-step treatments that facilitate engagement with AA post-discharge can not only produce about one third higher continuous abstinence rates, but also 64% lower health care costs compared to cognitive-behavioral treatments.
12 Steps: 4 Dr. Dodes: 0

In addition, Dr. Dodes then goes on to try and make the case that 12-step treatment for substance use disorder is no better than doing nothing; he's apparently implying that if we actually just stood back and waited, people with substance use disorders would overcome addiction at the same rate as our current best efforts. Presumably, his own approach to addiction treatment would work best? Unfortunately, his own method, promoted on the air and in his book, has not a single scientific study to demonstrate its effectiveness.
Dr. Donk...err...Dr. Dodes KO'd! 12 Steps winner by knockout in the 5th round

Well that was worth the wait.

I cannot believe you have posted that Dan.

Project MATCH.

I don't know where to start.

A two word answer, a violation of a tradition, a chance to back up your facts and you would rather attack someone who brings new ideas to addiction treatment.

Not cool.

Dan, I'm going to ask you one more time and make it as simple as possible for you.

I'd appreciate an answer, but I don't want to be upsetting people on the forum so if you want to leave it here I won't bother you again.

I didn't even ask about Lance Dodes MD.

Do you have any facts to show that the 12-step program is the most effective treatment for addiction?

Yes or no?

Still think it's a non question. What difference do research and studies make to an individual person's recovery? Individual recovery is about individual choices.

How accurate can the data in any study possibly be...it's not exactly unknown for addicts to lie.

CW

Cynical wife wrote:

Still think it's a non question. What difference do research and studies make to an individual person's recovery? Individual recovery is about individual choices.

How accurate can the data in any study possibly be...it's not exactly unknown for addicts to lie.

CW

I have to say i disagree CW, I think this is a very valid question from Glint too Dan. Two people who have inadvertently helped me with steering my thoughts to my preferred route of re(dis)covery.

I whole heartedly agree with what the 12 steps and the fellowship brings too the people who follow it, yet, it seems for lots that it doesn't suit them. From a serial relapser like myself, i've finally appreciated the power of being able to talk in front of others and admit that i have a problem that im unable to solve myself and the power of comraderie, but GA/AA etc isnt the ony way. Hence, why im intrigued by the question and would be more intrigued by a honest open minded answer.

I also agree with Paul when he say's Glint's question is a valid one . We all know from the success stories on this forum alone that GA obviously works for many and as a basis for recovery it has stood the test of time but I must say that you'd have to be quite sceptical over any figures and statistics regarding any organisation based on the anonymity of it's users . In order to conduct a true reflection of succes rates you'd have to have a Database of clients with regular monitoring on progress , just as you would with when trialing a new drug ! .

It's really no different to this forum , people come and people go without an explanation ,some of whom remain gamble free , some gamble free for a certain period and some who never really stop , so I would imagine Gamcare could never truly have an accurate insight into the success rate of it's patrons and they at least have all our email addreses ? .

If people say that this is the way forward , this has the biggest success that's ok by me but then in my opinion it also needs

backing up with provable facts .

CW, my questions are valid, I'm yet to get any answers.

Here are two more questions for you:

Dan's post was encouraging people to try GA based on facts that quite clearly don't exsist, do you think it is good practice to be doing that then sponsoring people on a program based on honesty?

Do you acknowledge the contradictions can make it confusing when you and Dan follow this 'simple program' and can't agree with each other or the literature?

There was a very good question from Alan not long ago about Dan's contradictions in 'debates' that was never answered.

I do have other examples from Dan's posts that I think could be more honest and helpful, but will respectfully leave those unless Dan wants those pointed out to him.

I asked Dan for facts and he would rather attack Lance Dodes MD. If people want to read Lance Dodes MD please don't be put off by Dan's posts. If a person brings 100 new ideas to addiction treatment and 99 are terrible with one good idea we will make progress. Not that Lance Dodes MD does that.

He's very good.

I will say Lance Dodes MD does say for 8%ish people the 12-steps work for - which is apparently a figure Dan agrees with - the 12-steps work well.

I'm saying what can be done to get that figure up? Can the 12-steps be improved or is it a fact it's perfect?

Dan proves my point very well that with mixed findings on the 12-step program people will just latch onto the ones that suit what they want to believe rather than having a balanced view. Lance Dodes MD also does this, I'm seeing this from both sides. Anti-12 step people are just as bad for it.

Not that I would consider Lance Dodes MD anti-12-step, more pro-progress.

If the same studies, by the same research scientists Dan quoted (which I haven't checked) were favourable to Lance Dodes MD Dan wouldn't be interested in them.

AA states "we have ceased fighting anything or anyone."

Dan brings the 12-steps into a boxing ring to knockout a doctor!

It simply cannot be right to promote a program based on honesty with made-up facts.

Step 10 - "Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it."

Dan talks the talk but can he step the step?

Glint, Dan et al

This is a very interesting debate which appears on the GamCare forum every so often. The questions raised and answers given are informative and useful to those wanting to learn more about GA. However, some of the posts on this thread are very personal in tone. The fact that it's taking place on someone's personal diary adds to this. Remember that one of the most important forum rules is to be respectful of others opinions, even if you disagree with them.

Those who wish to continue this debate, please carry on in the Debates section, and remain respectful of others views.

Kind regards

Forum Admin

It is indeed quite a personal attack Glint. One that seems quite out of character to your cultivated persona on here. Im all good to carry on the inquisition into my character & dont need admins protection. But today i have more important issues to attend to. So if its ok with you i will reply when i have the time

I most certainly wasn't making any personal attack.

I will remind Dan that only one person on this thread has resorted to violent vocabulary and name-calling and that wasn't me.

Dr. Donk.

Uncalled-for.

I will of course respect Forum Admin's wishes not to continue this any further.

On reflection I think that is the best idea. I'm getting no answers which is means this is going nowhere. My inquisition was quite clearly into the 12-steps which is what led me to this thread. I have made no personal comments, just asked valid questions and given very clear examples of some 12-step contradictions that have caused confusion, but appreciate that the tone could be walking a very fine line when examples are in someone's diary. I was aware of this and tried to post accordingly, if I did overstep the line I apologize. I think my questions were valid and backed up throughout with examples.

Text can be very easily misinterpreted, I tried to find a friendly tone with cogently made points, but must admit that despite my best efforts I myself felt I've never quite got that right all week on the forum. Something I will consider in the future.

Dan is under no obligation to answer mine or anyone else's questions on the forum and I will respect that.

The forum is about creating a supportive community and anyone who has been posting here longer than myself on a regular basis - I have respect for that sort of contribution.

These are the people that make the forum.

The forum never provided enough information to satisfy my curiosity about the 12-steps, that's why I looked elsewhere, that is where I learned more so is where I will now continue to look for information, answers and positive change.

Thank you for your time Dan.

Best wishes to all.