Oranges Dis Apples

“Addictions” Industry Success rate “Flim Flam”ing

Face it – AA does NOT have a five percent success rate!

AA doesn’t HAVE ANY measurable success or failure rate. It cannot because AA does not impose rules on its fellowshippers other than members must be alcoholic. In order to have a measurable sample - participants would all have to qualify as a controlled sampling through RULES! AA cannot, by merit of it’s own Traditions impose any such rules – therefor no sampling can EVER be taken.

Most AA Groups welcome both alcoholics and non-alcoholics to attend their open meetings so to measure success or failure based upon an observation of ‘who still drinks’ out of “all who enter” is asinine.

To attempt to sample AAs ‘successful” or “failed” members would be like measuring the cure rate of a cancer ward among all those who get an MRI there. It should be obvious that not everyone who shows up for a diagnosis is going to recover from a disease they haven’t actually got.

When it talks about AA’s nonexistent “success rate” * the Treatment Industry tries to force “statistics” out of a fellowship that hasn’t got any – or at least not statistics which are comparable to theirs. *

Now, somewhere in the realm of ‘all that is’ AA does have a success rate – even if it is humanly immeasurable – because it’s objective is not to make a success of anything more than trying to carry it’s message. That’s all it wants to do.

It doesn’t want to cause all of its members or meeting attendees to stop drinking. It doesn’t want to cure alcoholism. It doesn’t want to do anything more than present the option of adopting a spiritual way of life to alcoholics – to tell them that their way of life has solved their own alcohol problem and propose that it may also solve the problems of many of those who HAVE alcoholism. The removal of the desire to drink is consequential to the spiritual awakening – not the objective of AA.

This is clearly articulated in AA’s Twelfth Step:

“Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.” (60:0)

There is no Step in AA’s Program which calls for “not drinking”. Not drinking is not even a requirement for membership.

AA’s only yardstick to measure its own “success” if you will — is it’s own conscience – where they ask, “Did we try to carry the ‘this’ message?”

It is not “How many people accepted and benefited from it’s message.”

Folks who talk about five percent success rates and compare them to treatment centers that DO measure their successes by how many people have stopped drinking is ludicrous. It’s the orange trying to judge the apple by how much orange juice the apple yields. “Hey you can’t enjoy that delicious apple juice. It has no orange juice in it” – is illogical, nay moronic.

To assuming that AA’s goal must be the same as the treatment industry’s goal is presumptuous – and to not even bother to learn what AA’s purpose is, and to misrepresent it to their own target markets as identical to their own is downright dishonest.

When there is money involved – a “for profit” industry will tend to compete in just such a fashion – by advertising the “We are better than they are” idea, treatment centers tip their hand. That’s fine for Avis and Hertz – but it is abominable for folks who represent their purpose as helping others.

So if we want to look at success and failure rates then let’s keep the focus on those who keep them -not those who do not, cannot keep and have no need to keep them. Only money making enterprises like Treatment Centers and any employer of “Addictions” specialists require such data. They are businesses and businesses need to compete. AA is in competition with no one.

Do you think that a twenty percent “success rate” for a service which costs thirty thousand dollars is a good deal? Would you plunk down twenty or thirty grand for a car with the understanding that there is an eighty percent chance that you will not actually GET the car? – and when you don’t get your car the dealer blames it on you? “You didn’t really WANT it”.

What gall!

It is the Treatment Industry that are the losers in their own race and inventing competitive statistics which do not exist in the attempt to find someone worse than they are is nothing more than unconscionable sales trickery – marketing flim-flam – that ought to be illegal. But they are “Board Certified”, right?

Let’s get real.

Peace,

Danny S

* Back when AA was a tiny fellowship they were able to track their successes a bit. They had a seventy five percent success rate doing what they did. This observation is noted and published in the Big Book, “Alcoholics Anonymous.” In Cleveland, a ninety five percent success rate was observed. There is no reason to believe that that same success rate would not be also correct today – doing what they did — emphasis on ‘doing what they did’

Alcohol hasn’t become any stronger. Men and women haven’t become weaker and human physiques haven’t mutated.

I myself have observed a 100% success rate among those who do what they did and what I do. I have NEVER seen anyone fail who has followed the path of the co-founders – including myself. Tracking my own Group experiences and protegees, I see BETTER results today than the co-founders ever claimed back then.

But I don’t have to worry about being called on the carpet by the medical profession – because frankly Scarlet . . I don’t give a shit. The co-authors may have – but I do not. DJS

Oranges Dis Apples

“Addictions” Industry Success rate “Flim Flam”ing

Face it – AA does NOT have a five percent success rate!

