Perpetuating the Addiction Problem
Any treatments, which help with addiction for alcohol or drugs, are blocked from being used because of the argument they have not been clinically trialed or scientifically proven. However those in possession of the facts know this argument is unfounded due to overwhelming anecdotal evidence that these treatments do actually work and clinical trials are not a reliable basis to judge any treatment method. In addition, the current treatment method 'the disease model of addiction' has not been scientifically proven or tested either and has a success rate of just 3% but this is used in favour of any other and more successful treatments for addiction, so the question is, why?
There has been a series of articles in the media in recent months about alcohol or drug addiction including:
- UK has
Europe's worse
drug problem
- Epidemic of middle-class drinkers damaging health with 'hazardous' levels of alcohol
- Methadone 96.6% ineffective
- Number of alcohol-related cases doubles in a decade
- Britain is now cocaine capital of Europe
- £1.85m to get each person off drugs - Drug services make slow progress
- Alcohol-induced illnesses soar
- Are Government drug treatment programmes a waste of taxpayers' money?
- Drug success rate of 3% is nothing more than the natural rate of remission
Dr. Dalrymple, author of 'Doctors, Lies & Addiction Bureaucracy' argues that his profession has totally misunderstood addiction & continues to perpetuate the myth to protect its own existence. As a result, a self-serving, self-perpetuating and completely useless medical/drug bureaucracy has built up to deal with the problem.
The propaganda, assiduously spread for many years now, is that addiction is an "illness". This view serves the interests both of the addicts who wish to continue their habit while placing the blame for their behaviour elsewhere, and the bureaucracy that wishes to continue in employment, preferably for ever and at higher rates of pay. Since the bureaucratic solution to waste is to waste even more, you don't have to be Nostradamus to predict that funding in Britain will continue to rise.
The current treatment method 'the disease model of addiction' has not been scientifically proven or tested and has a success rate of just 3% but this is used in favour of any other and more successful treatments for addiction, so the question is, why?
Viewing addiction as an illness automatically implies there is a medical solution to it. So, when all the proposed "cures" fail to work, addicts blame not themselves but those who have offered them ineffectual solutions. And for bureaucracies, nothing succeeds like failure. The Government spends more than £739m a year on drug/alcohol treatment in the UK, however most of the money is spent on bureaucracy rather than actual treatment.
Addiction services have also grown massively. In our society, every problem calls forth its equal and supposedly opposite bureaucracy, the ostensible purpose of which is to solve the problem. But the bureaucracy quickly develops a survival instinct, and so no more wishes the problem to disappear altogether than the lion wishes to kill all the gazelle in the bush and leave itself without food. In short, the bureaucracy of addiction needs addicts far more than addicts need the bureaucracy of addiction.
The simple fact is more people quit addictions than maintain them, that's not to say it happens overnight. People succeed when they recognize that the addiction interferes with something they value—and when they develop the confidence that they can change. Change is natural. People no doubt act very differently in many areas of their life now compared with how they were when they were teenagers. Likewise, over time they will probably overcome or ameliorate certain
behaviours: a short temper, insecurity, lack of confidence etc.
For some reason, the drug bureaucracy exempt addiction from our beliefs about change. In both popular and scientific models, addiction is seen as locking the individual into an inescapable pattern of
behaviour. Both folk law, as represented by Alcoholics Anonymous, and modern neuroscience regard addiction as a virtually permanent brain disease. No matter how many years ago your uncle Bob had his last drink, he is still considered an alcoholic.
The very word addict confers an identity that admits no other possibilities. It incorporates the assumption that one can't, or won't, change. But this fatalistic thinking about addiction doesn't jibe with the facts. More people overcome addictions than do not. Quitting may take several tries, and people may not stop smoking, drinking or using drugs altogether. But eventually they succeed in shaking their dependence.
Kicking these habits constitutes a dramatic change, but the change need not occur in a dramatic way. So when it comes to addiction treatment, the most effective approaches rely on the counter intuitive principle that less is often more. Successful treatment places the responsibility for change squarely on the individual and acknowledges that positive events in other realms may jump-start change. Ages 18 to 25 constitute the peak period of drug and alcohol use however only 3 percent of those aged 55 to 59 are registered as addicts. This shows that most people overcome their alcohol/substance abuse.
The Disease Model - Popularised but Not Proven
All twelve-step support groups teach the disease model of addiction, which was popularised (but never proven) by AA/NA in the 1960's and adopted by professional organizations and government agencies. The disease model of addiction is spiritual, unscientific and unproven however the medical bureaucracy who constantly demand 'scientifically proven treatments' adopted the disease model for addiction without any scientific proof whatsoever. This model does much more harm than good because it undermines peoples' ability to regain control and the poor, vulnerable people who attend these groups think they will get real help, when in fact they don't. The only thing established about the disease model is it perpetuates the addiction problem and has a very slow and low success rate of just 3 percent, from the latest government figures.
In the book, The Truth about Addiction and Recovery makes a very compelling argument that the "disease theory" of addiction, especially for alcohol and drugs, is completely wrong. Common dogma says that "Addiction is a disease." Researchers explain addictions are caused by endorphins, chemicals the brain secretes in pleasurable moments. Addicts chase the high from endorphins, as the theory goes. There's just one problem: It's never been proven.
"Addicts can't stop themselves." "They'll be addicted for the rest of their lives." "They must never smoke or drink again!" Again, all are myths. Smokers, drinkers and even drug users have stopped on their own or with effective treatment.
As for drug users, there have been several studies affirming that people do quit drugs and don't give into temptations to use them; one study followed Vietnam vets: Many used heroin while in combat, but few continued using it after they came home. Consider how many people experimented with drugs during the '60's, yet this did not lead to mass addiction in the 70's.
Addicts are "cured" by treating them in hospital-based programs. Yet, there's no evidence that they don't get people off drugs or alcohol any faster or more effectively. In fact, they may even hinder recovery. The typical hospital-treatment program for drug and alcohol addicts imposes these premises on the patient: "You have a disease", "You are an addict", "You will be addicted for the rest of your life", "You are in denial", "You must turn to other addicts for guidance". Many of these programs impose a coercive environment so that addicts can "come to terms" with their addiction. Many of these programs are physically abusive, but the worst part of treatment, though, is the way that clients have their identities forced upon them. No longer are they housewives, teachers, executives or writers–they are addicts! Forever.
People need treatment in the context of their lives, and encouraged to overcome their addictions among family and friends. Well-balanced people, rather than addicts, are their models. Most importantly, people under treatment develop an identity of their own, without coercion.
Claims that the 12-Step/Disease Concept of recovery is the most successful treatment ever devised are what we hear. The reality is that these treatment paradigms have consistently demonstrated outcomes ranked lowest among the various options studied. The Ditman Study provided evidence that AA is no more effective than no treatment at all. The AA itself conducts surveys. The AA Monograph, Comments on AA's Triennial Surveys, revealed this surprising result regarding new member dropout rates:
At one month, the percentage of those that have remained is 19%, at 3 months 10%, and at 12 months 5%. This is a 5% success rate at the one-year point if success is simply defined as continuing AA membership. Because AA considers addiction a chronic, progressive disease, these findings make it ironic that the 12-Step model is described as a “program for life”.
There is an opposing viewpoint to that of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), Narcotics Anonymous (NA), and all other twelve-step mutual-help support groups, that these groups, unfortunately, are part of the problem, not the solution. They only serve to perpetuate myths that have clearly been proven false based upon the vast amount of research that has been done in the field of substance abuse. Click here to read more.
All twelve-step support groups teach the disease model of addiction, which was popularized by AA and adopted by professional organizations and government agencies. The disease model of addiction is intellectually sloppy and unscientific. This model does much more harm than good because it undermines peoples' feelings of self-control. Here are its basic premises: Addicts inherit the disease of addiction. They are born with this disease and are therefore already addicts long before they ever use drugs/alcohol. Click here to read more about 12 step studies.
Their disease is characterized by loss of control and progression. In other words, addicts can never control their drug/alcohol use and their disease inevitably gets worse and worse. Their only hope is to remain completely abstinent from all drugs and become a lifelong member of a twelve-step support group. This definition of the 'disease concept' is from the book of Narcotics Anonymous.
Counsellors, AA members, and other disease proponents often talk about inheriting "the gene for alcoholism." These genes have never been found (although a lot of time and money has been spent looking for them). Most researchers, in fact, agree that it is highly unlikely that any such genes exist. A study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on April 18, 1990, linking alcoholism to a specific gene. The study was accompanied by press releases, news conferences, and interviews with the researchers. Eight months later another study was published in JAMA that reported a lack of association between alcoholism and this gene (the dopamine D2 receptor gene). Of course this study was not publicized like the original study and most people never heard of it. They still believe that the alcoholism gene has been found.
All scientific attempts to define an addict have failed because the concept itself is fundamentally flawed. Addicts exist in our minds but not in the objective world around us. The DSM-III-R, which is the authority on psychiatric disorders, contains two categories of pathological patterns of substance use: abuse and dependence.
It's important to note, that the criteria used to diagnose alcohol problems is exactly the same as those for all other substances. The American Psychiatric Association (APA), therefore, doesn't appear to believe that alcohol abuse is any different from that of other substances. Once the person stops using the substance, he no longer meets the criteria for abuse or dependence. In other words, he is no longer an addict or an alcoholic. This is what is known as all-or-nothing thinking, either you are or aren't an alcoholic or a drug addict.
Experts claim the trouble with the drug and alcohol treatment industry and twelve-step support groups is, they take those people with the worst success in controlling their own
behaviour
and allow them to tell the rest of us what our attitudes should be. If you tell people enough times that they have no hope of controlling themselves, they will eventually start to believe you and prove you right.
Loss of control over drugs and alcohol is much more a cultural phenomenon than it is a symptom of a disease. Take for example the Italians. They respect their alcohol. They drink beer or wine at every meal but only drink one or two glasses. They think of alcoholism as a problem over which people can exert control and they object to those who become intoxicated. The Italians have the lowest alcoholism rates.
Another reason that the disease concept is so popular is that it gives people an easy way out. They believe that they inherited their addiction, therefore they're not responsible for their own
behaviour. At first glance this practice may seem helpful. The argument is that it absolves substance abusers of blame and therefore makes them more likely to enter treatment to get help. But keep in mind two things about calling addiction a disease:
1. It's not true.
2. It doesn't help and keeps the individual from doing things that really would help.
People believe that alcoholism and drug addiction are diseases because they want to believe it. It makes them feel better to think that their problems are beyond their control. Most people desperately search for something outside of themselves to blame things on. Real solutions to real problems, however, will never result from ignorance and misinformation.
The truth is most drug and alcohol 'treatments' is ineffective, and therefore a waste of money. Substance abuse is a problem that is never going to be completely prevented and it's never going to be solved using current ineffective treatment methods.
What goes on in treatment anyway? Patients in treatment centres are coerced by the counsellors and other patients to "discover" that they have the disease of addiction. They are shown a list of symptoms (blackouts, loss of control, progression of the disease, etc), and told to admit that they have them. If they claim that they never experienced one or more of these symptoms they are harassed in an effort to combat their denial.
The concept of denial is a dangerous one because as soon as people claim they don't have a problem, it means they really do have it. Denial is viewed as a symptom of the disease. People who have the worst substance abuse problems, on the other hand, are often those who cannot gain a foothold in life. They more often come from deprived environments or from seriously disrupted homes, or have severe personal or emotional problems. Drugs do not make people indolent, antisocial, or delinquent. Rather, people choose to use drugs because drugs allow them to feel and act in ways they need or want to.
New statistics suggest that while more money is being thrown at drug treatment programmes, the number of people leaving them free of their dependency on drugs has barely increased. According to figures from the National Treatment Agency (NTA), spending on drugs services reached £384m last year, up from £253m in 2004-05.
In 2004, 5,759 people left drug treatment free from their addiction, compared with 5,829 in 2006, that's an extra 70 people for the extra £131m spent. The proportion of people who are completely drug-free after treatment is actually falling, down to a lowly 3 per cent. However the rate of 3% is nothing more than the natural rate of remission, meaning that, at least 3% a year will quit using drugs because they have simply had enough and want to be drug free, with this in mind the actual success rate and the sum total of all spending on drug treatment services equals a 0% success rate.
Alcoholism is not a Disease
"In 1976, the writer Ivan Illich warned in the book, Limits to Medicine, that 'the medical establishment has become a major threat to health'. At the time, he was dismissed as a maverick, but a quarter of a century later, even the medical establishment is prepared to admit that he may well be right. (Anthony Browne, April 14, 2002, the Observer)"
History and science have shown us that the existence of the disease of alcoholism is pure speculation. Just saying alcoholism is a disease, doesn't make it true. Nevertheless, medical professionals and popular culture lovingly embraced the disease concept and quickly applied it to alcohol and drug abuse. The disease concept was a cure-all for many failing medical institutions adding millions of pounds to the industry and leading to a prompt evolution of pop-psychology. Research has shown that alcoholism is a choice, not a disease, and stripping alcohol abusers of their choice, by applying the disease concept, is a threat to the health of the individual.
The disease concept oozes into every crevice of our society perpetuating harmful misinformation that hurts the very people it was intended to help. It is a backwards situation where the assumptions of a few were adopted as fact by the medical profession, devoid of supporting evidence. And soon after, the disease concept was accepted by the general public. With this said, visiting the history of the disease concept gives us all a better understanding of how and why all of this happened.
The disease concept originated in the 1800s with a fellow by the name of Dr. Benjamin Rush. He believed alcoholics were diseased and used the idea to promote his prohibitionist political platform. He also believed that dishonesty, political dissention and being of African-American decent were diseases. The "disease concept" was used throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s by prohibitionists and those involved in the Temperance Movement to further a political agenda. Prior to this time, the term alcoholic did not exist. Alcohol was freely consumed, but drunkenness was not tolerated.
Many sociologists contribute its non-existence to the very stigma that the disease concept removes. In fact, "Despite an ardent search, however, temperance adherents never identified an account of a drunkard before the 1800s who reported that he has lost control of his drinking." (Stanton Peele "Diseasing of America" pg. 37) "Drunkenness was not so much seen as the cause of deviant behavior-in particular crime and violence- as it was construed as a sign that an individual was willing to engage in such behavior." (H.G. Levine, "The Good Creature of God and the Demon Rum," in Alcohol and Disinhibitition, eds. R. Room and G. Collins.) During this period of time social ties and family played a much more influential role in an individual's life. Therefore, deviant behaviors were undesirable and less likely to occur. It was not until industrialization began, when the importance of social and family ties diminished, that alcoholism became a problem. We now live in a society that encourages binge drinking as a social norm, but at the same time, we live in a society that discourages it.
The "recovery" community's adoption of the disease concept began with an early AA member named Marty Mann. Her efforts, combined with a somewhat dubious scientist named E.M. Jellinek, began national acceptance of the disease concept. It was Jellinek's "scientific" study that opened the door for the medical communities' support. E.M. Jellinek's study was funded by the efforts of Marty Mann and R. Brinkley Smithers. And, like so many other circumstances involving Jellinek and Marty Mann, the study was bogus if not outright fraudulent.
The surveys he based his conclusions on were from a hand picked group of alcoholics. There were 158 questionnaires handed out and 60 of them were suspiciously not included. His conclusion was based on less than 100 hand picked alcoholics chosen by Marty Mann. Ms. Mann, of course, had a personal agenda to remove the stigma about the homeless and dirty alcoholic or "bowery drunk" in order to gain financial support from the wealthy. By removing the stigma, the problem becomes one of the general population, which would then include the wealthy. The first step was Jellinek publishing his findings in his book "The Stages of Alcoholism" which was based on the selective study. Later, E.M. Jellinek was asked by Yale University to refute his own findings. He complied . E.M. Jellinek's Stages of Alcoholism did not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Early in the 20th Century, the validity of the disease concept was often debated in medical circles. However, in 1956 the American Medical Association (AMA) proclaimed alcoholism an "illness." Then, in 1966, the AMA proclaimed alcoholism a disease. The decision was wrapped in controversy. Historically, Marty Mann had her hand in much of this and manipulated information and doctors into agreeing with the disease concept. Marty Mann used her position as founder of the NCA (National Counsel for Alcoholism) to promote the disease concept through Jellinek and a somewhat clandestine relationship with the founder of the NIAAA (National Institute for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse) whose founder worked with Marty Mann during the institute's early development. The founder of NIAAA (R. Brinkley Smithers) was a major contributor to and promoter of the disease concept. It was his money that actually funded Jellinek's work at Yale. Smithers was also responsible for gaining insurance coverage for patients in treatment (hence the 28 day program). Smithers was certainly not altruistic in his efforts. At that time he had already launched a treatment program for which he was lobbying for insurance payments. Acceptance by the medical community was the only way this could happen; alcoholism had to be a medical problem in order for medical insurance to pay for programs. We can see the influence of these "advances" everyday in treatment programs. Today the treatment industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, with insurance paying the lion's share of the costs.
While it can be argued that Smithers's efforts played an important role, it was Jellinek's study that was such a monumental turning point for the supporters of the disease concept. The current disease paradigm was, in part, developed and promulgated by Jellinek and various other partial participants with personal agendas. Today, Jellinek's "Stages of the Alcoholic" is still widely used to diagnose substance abusers. But, these stages are based on a corrupt study that the author, himself, later refuted. Jellinek not only published a fraudulent study, he defrauded members of his academic community, and apparently lied about his educational background to gain acceptance. Nonetheless, it was Jellinek's "Stages of the Alcoholic" that led to diagnosing alcoholism as a disease and eventually to the medical acceptance of alcoholism as a disease. Astoundingly, the inception of the current disease and treatment paradigm is based on fraud.
While many advocate for its benefits, the disease concept has proven to be far more damaging to the substance abuser then anyone could have predicted. Therapists claim the disease concept helps the patient to understand the seriousness of [his/her] problems. But in reality, this idea has backfired. The disease concept strips the substance abuser of responsibility. A disease cannot be cured by force of will; therefore, adding the medical label transfers the responsibility from the abuser to caregivers. Inevitably the abusers become unwilling victims, and just as inevitably they take on that role. In retrospect then, the disease concept has effectively increased alcoholism and drug abuse. Furthermore, its only benefit has been vast monetary reward for the professionals' and governmental agencies responsible for providing recovery services. Specifically, it has not offered a solution for those attempting to stop abusive alcohol and drug use.
Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. interviewed 545 self-acknowledged substance abusers. Out of the 545, 454 of them had been to at least one conventional, disease-based treatment facility prior to the interview. Some had been to as many as 20 or more conventional, disease-based treatment facilities prior to the interview. Of the total 545 substance abusers, 542 never thought they had a disease. Rather, they thought they had made poor choices regarding their substance use. Three thought they had a disease, and it should be noted that those three were continuing to abuse substances. For those who did not think they had a disease, more than 400 of them falsely stated during conventional treatment that they believed they had a disease. The pressure to conform to the treatment rhetoric and the built-in excuse to relapse were the primary reasons given by treatment clients for saying they had a disease even when they believed wholeheartedly that it was not true. Many substance abusers embrace any excuse to be insincere and abdicate responsibility for themselves, even if they know in their heart it's a lie.
In a recent Gallup poll, 90 percent of people surveyed believe that alcoholism is a disease. Most argue that because the American Medical Association (AMA) has proclaimed alcoholism a disease, the idea is without reproach. But, the fact is that the AMA made this determination in the absence of empirical evidence. After reviewing the history of the decision, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the AMA has been pursuing its own agenda in the face of evidence negating the validity of alcoholism. While the AMA has made extraordinary contributions in the mental health field, it is not outside the box. The AMA is a part of the capitalist paradigm that is necessary for our society to function. The promulgation of the disease concept, in conjunction with AMA approval, has created a multi-billion dollar treatment industry that contributes billions to the health care industry. But, even with the AMA's lofty status, mistakes in classifications can and has resulted in disastrous consequence.
While the AMA's classifications for the most part are accurate, the organization is not without error. Since its inception the AMA has made classifications of varying "deviant" behaviors without scientific research to validate its claims. And, for whatever reason, the definition of a disease, as set forth by the AMA, is a malleable and all inclusive definition allowing for the inclusion of almost every behavior, deviant or otherwise. As a result, every unwanted behavior can be medicalized and medically treated thereby providing professionals with more patients and more income.
With respect to alcoholism, it is beyond the grasp of logic for medical professionals to prescribe 12-Step type meeting attendance as a remedy for an "incurable" medical ailment, not to mention a contradiction to the supposed nature of the problem. Medical professionals are admittedly incapable of helping drug addicts and alcoholics so they pass the buck to organizations outside of the medical community. But, because of recidivism rates and treatment failure, the buck is passed right back. Patients in search of help, pay, on average, over £9,000 (BRI 2003) to attend programs based on principles promulgated by 12 step groups. After an array of varying forms of "therapy" the patient is released with a prescription for lifelong attendance to AA or NA meetings.
In treatment and 12 step groups the individual is told that they can only live "one day at a time." Additionally, they are told that they should never be fooled into believing they can be cured, and if they don't attend meetings they will inevitably fall prey to their "disease doing push-ups in the parking lot." The disease, as described by 12 steppers, is all powerful; it is a separate entity and without meetings it will destroy them. But, with some thought one realizes that these ideas are oxymoronic. To point out the obvious, if someone is "powerless" they would, by definition, not be able to control themselves , not even one day at a time.
The absurdities do not stop with 12 Step groups; professionals contribute their own set of absurdities. For example, the AMA's definition of alcoholism is: "Alcoholism is an illness characterized by preoccupation with alcohol and loss of control over its consumption, such as to lead usually to intoxication if drinking; by chronicity, by progression and by a tendency toward relapse. It is typically associated with physical disability and impaired emotional, occupational and/or social adjustments as a direct consequence of persistent excessive use."
A natural assumption would be that the classification of a disease requires that characteristics and symptoms can be measured or observed. While the majority of diseases fit this requirement, substance abuse does not. The contradiction to these requirements lies within the defined nature of "alcoholism." This supposed disease's symptoms are only discovered after the consumption of alcohol. The health risks, dangerous behaviors and repercussions only materialize after the alcohol is consumed and not before . In comparison, the diagnosis for cancer comes after symptoms surface or cancerous cell are discovered. There are physically visible anomalies that can be measured.
This measurement does not exist with alcoholics. The majority of time, the diagnoses of alcoholism is a guess, if indeed such a diagnosis actually exists. There is little question that a person exposed to enough carcinogens or radiation will eventually get cancer. With alcohol it is questionable if a person will become a problem drinker if exposed to alcohol. While cancer is a separate entity of its own within the body that first exists without the knowledge of its host, over consumption of alcohol, a substance consumed by choice, is necessary before a diagnosis can be made. That is to say that one must choose to create the condition before the condition can exist and subsequently be diagnosed.
Furthermore, consider the following taken from CNE Health. "From doctors and patients to drug companies and the media, there are relentless pressures to classify any condition as a disease. Richard Smith, the British Medical Journals editor, wrote: 'Doctors, particularly some specialists, may welcome the boost to status, influence and income that comes when new territory is defined as medical. International pharmaceutical companies have an apparent interest in medicalising life's problems. Dr. Iona Heath, head of ethics at the Royal College of General Practitioners, warns that there could also be clear downsides: 'Alternative approaches - emphasizing the self-limiting or relatively benign natural history of a problem or the importance of personal coping strategies - are played down or ignored. The disease-mongers gnaw away at our self-confidence. Inappropriate medicalization carries the dangers of unnecessary labeling, poor treatment decisions, economic waste, as well as the costs that result when resources are diverted from treating or preventing more serious disease. At a deeper level, it may help to feed obsessions with health."(CNE Health)
Then there is the DSM IV criterion for diagnosing alcohol abuse. It also does not include physically measurable symptoms. It only requires social and/or legal problems. The DSM IV criterion for diagnosing alcohol dependence requires only one physical symptom that is a result of drinking too much, which is alcohol withdrawal. Following this logic, if a person smokes cigarettes they do not have a problem, but, when they stop smoking and go through nicotine withdrawal, they are then diseased. Yet, most treatment professionals seem oblivious to these blatant contradictions. (Keep in mind that cigarette smoking is not a disease according to DSM IV, although it causes far more health problems than does the use of alcohol and all other drugs combined.)
Sociologist and psychologist have long since been aware of the dangers of medicalising deviant behaviors. Most encourage extreme caution when diagnosing mental illness because of the potential for damage in doing so. People who are labeled usually conform to the standards that the label calls for whether the diagnoses is correct or not. Its dangerous ground that is commonly tread upon by professionals today.
What's even more disheartening is that a large percentage of diagnoses are not made by doctors, but by unqualified "drug counselors." Treatment and AA are recommended by counselors as a way to "nip it in the bud" but these recommendations do far more damage to the individual than if they had just been left alone (which will be discussed later.) It should be pointed out that there is a major conflict of interest among drug counselors, a conflict of interest that cannot be ignored. The majority are, themselves, members of 12 step groups and are believers in AA dogma. These non-professional "professional" counselors have been manipulated into believing 12-Step propaganda. And, like the AMA, their "professional" status allows counselors to convince their patients that the patients need help because they are sick.
And, if this 12 Step nonsense is not harmful enough misinformation abounds. Consider that recently in an attempt to prove a genetic link for alcohol and drug abuse, most studies only provide roundabout evidence of a predisposition, not a cause for alcoholism. With this said, we should point out that the predisposition can only prove a difference in bodily processes, not a difference in thinking . ''Knowing the sequence of individual genes doesn't tell you anything about the complexities of what life is,'' said Dr. Brian Goodwin, a theoretical biologist at Schumacher College in Devon, England, and a member of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico. Goodwin goes on to explain single gene mutations are not accountable for, and cannot explain, complex behaviors. Genes produce proteins they do not guide behaviors. The truth is a predisposition for substance abuse, if it does exist, has no bearing on subsequent behaviors. Chemical processes do not make a person an alcoholic. The person makes the conscience choice. Altered processing of alcohol in no way determines choice or behaviors. Obsessive drinking is not a reaction to bodily processes, but merely a choice. The amount consumed is determined by the individual not by the body.
Nevertheless, news stories surface every year proclaiming discoveries of the genetic sources of emotional and behavioral problems while ignoring the mountains of evidence that refutes such preposterous assertions. Genetics is the new panacea (cure-all) for medical professionals. Since 1987 such reports have appeared on the front page of The New York Times in connection with manic-depressive disorder, schizophrenia, homosexuality, drug abuse and alcoholism. For example, in the early 1990's the Times published a front page story with the headline "Alcoholism Gene Found." However, soon after, the Times published a story titled "Scientists Now Doubt They Found Faulty Gene Linked to Mental Illness." This was not on the front page like the initial story but deep within the paper (Stanton Peele).
It seems that self-proclaimed treatment professionals, blinded by intention, are ignoring the overwhelming evidence that contradicts the very principles they teach. True scientist and medical professionals know, beyond reasonable doubt, the truth about alcoholism and substance abuse. The rise of pop-psychology has clouded reasonable thought. Self-help groups, treatment "therapy," counselors, and groupers are severely damaging the very people they are whole-heartedly trying to help. Twelve-Step dogma and treatment misinformation contradicts empirical evidence and rational thought, in essence, stripping patients and members of inherent and inbred abilities of spontaneous recovery.
While the NCADD (National Counsel on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence), formally the NCA, claims to "fight the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions," its happy-go-lucky explanations of alcoholism and its nature are insultingly unsound. The NIAAA and the NCADD are two adamant supporters of the disease concept and 12 step therapies. But, as previously stated, they are not altruistic in their efforts. These two organizations fund most of the treatment research that goes on in the United States. And, like Marty Mann, pick and choose those studies that fit the organizations' agendas, or they manipulate and reinterpret the outcomes in their own favor. Thus, they receive funding to preserve themselves. This fact is applicable across the board for all certifying governmental organizations and institutions. In truth, whether intentional or not, is pure genius. By filtering the facts, these organizations have "created" the necessity for themselves. They have created a public perception that they are needed by controlling and manipulating substance abuse information.
Irrefutable empirical evidence has shown that organizations and institutions who promote, and adhere to, the disease concept, fail when trying to help people with substance abuse problems. Alcoholics Anonymous has successfully promoted itself as the only hope for alcohol abusers. The public perception is that Alcoholics Anonymous works, but the reality is something completely different.
In 65 years Alcoholics Anonymous has become a part of our social structure. Its tenets have led the medical establishment and been used to diagnose patients with alcoholism while simultaneously giving birth to dozens of spin-off anonymous meetings. Its most outstanding accomplishment has been successfully promoting a fictitious disease, as fact, and to be absorbed into the very fabric of our society. But, while Alcoholics Anonymous has accomplished the unthinkable, its accomplishments have damaged the society. Although its intentions are synonymous with help, the organization's lies and manipulations have damaged society as a whole, costing taxpayers billions of pounds and costing families the lives of their loved ones.
In 1990, the Alcoholic's Anonymous General Services Office or AA GSO, the governing organization overseeing all "autonomous" meetings, published an internal memo for the employees of its offices. It was an analysis of a survey period between 1977 and 1989. The results were in absolute contrast to the public perception of AA. "After just one month in the Fellowship, 81 percent of the new members have already dropped out. After three months, 90 percent have left, and a full 95 percent have disappeared inside one year!" (Kolenda, 2003, Golden Text Publishing Company) That means that in under a year, 95 percent of the people seeking help from AA leave the program. While this only speaks for attendance, it has further implications. AA surveyors do not include dropouts in their sobriety statistics, which is a deceptive, if not outright dishonest, practice. Using the AA GSO statistics, and including the program dropouts, the success rate of AA, as a whole "...the total averages of sobriety for the total AA membership become 3.7 percent for one year [of sobriety], and 2.5 percent over five years." (Kolenda, 2003, Golden Text Publishing Company) It's important to understand that 95 percent of all substance abuse treatment centers in the United States are 12 step based programs. Thus, the failures of AA are also the failures of treatment.
Repeated studies have shown that the average person, who could be diagnosed with a substance abuse problem, will discontinue use on their own 20 to 30 percent of the time. But, those who are exposed to AA and treatment and who are taught the disease concept have a drastically decreased chance of achieving sobriety. While treatment professionals are aware of program failure, governing organizations support and promote the adoption of 12 Step tenets into treatment programs for substance abusers. Families pay thousands of pounds to help their loved ones only to place them in programs that follow guidelines of another failing program. Any program based on a program that fails will inevitably fail. For most, 12 Step has become synonymous with failure.
In contrast, programs that teach control and choice are far more successful than programs that teach the disease concept. While conventional treatment methods result in a 3 percent success rate after five years, programs that do not teach the disease concept, and instead teach choice, have success rates of 86 percent after five and even 10 years (Baldwin Research Institute 2003).
In conclusion, after reviewing the available research from both sides of the debate, the belief in the disease of alcoholism, creates the existence of the disease. Organizations and institutions that promote the disease concept are, in many cases, doing irreparable harm to the individual and performing a disservice to the population as a whole. Geneticists are aware that a predisposition does not dictate subsequent behavior, and treatment professionals are aware that the programs they offer, fail. It is an outright injustice when faced with the facts. Stripping human beings of their ability to choose is damaging, whereas giving them back the power of their own volition is essential for recovery. Alcoholism is a choice, not a disease.
Conventional Treatment Doesn't Work
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 percent of the existing treatment centers adhere to the 12 Step philosophies. Not surprising, the success rate of treatment is no different from the success rate of AA and recent government figures of just 3 percent.
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 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, NA and treatment are outright failures when held to any standard but their own. But, it is 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 or clean. In other words the people who join the groups can get well. But, after arriving in treatment with the hopes of finding a way out of the misery individuals have created, they are told that they can never get well, that there is no cure. So I ask again, what exactly is working? What kind of programs are our loved ones attending?
It is difficult to compare an alternative program to AA or NA in regard to success. The problem is AA and NA is a "lifelong process" and 95 percent 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.
The treatment industry pumps out empty promises and walks away hand-in-pocket, fist full of familial help, 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.
The knowledge that "Conventional 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 treatment's 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 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." One must understand that in many respects he 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 he 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 the funding for them.
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, injectible morphine and cocaine where 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 addicts.
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. Nor were treatment providers obligated to track and report on the success of their respective treatments. 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 a heretofore 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 individual's 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 percent 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.
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 percent 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 percent (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 to 27 percent less of a chance to recover then those who never entered treatment.
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. William R. Miller of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque has concluded much of the same. "In 1995 William 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 their own, is actually a group that would have recovered without treatment. In other words treatment at best helps no one. Billions of dollars, year after year, and treatment has provided no help for anyone? 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 percent 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 are those that scored the lowest for effectiveness in Millers study. In final analysis the Dawson Study and Miller's 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 America. The survey concluded that the average cost per day for treatment for alcohol and other drug abuse 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 percent were 12 Step based and require patients attend AA meeting while in the program and 95 percent taught the disease concept. Only one program had verifiable statistics.
In the final analysis, the disease concept is a convenient excuse for treatment providers. Not only does it provide a reason for failure, it excuses counselors from responsibility of failure (i.e. "relapse is part of the disease".)
The question is why has the public been told that conventional treatment does work? Why are studies cited that allegedly "prove" that treatment works? 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. Source: Soberfoever
Treatments which do work like Bio-Reduction Therapy, which stop drug and alcohol addiction without the use of medication, the 12 steps or counselling exist but are simply ignored by the drug bureaucracy, which has led some to suggest that the Government's current policy on treating those with drug and alcohol addictions is flawed, and that public money is being wasted on bureaucracy, while credible real treatments are being ignored. Click here to read more about Bio-Reduction Therapy.
Please post any comments below: