| COURT-ORDERED TREATMENT |
DEFEAT ADDICTIONS.ORG
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
The factual and independent addiction recovery resource!
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Copyright 2007-2008 Defeat Addictions. All Rights Reserved.
Like Alcoholics Anonymous, treatment professionals claim success in the face of contradicting evidence. AA groupers
boast “Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path.” The truth is people rarely succeed
when following the path of those in AA. As stated previously, 95% of the existing treatment centers in the United States
adhere to the 12 Step philosophies. Not surprising, the success rate of treatment is no different from the success rate
of AA: 3%.
While treatment professionals boast “treatment works,” the question is what is exactly working? As Stanton Peele so
eloquently put it “…the blanket assurance that "treatment works" does precious little for most people who drink too
much.” (All Wet, Stanton Peele) Of course treatments alternative counterpart and co-conspirator, Alcoholics
Anonymous, leads with the same misleading and outright dishonest assurance that its program “Works if you Work it.”
Groupers, the GSO, and AAWS conveniently claim success without any foundation. In reality the statement is a
complete contradiction to empirical evidence. Both AA and treatment are outright failures when held to any standard
but their own. But, apparently it’s a matter of semantics. It comes down to who is using the word “works.”
The general public would believe that these programs “working” would be a testament to helping people with
substance abuse issues get sober. In other words the people who join the groups can get well. But, after arriving in
treatment or AA with the hopes of finding a way out of the misery individuals have created, those in need are told that
they can never get well, there is no cure. So, what exactly is working? What kind of program are our loved ones
attending?
The knowledge that “Treatment Doesn’t Work” is not an idea exclusive to those outside of the existing treatment
paradigm. Those within it, and promoting it, are also well aware of treatments ineptitude and damage. Enoch Gordis,
Director of the NIAAA stated the following: “In the case of alcoholism, our whole treatment system, with its innumerable
therapies, armies of therapists, large and expensive programs, endless conferences, innovation and public relations
activities is founded on hunch not evidence, and not science. To determine whether treatment accomplishes
anything, we have to know how similar patients who have not received the treatment fare. Perhaps untreated patients
do just as well. This would mean that the treatment does not influence outcomes at all. Perhaps treated patients do
worse: that is perhaps treatment is really harmful in unexpected ways so that patients who are not treated get better
more often. Perhaps even if the treatment is helpful, a little bit of it is just as useful as a lot of it.”
Again, this statement was made by Enoch Gordis. For years he has promoted the benefits of treatment as the
spokesman for one of the largest institutions for drug and alcohol treatment and program research. It was Enoch
Gordis who implemented the $27 million dollar campaign attempting to prove “Treatment Works”. Enoch heads the
organization founded by one of the foremost contributors to the institution of the medical model and the disease
concept, R. Brinkley Smithers. One must understand that in many respects Enoch is a politician lobbying for public
support and federal funding for the programs his organization advocates. This statement would be like the president
saying we’re going to try communism based on the hunch that it could benefit the citizens.
We could safely assume that Enoch made this statement based on the knowledge that treatment is a detriment to
those who enter it. Politics does not allow for statements that could easily collapse platforms. It would be ignorant of us
to assume he has no real knowledge of the effect of treatment after years of being directly involved with treatment
programs and funding for them.
Baldwin Research has long been aware of the failure of conventional treatment methods. When the Saint Jude Retreat
House was founded the intention was to provide a much needed working program. After the program was established,
and it worked, the next step was to make efforts to change the existing treatment paradigm. As we began proactively
moving forward, it has been important to show the difference in success of conventional methodologies and the
didactic social-educational method of the Saint Jude Retreat House. While we have accomplished this, there have
been some difficulties that need pointing out.
It is difficult to compare an alternative program to AA in regards to success. The problem is AA is a “lifelong process”
and 95% of treatment providers recommend AA and NA as aftercare for program graduates. While the patient has
successfully completed one program they can never complete AA. Alcoholics Anonymous, like every organized
religion, has no completion; it is a way of life. As treatment absorbed AA philosophy, treatment became a separate sect
of its own, but remains intertwined and enmeshed in 12-Step ideology. While still dedicated to the original principals in
practice, variations of the original program pulled the possibility of success further down the spiral. Treatment and AA
joined with a seemingly genuine purpose, but soon warped and twisted through an unfettered amalgamation of
misinformation and confusion, soon, giving birth to common failure and anecdotal success. Alcoholics Anonymous, and
thereby conventional treatment centers, are dogmatic and ritualistic programs, developed by a deified leader who
misrepresented himself from the start to provide the same failure in sobriety for millions that he had as an individual.
Comparable to a religious institution, there is no program completion. The Saint Jude Retreat House offers a program
that is 6-weeks. The program ends and life begins. For AA and treatment, substance abuse ends and recovery
begins, never to end.
The treatment industry pumps out empty promises and walks away hand-in-pocket, fist full of familial contribution,
confident they did the best they could. The program graduate steps out of the door riddled with fear about “what’s out
there.” Professionals drive a wedge between the real world and the world of recovery that provides for back breaking
stress for any substance abuser believing dogmatic treatment jargon. While many question the efficacy of
conventional treatment programs most do not understand how treatment began. Like the disease concept of
alcoholism, the path to national acceptance was paved by politics and personal agenda.
In the late 1800’s drug addiction and alcohol abuse were not publicly viewed as national problems. In fact, in the past,
drinking in quantities that today would be considered outrageous, were a social norm, early pioneers drank alcohol as
a substitute for water. Most had come from countries where pollution made the consumption of water dangerous. But,
even with the amounts of alcohol consumed, alcoholism was extremely rare. At the same time, in the early late 1800’s
and early 1900’s doctors freely prescribed opiates like morphine. They were considered a staple of medical practice. A
more familiar brand name today, Bayer, manufactured heroin as an anti-diarrheal. “During this period, writes historian
David T. Courtwright, “The public thought of addiction as neither a crime nor a fit object for mandatory treatment.”
(Sarah Glaser, “Treating Addiction,” CQ Researcher, January 6, 1995)”
But, the practice of prescribing opiates soon turned into a problem of its own. Many middle class women were
becoming addicted to the drugs. Some doctors set up asylums to treat the addicted and many could buy “opium habit
cures” to assist in relieving the problem. But by the early 1900’s, injectable morphine and cocaine were developed
which led to a public concern for a growing population of people using the drugs for pleasure. Shortly thereafter the
American public went from an opinion of addiction as, “being a pathetic condition to a stigmatized one,” writes
Courtwright.
In 1914 the Harrison Act was passed in an effort to control the drug problem. After prohibition laws were passed in the
1920’s, the government stepped up its efforts to eliminate drug abuse by closing the first maintenance treatment
facilities for addicts. But, due to an influx of drug addicted prisoners, federal officials, in conjunction with the U.S. Public
Health Service, successfully proposed and implemented two institutions that used a medical approach to house addicts
in Kentucky and Texas.
The late 1940’s brought with it an epidemic of heroin abuse and due to articles published advocating the benefits of
methadone in treating addiction; the medical model was more widely used and accepted. Two major contributors to the
acceptance of the medical model were Vincent Dole, an endocrinologist, and Marie Nyswander, a psychiatrist. They
purposed that heroin abuse led to a permanent metabolic imbalance that necessitated the use of corrective
medications.
In the 50’s Alcoholics Anonymous was available for problem drinkers, but no such meetings were available for addicts.
A former addict named Charles Dederich began meetings for addicts called Narcotics Anonymous. Eventually his
efforts produced the first Therapeutic Living Community called Synanon. Since its inception, its methodology has been
replicated by other facilities, but, has been done, in the face of Synanon’s failure to produce results.
In the late 1960’s an amendment to the Community of Mental Health Centers Act, mandated substance abusers to
treatment centers implemented by the Kennedy Administration. At this time a reputable and wealthy philanthropist, R.
Brinkley Smithers, stepped on to the field. He was the financier for much of the “research” promoting the disease
concept and treatment programs. His ties to Richard Nixon allowed for the creation of the NIAAA and the continued
existence of a struggling NCA(DD).
The Nixon-era brought with it a stepped up “War on Crime.” Nixon’s administration financed a national growth in
methadone programs. The expansion of methadone treatment centers was implemented in the hopes that addicts
would substitute methadone for heroin, therefore, reducing crime. In 1971, Nixon created the Special Action Office for
Drug Abuse Prevention which began increased federal funding for substance abusers awaiting treatment. It was at this
point that control over federal funding and client payment for treatment centers began to shift to state organizations.
The shift from Federal control to state control began a rapid influx of private institutions. The treatment industry
blossomed into a multi-billion dollar juggernaut. The modalities implemented were not researched or proven effective
but, treatment providers were not obligated to provide success. Therefore, in the face of lacking empirical evidence
and success, the dollars continued to roll in by the millions.
There is substantial evidence that the decline of Alcoholics Anonymous’ effectiveness over a forty-year period was
inversely proportional to the growth of the drug and alcohol rehabilitation industry. Our initial interest, then, was with
Alcoholics Anonymous, and not the rehabilitation industry. However, as we studied Alcoholics Anonymous’ declining
success rate, it was clear that the decline in the success rate emanated from the burgeoning rehabilitation industry.
The rehabilitation industry promoted a secular solution based on the assertion that alcoholism and drug addiction (and
perhaps other compulsive and obsessive conditions) are forms of mental illness. As such, the treatment for these
conditions, in many states, was legislated to be the responsibility of the mental health community.
Moreover, these legislated methods of treatment were implemented without any clinical evidence supporting the notion
that alcoholics and drug addicts could benefit from group therapy, counseling, and other psychological techniques. As
time went by and few recovered, the mental health community concluded that alcoholics and drug addicts could never
completely recover and relapse became an unexpected characteristic of the “disease.” Rather than improving the
treatment methods or trying alternative methods to medical and psychological methods, the treatment community
changed its understanding of the malady to fit the poor results achieved by the treatment offered.
Of course the lack of treatment success not only effects the individuals well being but has been found to be a
tremendous waste of money. In the early 1990’s, Dr. Diana Chapman Walsh of the Harvard School of Public Health
reported that after two years it was 10% less expensive to refer people to Alcoholics Anonymous directly without any
treatment. The significance of this study is that it did head to head comparison between AA and professional treatment
and concluded, as we have, that the benefits of professional treatment programs are questionable.
While scientific studies are lacking, treatment professionals, through personal experience do have an estimate for
conventional program success. Surprisingly, the treatment community actually uses the low success rate to motivate
patients. Credentialed alcoholism counselors typically tell their patients that only 1 in 12 (many counselors use the
ratio of 1 in 30) will “make it.” The theory is that if only one in twelve (or thirty) patients are going to get well, each one
wants to be the one who gets well. Whether the patients try or not seems to have little impact on the outcome of their
treatment, and it is of more than passing interest that independent studies confirm that, indeed, the success rate for
these programs range from 3% to 8% at 5 years post treatment. Treatment professionals tell their patients and the
public that 1 out of 10 to 1 out of 30 “will make it”. 1 out of 10 is 10% and 1 out of 30 is around 3% (some numbers are
higher or lower, but on average these are the excepted numbers). The obvious contrast is that those who enter
treatment have 20-27% less of a chance to recover then those who never entered treatment. Treatment programs
actually lessen the chances of success for their patients.
Deborah Dawson of the NIAAA, an epidemiologist, analyzed 4,585 interviews from those who at one time had been
alcohol dependent. Dawson’s study conclusively showed that untreated alcoholics are approximately 2 times more
likely to get sober and stay sober then alcoholics subjected to treatment. Henry R. Miller of the University of New
Mexico in Albuquerque has concluded much of the same. “In 1995 Henry R. Miller and his colleagues rated forty-three
kinds of treatment by combining the results of 211 controlled trials that had compared the effectiveness of a treatment
[method] with either no treatment or with other alcoholism therapies. The treatment with by far the best score was ‘brief
intervention’-followed by social-skills training and motivational enhancements… The Miller report described the
standard treatment in the United States as ‘a milieu advocating a spiritual twelve-step (AA) philosophy, typically
augmented with group psychotherapy, educational lectures and films, and …general alcoholism counseling, often of a
confrontational nature.”
This means that statistically, the success that treatment claims for there own is actually from a group that would have
recovered without treatment. In other words treatment at best has no effect. Billions of dollars later and treatment has
at best no effect? Even more striking, treatment takes credit for the “success” of those people who would have gotten
well without treatment. In addition, treatment professionals have claimed brief interventions as a part of treatment
methodology when they are mutually exclusive.
In Alcohol Alert a publication of the National Institute on alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, No. 43, April 1999, Dr. Gordis
reports the following: Some studies conducted among alcohol-dependent patients have found that brief intervention is
as effective as more expensive treatment approaches used in specialized alcohol treatment settings (8,9,41,42.)
Edwards and colleagues (8) compared the effectiveness of one session giving brief advice to stop drinking with
standard alcohol treatment among 100 alcohol-dependent men… One year later both groups reported a 40%
decrease in alcohol related problems. After 2 years patients with less severe problems were more likely to report
improvement if they received brief intervention than if they received intensive treatment. However, patients with more
severe problems were more likely to report improvement if they received intensive treatment (43).” A brief intervention
is just that, brief. It can consist of as little as a family member saying "I think you should stop drinking" or a person
asking themselves if they have a problem. Treatment is not a brief intervention it is exactly the opposite.
“The American Medical Association estimates that 25-40 percent of patients occupying general hospital beds are there
for treatment of ailments that result from alcoholism. In the United States, the economic costs of alcohol abuse exceed
$115 billion a year. Physicians in general practice; hospitals and specialty medicine have considerable potential to
reduce the large burden of illness associated with alcohol abuse. For example, several randomized, controlled trials
conducted in recent years demonstrate that brief interventions by physicians can significantly reduce the proportion of
patients drinking at hazardous levels.” (Thomas R. Hobbs, Ph.D., M.D, “Managing alcoholism as a disease 1998. What
is not surprising is that those treatment methods most commonly used by current treatment centers in the United
States are those that scored the lowest for effectiveness in Millers study. In final analysis the Dawson Study and Millers
findings show that depriving alcoholics of the treatment modality most commonly used would actually be beneficial for
the alcoholic and addict.
Baldwin Research Institute Inc. recently surveyed 38 treatment programs spread across 36 states. We discovered that
the average cost per day was $370.94. The average cost of program completion was $18,844.39 and the average
length of stay was 81 days. Of the 38 programs, 90% were 12 Step based, 89% have patients attend AA meeting while
in the program and 95% taught the disease concept. Only one program had verifiable statistics.
“Barry McCaffrey, drug czar, and the government's Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
announced as proof that treatment works a study in which 1,800 people were surveyed after treatment (in other words,
this was a "pre-post" comparison): One in five were still clean and sober.” (Stanton Peele) That’s 20%. Once again,
reduced use is the basis to prove their point — a 45 percent drop in cocaine use, a 28 percent drop in marijuana use,
and a 14 percent drop in heroin and alcohol use. Even ignoring the idea that reduction of use is not the supposed
goal of treatment and reporting it as such only misleads the public, 20% hardly seems like success.
This is not uncommon by any means. Most, if not all studies that support conventional treatment methods, are skewed
and misrepresentative. Almost all who report a success rate more then 30% survey their patients while currently in
treatment or shortly after leaving. Many use a decline in negative consequences as a determination for success as
well as program completion and discontinued use of primary substance. Very few consider sobriety, the supposed goal
of a treatment program, a measurement of its success. The absurdity of this situation is striking.
A report by Linda C. Sobell, PhD, John A Cunningham, PhD, and Mark B. Sobell, PhD called Recovery from Alcohol
Problems With and Without Treatment: Prevalence in Two Population Surveys also confirms the previous statement.
This is a published report presented in the American Journal of Public Health, July 1996, Vol. 86, No. 7. This report
demonstrates that more alcoholics recover without treatment than do those who receive treatment, at a rate of more
than 3:1. To say that “Treatment Doesn’t Work” according to this study, and many others would grossly understating
he impact of treatment.
On any given day there are 700,000 people in the United States receiving treatment. One in 5 men and 1 in 10 women
who visit their primary care providers meet the criteria for at-risk drinking, problem drinking, or alcohol dependence
(Manwell et al. 1998). In the year 2000, the census bureau released a population overview that estimated there were
134,979,000 men in the United States. Using the Manwell et al study that would mean there are 26,995,800 men who
show signs of alcohol abuse and 14,108,000 women who also show signs of alcohol abuse, giving a combined total of
41,103,800 million residents of the United States who can be classified as alcoholics. This is 6.7% of the population.
Using the report by Linda C. Sobell, PhD, John A Cunningham, PhD, and Mark B. Sobell, PhD called Recovery from
Alcohol Problems with and without Treatment: Prevalence in Two Population Surveys, with the above numbers, if
everyone who was diagnosed with alcohol dependence sought treatment, 27,128,508 would not get sober in
treatment. Using Kolenda's estimates, if everyone who was diagnosed with alcohol dependence sought help in AA,
after five years, 41,001,041 will have failed in AA.
An area where OASAS (New York States Certifying agency for treatment programs known as Office of Alcoholism and
Substance Abuse Services) and Baldwin Research have been unable to agree is the efficacy of treatment programs.
We have provided OASAS with information on dozens of studies over the years that indicate that the efficacy of
OASAS style treatment results in less than 30% of those treated remaining sober and drug free for six months and less
than 14% remain sober and drug free for five years or more. We provided OASAS the results of a New York State
adolescent study we conducted in 1993 where 100% of the 30 subjects from three different school districts relapsed
within 14 months post treatment. All thirty adolescents were treated at OASAS type treatment programs.
Recently we reviewed a report by the Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services or OASAS (New York States
treatment program certifier and provider) entitled OASAS Evaluation Systems: Preliminary Analysis of Behaviors of
Clients Remaining in Treatment at Least Six Months. This report asserted some rather remarkable conclusions that to
be sure, supported OASAS treatment programs, but failed to be persuasive as unbiased, scientific study.
Section IV of this report states: “Although an experimental design was not employed and a control group was not
utilized, the data presented in this report convincingly demonstrate the effectiveness of the four drug/alcohol use.”
Without a study, it is reasonable to expect that while in treatment, particularly residential treatment, measurements
such as arrests, incarceration, detoxification services, hospitalizations, ER episodes and drug and alcohol use would
decline. However, to suggest the decline is the result of a specific type of treatment, such as psychological or medical
treatments, would not be true. Non-professional social programs comprised approximately 30% of the providers in the
CALDATA Study. These social programs presented better overall results than residential programs, outpatient
programs, and methadone programs, although outpatient and methadone programs were less expensive in the short
term.
Further, in section IV of this report it states: “The analysis demonstrates that clients retained in treatment at least six
months produced significance saving to New York State taxpayers.” These “savings” may be far more elusive then the
report indicates. The author points out “that the cost of treatment was not factored into the savings figures.” The
author suggests that because the benefits are so great, accounting for the cost of treatment would not appreciably
change the results. Although interesting, such a conclusion is not accurate. Conservatively, the average cost (average
of all four programs types) of six months of treatment can be estimated at $3,600 per individual. Thus, the cost of
treatment for the entire client sample would be approximately $67 million or a loss to the taxpayers of $16.8 million. If
one extrapolates the purported savings from the 58% sample to all the clients expected to stay in treatment at least six
months the total savings would not be $87 million but a loss of more than $30 million.
It is disturbing that the report measures the efficacy of the programs using pre-existing conditions in its favor. For
example, the report indicated that Alcoholism Outpatient Clinic programs were 52% effective in “Maintaining Full-Time
or Improving Employments-Related Status.” If people were employed at the time of entry into the program, there is not
evidence that suggests that they would not have been employed six-months later without attending the program. What’
s more, it is likely that 45% or more of the 52% were already employed and would have remained that way without
treatment. Thus, the “real” impact of the treatment may have been 4% or 5%. However, even 4%, 5%, or 7% cannot be
attributed to the types of treatment promulgated by OASAS. Arguably, those same individuals putting the same amount
of effort into Alcoholics Anonymous, which costs nothing, could have achieved the same results.
But probably the most disturbing information is the report of “% Discontinued Use of Primary Substance.” This
category implies that one measure of efficacy of treatment is the reduction in use of the clients’ primary substance
while in treatment. While it would be good if clients refrained from using their drug of choice during the time they are in
treatment, the goal of treatment programs is usually thought to provide methods and skills for clients to refrain from
using their drug of choice when they are not in treatment.
Recently, Baldwin Research Institute, Inc., requested program outcome studies or success rates of OASAS certified
programs. Not surprising this is the response we received from Alan Kott, Director for Evaluation on December 29,
2003:
“Your information request was forwarded to me by our Communications Office. OASAS traditionally did not conduct
post-treatment outcome studies. We do have one such study currently underway in the Northeast Region, but results
are not yet available. However, we continually monitor program performance utilizing retention rates, completion rates,
employment-related involvement and abstinence measures. This information is collected at client discharge. So,
whether we can provide you with the information being requested will depend on how you are defining ‘success.’”
Our organization defines success as sobriety, which, most would assume, is the goal of all treatment programs.
Apparently this idea is lost to OASAS. OASAS is a government funded organization who, apparently, has never had to
prove the efficacy of their programs. Yet, this same organization, opposes treatment alternatives based on the
assertion that their programs are more affective. Obviously, their assertion is an outright lie because they have no
studies to back their claims what-so-ever nor have they ever been required to produce any.
We, however, are not the only organization that has been reporting poor results by OASAS type treatment programs.
Over the past decade insurance companies have overtly backed away from drug and alcohol treatment citing poor
results as the reason. Of course, the idea that treatment is ineffective is not only a concern for insurance companies.
Doctors are aware as well. “Surprisingly, Dr. Peele’s view that alcoholism is a personal conduct problem, rather than a
disease, seems to be more prevalent among medical practitioners than among the public. A recent Gallop poll found
that almost 90 percent of Americans believe that alcoholism is a disease. In contrast, physicians’ views of alcoholism
were reviewed at an August 1997 conference held by the International Doctors of Alcoholics Anonymous (IDAA). A
survey of physicians reported at that conference found that 80 percent of responding doctors perceived alcoholism as
simply bad behavior.” (Thomas R. Hobbs, Ph.D., M.D, “Managing alcoholism as a disease 1998.
But, treatment professionals once again pass the blame. “The problems are a lack of training on substance abuse and
doctors' lack of faith that traditional treatment methods work,” says Joseph Califano, president of the National Center
on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, which conducted the study. USA Today Information
Network May 10, 2000. The disease concept is a convenient excuse for treatment providers. Not only does it provide a
reason for failure, it excuses counselors from responsibility.
The question is why are we told treatment does work? Why are studies sited that “prove” that they do? It all comes
down to interpretation of the facts. Such proclamations of treatment success are common among biased researchers
with personal agendas. In fact, these non-scientific proclamations are so common and so ludicrous that the scientific
community is now publishing articles ridiculing these reports. I direct your attention to An Invitation to Debate: How to
have a high success rate in treatment: advice for evaluators of alcoholism programs by William R. Miller (Department
of Psychology, University of New Mexico) and Martha Sanchez-Craig (Addiction Research Foundation, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada. This article appeared in Addiction (1996) 91(6), 779-785. The abstract reads as follows: “Two
seasoned alcohol treatment researchers offer tongue-in-cheek advice to novice program evaluators faced with
increasing pressure to show high success rates. Based on published examples, they advise: (1) choose only good
prognosis cases to evaluate; (2) keep follow-up periods as short as possible; (3) avoid control and comparison
groups; (4) choose measures carefully; (5) focus only on alcohol outcomes; (6) use liberal definitions of success; (7)
rely on self-reporting and (8) always declare victory regardless of finding.” While Miller and Sanchez-Craig’s humor is
not lost to us, the tragic truth they expose is not humorous. Alcoholics and drug addicts are dying everyday because of
studies that are published proclaiming treatment works when, in fact, everyone in the treatment industry with any ability
to be objective knows that it doesn’t.
Certainly Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. reporting the truth to the public about drug and alcohol treatment not working
is an economic threat to treatment programs. Furthermore publicly reporting that treatment doesn’t work is an
economic threat to the treatment industry whose entire existence is dependent on the drug and alcohol treatment
community. And it is a direct economic threat to Alcoholics Anonymous who derives the bulk of its revenue and
members from the treatment community.
This article was reprinted with permission from the Baldwin Research Institute.
Copyright 2004 Baldwin Research Institute, Inc.
boast “Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path.” The truth is people rarely succeed
when following the path of those in AA. As stated previously, 95% of the existing treatment centers in the United States
adhere to the 12 Step philosophies. Not surprising, the success rate of treatment is no different from the success rate
of AA: 3%.