AA doesn’t HAVE ANY measurable success or failure rate. It cannot because AA does not impose rules on its fellowshippers other than members must be alcoholic. In order to have a measurable sample - participants would all have to qualify as a controlled sampling through RULES! AA cannot, by merit of it’s own Traditions impose any such rules – therefor no sampling can EVER be taken.

Most AA Groups welcome both alcoholics and non-alcoholics to attend their open meetings so to measure success or failure based upon an observation of ‘who still drinks’ out of “all who enter” is asinine.

To attempt to sample AAs ‘successful” or “failed” members would be like measuring the cure rate of a cancer ward among all those who get an MRI there. It should be obvious that not everyone who shows up for a diagnosis is going to recover from a disease they haven’t actually got.

When it talks about AA’s nonexistent “success rate” * the Treatment Industry tries to force “statistics” out of a fellowship that hasn’t got any – or at least not statistics which are comparable to theirs. *

Now, somewhere in the realm of ‘all that is’ AA does have a success rate – even if it is humanly immeasurable – because it’s objective is not to make a success of anything more than trying to carry it’s message. That’s all it wants to do.

It doesn’t want to cause all of its members or meeting attendees to stop drinking. It doesn’t want to cure alcoholism. It doesn’t want to do anything more than present the option of adopting a spiritual way of life to alcoholics – to tell them that their way of life has solved their own alcohol problem and propose that it may also solve the problems of many of those who HAVE alcoholism. The removal of the desire to drink is consequential to the spiritual awakening – not the objective of AA.

This is clearly articulated in AA’s Twelfth Step:

“Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.” (60:0)

There is no Step in AA’s Program which calls for “not drinking”. Not drinking is not even a requirement for membership.

AA’s only yardstick to measure its own “success” if you will — is it’s own conscience – where they ask, “Did we try to carry the ‘this’ message?”

It is not “How many people accepted and benefited from it’s message.”

Folks who talk about five percent success rates and compare them to treatment centers that DO measure their successes by how many people have stopped drinking is ludicrous. It’s the orange trying to judge the apple by how much orange juice the apple yields. “Hey you can’t enjoy that delicious apple juice. It has no orange juice in it” – is illogical, nay moronic.

To assuming that AA’s goal must be the same as the treatment industry’s goal is presumptuous – and to not even bother to learn what AA’s purpose is, and to misrepresent it to their own target markets as identical to their own is downright dishonest.

When there is money involved – a “for profit” industry will tend to compete in just such a fashion – by advertising the “We are better than they are” idea, treatment centers tip their hand. That’s fine for Avis and Hertz – but it is abominable for folks who represent their purpose as helping others.

So if we want to look at success and failure rates then let’s keep the focus on those who keep them -not those who do not, cannot keep and have no need to keep them. Only money making enterprises like Treatment Centers and any employer of “Addictions” specialists require such data. They are businesses and businesses need to compete. AA is in competition with no one.

Do you think that a twenty percent “success rate” for a service which costs thirty thousand dollars is a good deal? Would you plunk down twenty or thirty grand for a car with the understanding that there is an eighty percent chance that you will not actually GET the car? – and when you don’t get your car the dealer blames it on you? “You didn’t really WANT it”.

What gall!

It is the Treatment Industry that are the losers in their own race and inventing competitive statistics which do not exist in the attempt to find someone worse than they are is nothing more than unconscionable sales trickery – marketing flim-flam – that ought to be illegal. But they are “Board Certified”, right?

Let’s get real.

Peace,

Danny S

* Back when AA was a tiny fellowship they were able to track their successes a bit. They had a seventy five percent success rate doing what they did. This observation is noted and published in the Big Book, “Alcoholics Anonymous.” In Cleveland, a ninety five percent success rate was observed. There is no reason to believe that that same success rate would not be also correct today – doing what they did — emphasis on ‘doing what they did’

Alcohol hasn’t become any stronger. Men and women haven’t become weaker and human physiques haven’t mutated.

I myself have observed a 100% success rate among those who do what they did and what I do. I have NEVER seen anyone fail who has followed the path of the co-founders – including myself. Tracking my own Group experiences and protegees, I see BETTER results today than the co-founders ever claimed back then.

But I don’t have to worry about being called on the carpet by the medical profession – because frankly Scarlet . . I don’t give a shit. The co-authors may have – but I do not. DJS