While treatment professionals boast “treatment works,” the question is what is exactly working? As Stanton Peele so
eloquently put it “…the blanket assurance that "treatment works" does precious little for most people who drink too
much.” (All Wet, Stanton Peele) Of course treatments alternative counterpart and co-conspirator, Alcoholics
Anonymous, leads with the same misleading and outright dishonest assurance that its program “Works if you Work it.”
Groupers, the GSO, and AAWS conveniently claim success without any foundation. In reality the statement is a
complete contradiction to empirical evidence. Both AA and treatment are outright failures when held to any standard
but their own. But, apparently it’s a matter of semantics. It comes down to who is using the word “works.”
The general public would believe that these programs “working” would be a testament to helping people with
substance abuse issues get sober. In other words the people who join the groups can get well. But, after arriving in
treatment or AA with the hopes of finding a way out of the misery individuals have created, those in need are told that
they can never get well, there is no cure. So, what exactly is working? What kind of program are our loved ones
attending?
The knowledge that “Treatment Doesn’t Work” is not an idea exclusive to those outside of the existing treatment
paradigm. Those within it, and promoting it, are also well aware of treatments ineptitude and damage. Enoch Gordis,
Director of the NIAAA stated the following: “In the case of alcoholism, our whole treatment system, with its innumerable
therapies, armies of therapists, large and expensive programs, endless conferences, innovation and public relations
activities is founded on hunch not evidence, and not science. To determine whether treatment accomplishes
anything, we have to know how similar patients who have not received the treatment fare. Perhaps untreated patients
do just as well. This would mean that the treatment does not influence outcomes at all. Perhaps treated patients do
worse: that is perhaps treatment is really harmful in unexpected ways so that patients who are not treated get better
more often. Perhaps even if the treatment is helpful, a little bit of it is just as useful as a lot of it.”
Again, this statement was made by Enoch Gordis. For years he has promoted the benefits of treatment as the
spokesman for one of the largest institutions for drug and alcohol treatment and program research. It was Enoch
Gordis who implemented the $27 million dollar campaign attempting to prove “Treatment Works”. Enoch heads the
organization founded by one of the foremost contributors to the institution of the medical model and the disease
concept, R. Brinkley Smithers. One must understand that in many respects Enoch is a politician lobbying for public
support and federal funding for the programs his organization advocates. This statement would be like the president
saying we’re going to try communism based on the hunch that it could benefit the citizens.
We could safely assume that Enoch made this statement based on the knowledge that treatment is a detriment to
those who enter it. Politics does not allow for statements that could easily collapse platforms. It would be ignorant of us
to assume he has no real knowledge of the effect of treatment after years of being directly involved with treatment
programs and funding for them.
Baldwin Research has long been aware of the failure of conventional treatment methods. When the Saint Jude Retreat
House was founded the intention was to provide a much needed working program. After the program was established,
and it worked, the next step was to make efforts to change the existing treatment paradigm. As we began proactively
moving forward, it has been important to show the difference in success of conventional methodologies and the
didactic social-educational method of the Saint Jude Retreat House. While we have accomplished this, there have
been some difficulties that need pointing out.
It is difficult to compare an alternative program to AA in regards to success. The problem is AA is a “lifelong process”
and 95% of treatment providers recommend AA and NA as aftercare for program graduates. While the patient has
successfully completed one program they can never complete AA. Alcoholics Anonymous, like every organized
religion, has no completion; it is a way of life. As treatment absorbed AA philosophy, treatment became a separate sect
of its own, but remains intertwined and enmeshed in 12-Step ideology. While still dedicated to the original principals in
practice, variations of the original program pulled the possibility of success further down the spiral. Treatment and AA
joined with a seemingly genuine purpose, but soon warped and twisted through an unfettered amalgamation of
misinformation and confusion, soon, giving birth to common failure and anecdotal success. Alcoholics Anonymous, and
thereby conventional treatment centers, are dogmatic and ritualistic programs, developed by a deified leader who
misrepresented himself from the start to provide the same failure in sobriety for millions that he had as an individual.
Comparable to a religious institution, there is no program completion. The Saint Jude Retreat House offers a program
that is 6-weeks. The program ends and life begins. For AA and treatment, substance abuse ends and recovery
begins, never to end.
The treatment industry pumps out empty promises and walks away hand-in-pocket, fist full of familial contribution,
confident they did the best they could. The program graduate steps out of the door riddled with fear about “what’s out
there.” Professionals drive a wedge between the real world and the world of recovery that provides for back breaking
stress for any substance abuser believing dogmatic treatment jargon. While many question the efficacy of
conventional treatment programs most do not understand how treatment began. Like the disease concept of
alcoholism, the path to national acceptance was paved by politics and personal agenda.
In the late 1800’s drug addiction and alcohol abuse were not publicly viewed as national problems. In fact, in the past,
drinking in quantities that today would be considered outrageous, were a social norm, early pioneers drank alcohol as
a substitute for water. Most had come from countries where pollution made the consumption of water dangerous. But,
even with the amounts of alcohol consumed, alcoholism was extremely rare. At the same time, in the early late 1800’s
and early 1900’s doctors freely prescribed opiates like morphine. They were considered a staple of medical practice. A
more familiar brand name today, Bayer, manufactured heroin as an anti-diarrheal. “During this period, writes historian
David T. Courtwright, “The public thought of addiction as neither a crime nor a fit object for mandatory treatment.”
(Sarah Glaser, “Treating Addiction,” CQ Researcher, January 6, 1995)”
But, the practice of prescribing opiates soon turned into a problem of its own. Many middle class women were
becoming addicted to the drugs. Some doctors set up asylums to treat the addicted and many could buy “opium habit
cures” to assist in relieving the problem. But by the early 1900’s, injectable morphine and cocaine were developed
which led to a public concern for a growing population of people using the drugs for pleasure. Shortly thereafter the
American public went from an opinion of addiction as, “being a pathetic condition to a stigmatized one,” writes
Courtwright.
In 1914 the Harrison Act was passed in an effort to control the drug problem. After prohibition laws were passed in the
1920’s, the government stepped up its efforts to eliminate drug abuse by closing the first maintenance treatment
facilities for addicts. But, due to an influx of drug addicted prisoners, federal officials, in conjunction with the U.S. Public
Health Service, successfully proposed and implemented two institutions that used a medical approach to house addicts
in Kentucky and Texas.
The late 1940’s brought with it an epidemic of heroin abuse and due to articles published advocating the benefits of
methadone in treating addiction; the medical model was more widely used and accepted. Two major contributors to the
acceptance of the medical model were Vincent Dole, an endocrinologist, and Marie Nyswander, a psychiatrist. They
purposed that heroin abuse led to a permanent metabolic imbalance that necessitated the use of corrective
medications.
In the 50’s Alcoholics Anonymous was available for problem drinkers, but no such meetings were available for addicts.
A former addict named Charles Dederich began meetings for addicts called Narcotics Anonymous. Eventually his
efforts produced the first Therapeutic Living Community called Synanon. Since its inception, its methodology has been
replicated by other facilities, but, has been done, in the face of Synanon’s failure to produce results.
In the late 1960’s an amendment to the Community of Mental Health Centers Act, mandated substance abusers to
treatment centers implemented by the Kennedy Administration. At this time a reputable and wealthy philanthropist, R.
Brinkley Smithers, stepped on to the field. He was the financier for much of the “research” promoting the disease
concept and treatment programs. His ties to Richard Nixon allowed for the creation of the NIAAA and the continued
existence of a struggling NCA(DD).
The Nixon-era brought with it a stepped up “War on Crime.” Nixon’s administration financed a national growth in
methadone programs. The expansion of methadone treatment centers was implemented in the hopes that addicts
would substitute methadone for heroin, therefore, reducing crime. In 1971, Nixon created the Special Action Office for
Drug Abuse Prevention which began increased federal funding for substance abusers awaiting treatment. It was at this
point that control over federal funding and client payment for treatment centers began to shift to state organizations.
The shift from Federal control to state control began a rapid influx of private institutions. The treatment industry
blossomed into a multi-billion dollar juggernaut. The modalities implemented were not researched or proven effective
but, treatment providers were not obligated to provide success. Therefore, in the face of lacking empirical evidence
and success, the dollars continued to roll in by the millions.
There is substantial evidence that the decline of Alcoholics Anonymous’ effectiveness over a forty-year period was
inversely proportional to the growth of the drug and alcohol rehabilitation industry. Our initial interest, then, was with
Alcoholics Anonymous, and not the rehabilitation industry. However, as we studied Alcoholics Anonymous’ declining
success rate, it was clear that the decline in the success rate emanated from the burgeoning rehabilitation industry.
The rehabilitation industry promoted a secular solution based on the assertion that alcoholism and drug addiction (and
perhaps other compulsive and obsessive conditions) are forms of mental illness. As such, the treatment for these
conditions, in many states, was legislated to be the responsibility of the mental health community.
Moreover, these legislated methods of treatment were implemented without any clinical evidence supporting the notion
that alcoholics and drug addicts could benefit from group therapy, counseling, and other psychological techniques. As
time went by and few recovered, the mental health community concluded that alcoholics and drug addicts could never
completely recover and relapse became an unexpected characteristic of the “disease.” Rather than improving the
treatment methods or trying alternative methods to medical and psychological methods, the treatment community
changed its understanding of the malady to fit the poor results achieved by the treatment offered.
Of course the lack of treatment success not only effects the individuals well being but has been found to be a
tremendous waste of money. In the early 1990’s, Dr. Diana Chapman Walsh of the Harvard School of Public Health
reported that after two years it was 10% less expensive to refer people to Alcoholics Anonymous directly without any
treatment. The significance of this study is that it did head to head comparison between AA and professional treatment
and concluded, as we have, that the benefits of professional treatment programs are questionable.
While scientific studies are lacking, treatment professionals, through personal experience do have an estimate for
conventional program success. Surprisingly, the treatment community actually uses the low success rate to motivate
patients. Credentialed alcoholism counselors typically tell their patients that only 1 in 12 (many counselors use the
ratio of 1 in 30) will “make it.” The theory is that if only one in twelve (or thirty) patients are going to get well, each one
wants to be the one who gets well. Whether the patients try or not seems to have little impact on the outcome of their
treatment, and it is of more than passing interest that independent studies confirm that, indeed, the success rate for
these programs range from 3% to 8% at 5 years post treatment. Treatment professionals tell their patients and the
public that 1 out of 10 to 1 out of 30 “will make it”. 1 out of 10 is 10% and 1 out of 30 is around 3% (some numbers are
higher or lower, but on average these are the excepted numbers). The obvious contrast is that those who enter
treatment have 20-27% less of a chance to recover then those who never entered treatment. Treatment programs
actually lessen the chances of success for their patients.
Deborah Dawson of the NIAAA, an epidemiologist, analyzed 4,585 interviews from those who at one time had been
alcohol dependent. Dawson’s study conclusively showed that untreated alcoholics are approximately 2 times more
likely to get sober and stay sober then alcoholics subjected to treatment. Henry R. Miller of the University of New
Mexico in Albuquerque has concluded much of the same. “In 1995 Henry R. Miller and his colleagues rated forty-three
kinds of treatment by combining the results of 211 controlled trials that had compared the effectiveness of a treatment
[method] with either no treatment or with other alcoholism therapies. The treatment with by far the best score was ‘brief
intervention’-followed by social-skills training and motivational enhancements… The Miller report described the
standard treatment in the United States as ‘a milieu advocating a spiritual twelve-step (AA) philosophy, typically
augmented with group psychotherapy, educational lectures and films, and …general alcoholism counseling, often of a
confrontational nature.”
This means that statistically, the success that treatment claims for there own is actually from a group that would have
recovered without treatment. In other words treatment at best has no effect. Billions of dollars later and treatment has
at best no effect? Even more striking, treatment takes credit for the “success” of those people who would have gotten
well without treatment. In addition, treatment professionals have claimed brief interventions as a part of treatment
methodology when they are mutually exclusive.
In Alcohol Alert a publication of the National Institute on alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, No. 43, April 1999, Dr. Gordis
reports the following: Some studies conducted among alcohol-dependent patients have found that brief intervention is
as effective as more expensive treatment approaches used in specialized alcohol treatment settings (8,9,41,42.)
Edwards and colleagues (8) compared the effectiveness of one session giving brief advice to stop drinking with
standard alcohol treatment among 100 alcohol-dependent men… One year later both groups reported a 40%
decrease in alcohol related problems. After 2 years patients with less severe problems were more likely to report
improvement if they received brief intervention than if they received intensive treatment. However, patients with more
severe problems were more likely to report improvement if they received intensive treatment (43).” A brief intervention
is just that, brief. It can consist of as little as a family member saying "I think you should stop drinking" or a person
asking themselves if they have a problem. Treatment is not a brief intervention it is exactly the opposite.
“The American Medical Association estimates that 25-40 percent of patients occupying general hospital beds are there
for treatment of ailments that result from alcoholism. In the United States, the economic costs of alcohol abuse exceed
$115 billion a year. Physicians in general practice; hospitals and specialty medicine have considerable potential to
reduce the large burden of illness associated with alcohol abuse. For example, several randomized, controlled trials
conducted in recent years demonstrate that brief interventions by physicians can significantly reduce the proportion of
patients drinking at hazardous levels.” (Thomas R. Hobbs, Ph.D., M.D, “Managing alcoholism as a disease 1998. What
is not surprising is that those treatment methods most commonly used by current treatment centers in the United
States are those that scored the lowest for effectiveness in Millers study. In final analysis the Dawson Study and Millers
findings show that depriving alcoholics of the treatment modality most commonly used would actually be beneficial for
the alcoholic and addict.
Baldwin Research Institute Inc. recently surveyed 38 treatment programs spread across 36 states. We discovered that
the average cost per day was $370.94. The average cost of program completion was $18,844.39 and the average
length of stay was 81 days. Of the 38 programs, 90% were 12 Step based, 89% have patients attend AA meeting while
in the program and 95% taught the disease concept. Only one program had verifiable statistics.
“Barry McCaffrey, drug czar, and the government's Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
announced as proof that treatment works a study in which 1,800 people were surveyed after treatment (in other words,
this was a "pre-post" comparison): One in five were still clean and sober.” (Stanton Peele) That’s 20%. Once again,
reduced use is the basis to prove their point — a 45 percent drop in cocaine use, a 28 percent drop in marijuana use,
and a 14 percent drop in heroin and alcohol use. Even ignoring the idea that reduction of use is not the supposed
goal of treatment and reporting it as such only misleads the public, 20% hardly seems like success.
This is not uncommon by any means. Most, if not all studies that support conventional treatment methods, are skewed
and misrepresentative. Almost all who report a success rate more then 30% survey their patients while currently in
treatment or shortly after leaving. Many use a decline in negative consequences as a determination for success as
well as program completion and discontinued use of primary substance. Very few consider sobriety, the supposed goal
of a treatment program, a measurement of its success. The absurdity of this situation is striking.
A report by Linda C. Sobell, PhD, John A Cunningham, PhD, and Mark B. Sobell, PhD called Recovery from Alcohol
Problems With and Without Treatment: Prevalence in Two Population Surveys also confirms the previous statement.
This is a published report presented in the American Journal of Public Health, July 1996, Vol. 86, No. 7. This report
demonstrates that more alcoholics recover without treatment than do those who receive treatment, at a rate of more
than 3:1. To say that “Treatment Doesn’t Work” according to this study, and many others would grossly understating
he impact of treatment.
On any given day there are 700,000 people in the United States receiving treatment. One in 5 men and 1 in 10 women
who visit their primary care providers meet the criteria for at-risk drinking, problem drinking, or alcohol dependence
(Manwell et al. 1998). In the year 2000, the census bureau released a population overview that estimated there were
134,979,000 men in the United States. Using the Manwell et al study that would mean there are 26,995,800 men who
show signs of alcohol abuse and 14,108,000 women who also show signs of alcohol abuse, giving a combined total of
41,103,800 million residents of the United States who can be classified as alcoholics. This is 6.7% of the population.
Using the report by Linda C. Sobell, PhD, John A Cunningham, PhD, and Mark B. Sobell, PhD called Recovery from
Alcohol Problems with and without Treatment: Prevalence in Two Population Surveys, with the above numbers, if
everyone who was diagnosed with alcohol dependence sought treatment, 27,128,508 would not get sober in
treatment. Using Kolenda's estimates, if everyone who was diagnosed with alcohol dependence sought help in AA,
after five years, 41,001,041 will have failed in AA.
An area where OASAS (New York States Certifying agency for treatment programs known as Office of Alcoholism and
Substance Abuse Services) and Baldwin Research have been unable to agree is the efficacy of treatment programs.
We have provided OASAS with information on dozens of studies over the years that indicate that the efficacy of
OASAS style treatment results in less than 30% of those treated remaining sober and drug free for six months and less
than 14% remain sober and drug free for five years or more. We provided OASAS the results of a New York State
adolescent study we conducted in 1993 where 100% of the 30 subjects from three different school districts relapsed
within 14 months post treatment. All thirty adolescents were treated at OASAS type treatment programs.
Recently we reviewed a report by the Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services or OASAS (New York States
treatment program certifier and provider) entitled OASAS Evaluation Systems: Preliminary Analysis of Behaviors of
Clients Remaining in Treatment at Least Six Months. This report asserted some rather remarkable conclusions that to
be sure, supported OASAS treatment programs, but failed to be persuasive as unbiased, scientific study.
Section IV of this report states: “Although an experimental design was not employed and a control group was not
utilized, the data presented in this report convincingly demonstrate the effectiveness of the four drug/alcohol use.”
Without a study, it is reasonable to expect that while in treatment, particularly residential treatment, measurements
such as arrests, incarceration, detoxification services, hospitalizations, ER episodes and drug and alcohol use would
decline. However, to suggest the decline is the result of a specific type of treatment, such as psychological or medical
treatments, would not be true. Non-professional social programs comprised approximately 30% of the providers in the
CALDATA Study. These social programs presented better overall results than residential programs, outpatient
programs, and methadone programs, although outpatient and methadone programs were less expensive in the short
term.
Further, in section IV of this report it states: “The analysis demonstrates that clients retained in treatment at least six
months produced significance saving to New York State taxpayers.” These “savings” may be far more elusive then the
report indicates. The author points out “that the cost of treatment was not factored into the savings figures.” The
author suggests that because the benefits are so great, accounting for the cost of treatment would not appreciably
change the results. Although interesting, such a conclusion is not accurate. Conservatively, the average cost (average
of all four programs types) of six months of treatment can be estimated at $3,600 per individual. Thus, the cost of
treatment for the entire client sample would be approximately $67 million or a loss to the taxpayers of $16.8 million. If
one extrapolates the purported savings from the 58% sample to all the clients expected to stay in treatment at least six
months the total savings would not be $87 million but a loss of more than $30 million.
It is disturbing that the report measures the efficacy of the programs using pre-existing conditions in its favor. For
example, the report indicated that Alcoholism Outpatient Clinic programs were 52% effective in “Maintaining Full-Time
or Improving Employments-Related Status.” If people were employed at the time of entry into the program, there is not
evidence that suggests that they would not have been employed six-months later without attending the program. What’
s more, it is likely that 45% or more of the 52% were already employed and would have remained that way without
treatment. Thus, the “real” impact of the treatment may have been 4% or 5%. However, even 4%, 5%, or 7% cannot be
attributed to the types of treatment promulgated by OASAS. Arguably, those same individuals putting the same amount
of effort into Alcoholics Anonymous, which costs nothing, could have achieved the same results.
But probably the most disturbing information is the report of “% Discontinued Use of Primary Substance.” This
category implies that one measure of efficacy of treatment is the reduction in use of the clients’ primary substance
while in treatment. While it would be good if clients refrained from using their drug of choice during the time they are in
treatment, the goal of treatment programs is usually thought to provide methods and skills for clients to refrain from
using their drug of choice when they are not in treatment.
Recently, Baldwin Research Institute, Inc., requested program outcome studies or success rates of OASAS certified
programs. Not surprising this is the response we received from Alan Kott, Director for Evaluation on December 29,
2003:
“Your information request was forwarded to me by our Communications Office. OASAS traditionally did not conduct
post-treatment outcome studies. We do have one such study currently underway in the Northeast Region, but results
are not yet available. However, we continually monitor program performance utilizing retention rates, completion rates,
employment-related involvement and abstinence measures. This information is collected at client discharge. So,
whether we can provide you with the information being requested will depend on how you are defining ‘success.’”
Our organization defines success as sobriety, which, most would assume, is the goal of all treatment programs.
Apparently this idea is lost to OASAS. OASAS is a government funded organization who, apparently, has never had to
prove the efficacy of their programs. Yet, this same organization, opposes treatment alternatives based on the
assertion that their programs are more affective. Obviously, their assertion is an outright lie because they have no
studies to back their claims what-so-ever nor have they ever been required to produce any.
We, however, are not the only organization that has been reporting poor results by OASAS type treatment programs.
Over the past decade insurance companies have overtly backed away from drug and alcohol treatment citing poor
results as the reason. Of course, the idea that treatment is ineffective is not only a concern for insurance companies.
Doctors are aware as well. “Surprisingly, Dr. Peele’s view that alcoholism is a personal conduct problem, rather than a
disease, seems to be more prevalent among medical practitioners than among the public. A recent Gallop poll found
that almost 90 percent of Americans believe that alcoholism is a disease. In contrast, physicians’ views of alcoholism
were reviewed at an August 1997 conference held by the International Doctors of Alcoholics Anonymous (IDAA). A
survey of physicians reported at that conference found that 80 percent of responding doctors perceived alcoholism as
simply bad behavior.” (Thomas R. Hobbs, Ph.D., M.D, “Managing alcoholism as a disease 1998.
But, treatment professionals once again pass the blame. “The problems are a lack of training on substance abuse and
doctors' lack of faith that traditional treatment methods work,” says Joseph Califano, president of the National Center
on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, which conducted the study. USA Today Information
Network May 10, 2000. The disease concept is a convenient excuse for treatment providers. Not only does it provide a
reason for failure, it excuses counselors from responsibility.
The question is why are we told treatment does work? Why are studies sited that “prove” that they do? It all comes
down to interpretation of the facts. Such proclamations of treatment success are common among biased researchers
with personal agendas. In fact, these non-scientific proclamations are so common and so ludicrous that the scientific
community is now publishing articles ridiculing these reports. I direct your attention to An Invitation to Debate: How to
have a high success rate in treatment: advice for evaluators of alcoholism programs by William R. Miller (Department
of Psychology, University of New Mexico) and Martha Sanchez-Craig (Addiction Research Foundation, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada. This article appeared in Addiction (1996) 91(6), 779-785. The abstract reads as follows: “Two
seasoned alcohol treatment researchers offer tongue-in-cheek advice to novice program evaluators faced with
increasing pressure to show high success rates. Based on published examples, they advise: (1) choose only good
prognosis cases to evaluate; (2) keep follow-up periods as short as possible; (3) avoid control and comparison
groups; (4) choose measures carefully; (5) focus only on alcohol outcomes; (6) use liberal definitions of success; (7)
rely on self-reporting and (8) always declare victory regardless of finding.” While Miller and Sanchez-Craig’s humor is
not lost to us, the tragic truth they expose is not humorous. Alcoholics and drug addicts are dying everyday because of
studies that are published proclaiming treatment works when, in fact, everyone in the treatment industry with any ability
to be objective knows that it doesn’t.
Certainly Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. reporting the truth to the public about drug and alcohol treatment not working
is an economic threat to treatment programs. Furthermore publicly reporting that treatment doesn’t work is an
economic threat to the treatment industry whose entire existence is dependent on the drug and alcohol treatment
community. And it is a direct economic threat to Alcoholics Anonymous who derives the bulk of its revenue and
members from the treatment community.
This article was reprinted with permission from the Baldwin Research Institute.
Copyright 2004 Baldwin Research Institute, Inc.
Treatment Doesn't Work-Written by Baldwin Research Institute
| 1-Addicts, loved ones, & taxpayers are just wasting $billions on treatment proven not to work. 2-Statistics and research proves the medical treatment of drug addiction has consistently failed. 3-All controlled studies on A.A. showed it is harmful and produces almost no long-term recoveries. "The way to sell drugs is to sell psychiatric illness." Carl Elliot, Bioethicist, University of Minnesota |
| THE COURTESY CHECKUP Does court-ordered treatment really help addicts achieve long-term sobriety? |
One of the biggest deceptions portrayed by the addiction field is treatment providers claiming success in the face of
contradicting evidence. How do they do this? It's quite simple, they: (1) choose only good prognosis cases to evaluate;
(2) keep follow-up periods as short as possible; (3) avoid control and comparison groups; (4) choose measures carefully;
(5) focus only on alcohol outcomes; (6) use liberal definitions of success; (7) rely solely upon self-report and (8) always
declare victory regardless of findings. ...And when confronted with failure rates-blame it on a disease! What people don't
realize is most of these programs are only benefiting those with a vested interest in using addicts to make a quick buck.
We as taxpayers are just wasting millions on treatment programs proven not to work. We believe the techniques and
beliefs currently being taught in the addiction field is causing addicts more harm than good. The current system will not
be changed until the public is educated in treatment providers true failure rates.
Defeat Addictions proposes that a courtesy checkup is done on all addicts forced into treatment. This check up
will occur 1-year after their client is released from aftercare, has completed court-ordered treatment successfully,
and finished probation. The reason for this is to get the truth as to if their program really helped their clients achieve
long-term sobriety. Addicts have a tendency to be more honest about their drug use when they have been released from
all authority's pressure and don't have to check in with a drug counselor. The checkup will be done by an independent
organization with no ties to the addiction field and/or the courts. The results will be published in the newspaper for the
public to decide if what professionals are using is helpful or not. Shouldn't we be spending our money on programs that
really work and stop funding those that don't? It's time for a change within the addiction field and we as a community can
make it happen. Success is when the addict maintains abstinence from all alcohol and drug use.
contradicting evidence. How do they do this? It's quite simple, they: (1) choose only good prognosis cases to evaluate;
(2) keep follow-up periods as short as possible; (3) avoid control and comparison groups; (4) choose measures carefully;
(5) focus only on alcohol outcomes; (6) use liberal definitions of success; (7) rely solely upon self-report and (8) always
declare victory regardless of findings. ...And when confronted with failure rates-blame it on a disease! What people don't
realize is most of these programs are only benefiting those with a vested interest in using addicts to make a quick buck.
We as taxpayers are just wasting millions on treatment programs proven not to work. We believe the techniques and
beliefs currently being taught in the addiction field is causing addicts more harm than good. The current system will not
be changed until the public is educated in treatment providers true failure rates.
Defeat Addictions proposes that a courtesy checkup is done on all addicts forced into treatment. This check up
will occur 1-year after their client is released from aftercare, has completed court-ordered treatment successfully,
and finished probation. The reason for this is to get the truth as to if their program really helped their clients achieve
long-term sobriety. Addicts have a tendency to be more honest about their drug use when they have been released from
all authority's pressure and don't have to check in with a drug counselor. The checkup will be done by an independent
organization with no ties to the addiction field and/or the courts. The results will be published in the newspaper for the
public to decide if what professionals are using is helpful or not. Shouldn't we be spending our money on programs that
really work and stop funding those that don't? It's time for a change within the addiction field and we as a community can
make it happen. Success is when the addict maintains abstinence from all alcohol and drug use.
| Why not court-order addicts to attend a diseased based treatment program? |
 |  |  |  |
Drug Addiction treatment is big money and there's a lot of people stuffing their pockets full with taxpayers money and
then turning the other way when the addict fails. Everyday people are forced against their will into Alcoholics Anonymous
and harmful programs that are teaching them how to fail in sobriety. The best way to explain how treatment could harm
someone is to share part of my story. I was first picked up for drinking at the age of 15 and forced to attend AA as part of
my probation. While in AA i was lead to believe that i was an alcoholic (my sisters, parents, grand parents never drank)
and that i was powerless over alcohol and couldn't control my choice to drink (it had nothing to do with the fact i was a 15
year old experimenting with life). Later that same year i was picked up again and forced into inpatient treatment. While in
treatment i was lead to believe that i was suffering from a chronic disease (I'm not responsible?) and needed prescription
drugs and dependence on others to help me . At this point in my life i believed there was something wrong with me and i
had accepted that i was diseased (now I'm a victim?). Within a year of returning home i was picked up again for drug use
and sent to inpatient treatment again. From there i moved from one treatment program to the next and it became my life
for the next 20 years. I have attended countless AA meetings, 5 outpatients treatment programs, 3 inpatient treatment
programs, and numerous therapy, counseling, and hospital admissions. It was always the same profitable lie: i was
suffering from a 'chronic incurable progressive disease' and the only way to get better was to go to treatment, take more
prescription drugs, and dedicate my life to Alcoholics Anonymous. In other words continue doing what didn't work.
The only way i was able to get sober and maintain sobriety was to change what i had been taught about my addiction
all my life. I had to understand that my drug use was my own choice and i wasn't a victim of a strange 'disease'. In fact i
was normal and i didn't need dependence of recovery groups or taxpayers wasting their hard earned money on useless
treatment programs. It all came down to a choice that i had to make and i took the responsibility & courage to make it.
Addicts move in and out of addiction through an act of will not through treatment and recovery programs (not saying
addicts can't decide to quit in treatment). The choice to quit is always an option every time the addict decides to use.
There is no such thing as 'loss of control' or involuntary behavior. The majority of alcoholics i have known who were stuck
in a severe addiction problem avoided taking responsibility for their behavior by claiming they were victims of a disease.
Teaching problematic drinkers the beliefs of those who never learned to take responsibility for their drug use on their own
(or expecting an undefined God to solve your problems for you) and to exchange dependency on drugs for dependency
on a group (AA) for sobriety doesn't help them. Teaching addicts to shift personal & moral responsibility for their behavior
to a no-fault disease is killing them. Paying drug counselors, therapists, and treatment providers loads of taxpayers money
is increasing the need for even more treatment. Every study done on treatment and Alcoholics Anonymous proves it.
Instead of being helpful, treatment providers are enabling the addict by providing an environment that supports their
addiction. They are teaching normal people the beliefs of those who failed in taking responsibility on their own and giving
addicts an excuse to fail. Then to keep the taxpayers funding pouring in they manipulate addicts into completing their
program and keep their followups short-term, just so they can proclaim to public officials to have high success rates. They
forget all about the addicts who failed using their harmful programs. The fact is treatment providers don't have a clue what
addiction is and those who do are caught up in AA's deception and false beliefs. We are dedicated to helping addicts not
using them to make money, pushing drugs, promoting powerlessness, or teaching harmful beliefs proven to be false.
Then there are addicts who treatment defeated and now feel society owes them and they demand everyone else pay
for their newfound disease. They were taught to shift all personal responsibility from themselves and started blaming
genes, diseases, or a defect brain for their poor choices. They started believing they were born this way and it wasn't their
fault, so taxpayers should be responsible and pay for their treatment. They claim to have no control over their drug use,
just so they can use the criminal and welfare system to avoid imprisonment, collect handouts, and have a good reason for
people to feel sorry for them. They accept the label of an addict and start losing all self-esteem and self-respect. Then
they lose all ability to take responsibility for their own actions and they become dependent on groups for sobriety. Soon
after, they lose all the motivation and drive to do it on their own and become totally helpless without groups, counselors,
and treatment providers feeding off their self-pity. This is when treatment providers love to reinforce their self-destructive
behavior with even more phony diseases. They are the victims who got caught up in a selfish game of filling beds and
collecting government funding. They move from one treatment program to the next their whole life believing there's
no cure, no chance, and no hope at ever being fully recovered. They become what is known as a diseased addict.
then turning the other way when the addict fails. Everyday people are forced against their will into Alcoholics Anonymous
and harmful programs that are teaching them how to fail in sobriety. The best way to explain how treatment could harm
someone is to share part of my story. I was first picked up for drinking at the age of 15 and forced to attend AA as part of
my probation. While in AA i was lead to believe that i was an alcoholic (my sisters, parents, grand parents never drank)
and that i was powerless over alcohol and couldn't control my choice to drink (it had nothing to do with the fact i was a 15
year old experimenting with life). Later that same year i was picked up again and forced into inpatient treatment. While in
treatment i was lead to believe that i was suffering from a chronic disease (I'm not responsible?) and needed prescription
drugs and dependence on others to help me . At this point in my life i believed there was something wrong with me and i
had accepted that i was diseased (now I'm a victim?). Within a year of returning home i was picked up again for drug use
and sent to inpatient treatment again. From there i moved from one treatment program to the next and it became my life
for the next 20 years. I have attended countless AA meetings, 5 outpatients treatment programs, 3 inpatient treatment
programs, and numerous therapy, counseling, and hospital admissions. It was always the same profitable lie: i was
suffering from a 'chronic incurable progressive disease' and the only way to get better was to go to treatment, take more
prescription drugs, and dedicate my life to Alcoholics Anonymous. In other words continue doing what didn't work.
The only way i was able to get sober and maintain sobriety was to change what i had been taught about my addiction
all my life. I had to understand that my drug use was my own choice and i wasn't a victim of a strange 'disease'. In fact i
was normal and i didn't need dependence of recovery groups or taxpayers wasting their hard earned money on useless
treatment programs. It all came down to a choice that i had to make and i took the responsibility & courage to make it.
Addicts move in and out of addiction through an act of will not through treatment and recovery programs (not saying
addicts can't decide to quit in treatment). The choice to quit is always an option every time the addict decides to use.
There is no such thing as 'loss of control' or involuntary behavior. The majority of alcoholics i have known who were stuck
in a severe addiction problem avoided taking responsibility for their behavior by claiming they were victims of a disease.
Teaching problematic drinkers the beliefs of those who never learned to take responsibility for their drug use on their own
(or expecting an undefined God to solve your problems for you) and to exchange dependency on drugs for dependency
on a group (AA) for sobriety doesn't help them. Teaching addicts to shift personal & moral responsibility for their behavior
to a no-fault disease is killing them. Paying drug counselors, therapists, and treatment providers loads of taxpayers money
is increasing the need for even more treatment. Every study done on treatment and Alcoholics Anonymous proves it.
Instead of being helpful, treatment providers are enabling the addict by providing an environment that supports their
addiction. They are teaching normal people the beliefs of those who failed in taking responsibility on their own and giving
addicts an excuse to fail. Then to keep the taxpayers funding pouring in they manipulate addicts into completing their
program and keep their followups short-term, just so they can proclaim to public officials to have high success rates. They
forget all about the addicts who failed using their harmful programs. The fact is treatment providers don't have a clue what
addiction is and those who do are caught up in AA's deception and false beliefs. We are dedicated to helping addicts not
using them to make money, pushing drugs, promoting powerlessness, or teaching harmful beliefs proven to be false.
Then there are addicts who treatment defeated and now feel society owes them and they demand everyone else pay
for their newfound disease. They were taught to shift all personal responsibility from themselves and started blaming
genes, diseases, or a defect brain for their poor choices. They started believing they were born this way and it wasn't their
fault, so taxpayers should be responsible and pay for their treatment. They claim to have no control over their drug use,
just so they can use the criminal and welfare system to avoid imprisonment, collect handouts, and have a good reason for
people to feel sorry for them. They accept the label of an addict and start losing all self-esteem and self-respect. Then
they lose all ability to take responsibility for their own actions and they become dependent on groups for sobriety. Soon
after, they lose all the motivation and drive to do it on their own and become totally helpless without groups, counselors,
and treatment providers feeding off their self-pity. This is when treatment providers love to reinforce their self-destructive
behavior with even more phony diseases. They are the victims who got caught up in a selfish game of filling beds and
collecting government funding. They move from one treatment program to the next their whole life believing there's
no cure, no chance, and no hope at ever being fully recovered. They become what is known as a diseased addict.
| THE #1 MONEY MAKER IN THE ADDICTION TREATMENT COMMUNITY! |
Defeat Addictions is not against teaching addicts to take responsibility for their behavior, helping addicts understand the
consequences of their addiction, and giving back the responsibility. We are against sending addicts through treatment
programs that teach addiction is a disease, programs proven not to work, and addicts using treatment as a way to
escape punishment. Taxpayers are enabling the addict when they take responsibility for the addict and offer to pay
for their treatment. If addicts don't learn to take responsibility for their own behavior and pay for their own poor choices
they never will. We need to stop removing responsibility from the addict by paying their treatment costs for them. How?
consequences of their addiction, and giving back the responsibility. We are against sending addicts through treatment
programs that teach addiction is a disease, programs proven not to work, and addicts using treatment as a way to
escape punishment. Taxpayers are enabling the addict when they take responsibility for the addict and offer to pay
for their treatment. If addicts don't learn to take responsibility for their own behavior and pay for their own poor choices
they never will. We need to stop removing responsibility from the addict by paying their treatment costs for them. How?
IS TREATMENT HELPING OR HURTING THE ADDICT?
Making Money Off Making People Sick
One day you woke up and didn't feel quite right, so you went to the doctor. After a brief interview and no biological tests
performed, the doctor tells you that you have a disease called 'not feeling right' and prescribes you drugs to be taken
daily. You trust the doctor and begin taking your prescribed drugs. Months later you develop infections in your ears and
start feeling really blue. So you return to the doctor and after a brief interview and no biological tests performed he
claims you also have a new chronic disease called 'feeling really blue' and prescribes you more drugs for infections and
'feeling really blue'. He also tells you to start hanging out with other diseased people and learn from them what it's like
being diseased. As time passes you begin to notice that you're spending $100's a month on all the drugs you've been
prescribed. On top of that the effects of all the drugs is making you increasingly ill. So you return to the doctor and after
a brief interview and no biological tests performed, he now decides you don't have the diseases 'not feeling right' and
'feeling really blue', but instead you have a chronic incurable progressive disease called 'being sick' and sends you to
radiation therapy and prescribes you drugs for 'being sick'. He also requires you to meet with him 2 times a week at
$80 an hour. Within a few months your body starts deteriorating and you start feeling suicidal. So at your next $80
appointment the doctor prescribes drugs to numb your brain so you don't commit suicide and reassures you that your
disease is progressive and incurable. He also requires you to hang out with his 'special' group of other diseased clients.
Before long, between taking all the drugs, spending all your money, hanging out with diseased people, and learning
how hopeless your newfound diseases were, you decide you can't take it anymore and you pull the trigger.
Years later research proved there were no diseases called 'not feeling right', 'feeling really blue', or 'being sick'.
It was all a hoax pharmaceutical companies and phony doctors used to make money off making people sick.
...But by then the phony doctor had taken his car load of cash and fled. It's all totally legal and happens everyday.
One day you woke up and didn't feel quite right, so you went to the doctor. After a brief interview and no biological tests
performed, the doctor tells you that you have a disease called 'not feeling right' and prescribes you drugs to be taken
daily. You trust the doctor and begin taking your prescribed drugs. Months later you develop infections in your ears and
start feeling really blue. So you return to the doctor and after a brief interview and no biological tests performed he
claims you also have a new chronic disease called 'feeling really blue' and prescribes you more drugs for infections and
'feeling really blue'. He also tells you to start hanging out with other diseased people and learn from them what it's like
being diseased. As time passes you begin to notice that you're spending $100's a month on all the drugs you've been
prescribed. On top of that the effects of all the drugs is making you increasingly ill. So you return to the doctor and after
a brief interview and no biological tests performed, he now decides you don't have the diseases 'not feeling right' and
'feeling really blue', but instead you have a chronic incurable progressive disease called 'being sick' and sends you to
radiation therapy and prescribes you drugs for 'being sick'. He also requires you to meet with him 2 times a week at
$80 an hour. Within a few months your body starts deteriorating and you start feeling suicidal. So at your next $80
appointment the doctor prescribes drugs to numb your brain so you don't commit suicide and reassures you that your
disease is progressive and incurable. He also requires you to hang out with his 'special' group of other diseased clients.
Before long, between taking all the drugs, spending all your money, hanging out with diseased people, and learning
how hopeless your newfound diseases were, you decide you can't take it anymore and you pull the trigger.
Years later research proved there were no diseases called 'not feeling right', 'feeling really blue', or 'being sick'.
It was all a hoax pharmaceutical companies and phony doctors used to make money off making people sick.
...But by then the phony doctor had taken his car load of cash and fled. It's all totally legal and happens everyday.
 | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
DEFEAT ADDICTIONS.ORG
| Free Self-Treatment & Recovery Programs For |
Alcohol & Drug Addiction
God's Wrath
| If the son (Jesus Christ) shall set you free, you shall be free indeed. John 8:36 |
| Free Self-Treatment & Recovery Programs For |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |