Dr. Dave and Bill have a new column out today, in which they respond to a reader’s email pointing out to them that the recovery rate for quitting “cold turkey” is equal to the recovery rate for people who quit in AA. They do not dispute this, but they do point out that AA has something that cold turkey quitters will never have: Cake.
Stinkin' Thinkin' 
May 24, 2009 at 12:20 am
They also say this:
“DR. DAVE: The actual statistic is that professional chemical dependency treatment WITH subsequent involvement in AA has recovery rates between 42.4% and 50.9%. Chemical dependency treatment WITHOUT subsequent involvement in AA has recovery rates between 20.6% and 25.9%. Success is defined in these studies as being abstinent for 1-3 years, averaged across 181 research studies.”
But they cite no studies sources for these statistics. I’ve never even seen these numbers claimed before, by anyone.
As to the cake; they mention ice cream more than once. I for one have never seen ice cream at an AA “birthday” or even heard of such a thing, never. Makes me wonder how many actual AA meetings they have ever been to, seriously it does.
May 24, 2009 at 2:23 am
AnnaZ,
Will you please stop undermining my divinely inspired poetic license to misrepresent my enemies around here?
You’re right, they do justify their position (mostly with ice cream — and I should also admit, the image I chose for this post is not even a cake, but the lamest cookie ever baked) but as you say, they can’t be bothered to cite their source. I’ve never seen this statistic either… It seems that they are talking very specifically about people who 1. have been through a 12-step addictions treatment program, and 2. have a year abstinent (from??) at some point “subsequent” (when?) to attending AA. There are a lot of variables flapping in the wind there. I wonder if Dr. Dave and Bill trust their audience enough to throw down. In fact, I think I’ll ask them.
ftg
May 24, 2009 at 4:49 am
You know, I just went back to this article and found that it was much expanded from the version that I found there this morning. For one thing, the piece was only 1/2 a page long (definitely didn’t require one to click on the page 2 link). Weird.
May 24, 2009 at 5:59 pm
ftg,
my bullshit-o-meter went off the charts after reading that little bit of dreck. responded with this e-mail to messr’s dave & bill:
************************
dr. dave & bill,
let me cut right to the heart of the matter: your column is neither sound (never mind ‘objective’) ‘health’ journalism nor is it an example of ‘good AA’ (in and of itself a very maleable term).
1) from the colummn mentioned in the subject line above, the good dr. dave states unequivocally:
“The actual statistic is that professional chemical dependency treatment WITH subsequent involvement in AA has recovery rates between 42.4% and 50.9%. Chemical dependency treatment WITHOUT subsequent involvement in AA has recovery rates between 20.6% and 25.9%. Success is defined in these studies as being abstinent for 1-3 years, averaged across 181 research studies.”
wow — that’s an impressive statistic! and it’s drawn from “181 research studies”!
funny thing, though. dr. dave doesn’t offer a SINGLE citation (or hyperlink) to ANY of those 181 research studies, doesn’t offer a SINGLE citation for how the meta-analysis for drawing the the “42.4% and 50.9%” with AA & “20.6% and 25.9%” without AA statistics were compiled & verified, and performs the neat trick of substituting “chemical dependency” (a pretty wide rubric) for ‘alcoholism’. that’s not even mentioning the nature of the studies themselves — the methodologies applied, whether they were peer-reviewed, what the number of participants was in any of the studies, the study length, if there were ‘control-groups’, or if these 181 ‘studies’ offered anything other than subsequent “AA involvement” or non-involvement [?] in AA (e.g., a referral to SMART or LifeRing support groups, or personal/group therapy and/or the use of pharmacological adjuncts).
none of that hard scientific stuff for dr. dave (or the alcoholics he’s ostensibly ‘helping’ via his health column in a commercial daily newspaper/website). it’s the “actual statistic” … well, because … dr. dave says it is.
gee dr. dave, if that’s the “actual statistic” why isn’t AA publishing that actual statistic on their actual website or in any of their actual literature or press releases?
i know, i know — don’t analyze, utilize. thanks, doc.
2) the wonderfully folksy bill later in the same column adds:
“You know Doc, one of my favorite Traditions is the Sixth: “Hospitals, as well as other places of recuperation, ought to be well outside A.A. — and medically supervised!” For all his treatment research knowledge, Dr. Peele, whom you quoted above, seems to be caught in a fruit salad mix when he compares AA sponsors to medical specialists supervising patients.”
that’s a heckuva zinger for dr. peele there bill! really cutting, erudite stuff — delivered with that ‘aw, shucks, even a dumb old alcoholic like me can see this’ elan of the cagiest of “old timers”.
of course, you willfully miscontrue peele’s accusation that AA sponsors can & often do offer medical (and many other non-alcoholism-related forms of) advice to their sponsees. often, that can end up very badly. to wit:
“Because of the difficulties that many alcoholics have with drugs, some members have taken the position that no one in A.A. should take any medication. While this position has undoubtedly prevented relapses for some, it has meant disaster for others.” (AAWS pamphlet ‘The AA Member – Medications & Other Drugs’, 1984)
if you’re not aware of this (though i suspect you are), AA board member Dr. George Vaillant in his writings & talks often talks about AA sponsors in terms of their being “high status healers”.
so exactly who is doing the tradition 6 shuffle here — peele or vaillant?
further, riddle me this, bill: the actual wording of the tradition states:
“Tradition 6: An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.”
so i’m wondering where exactly you got your quote from.
i mean, none of that language is ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the succinct, cut & dry language of the officially endorsed tradition itself. and despite my best efforts, i can’t even find it in the text of the ‘Tradition 6’ chapter in “12 Steps & 12 Traditions”.
more to the point, i think we both know that the tradition was written in the spirit of keeping the ‘Alcoholics Anonymous’ name/brand from being mixed up in the ‘business’ of any institution (medical or otherwise) so that the ‘AA’ name would not be seen as ‘endorsing’ (or endorsed by) said institution.
that being the case, how do you begin justify your own engaging in the explicit endorsement of AA in a COMMERCIAL newspaper/website?
better, how do either of you justify your flagrant disregard of traditions 10, 11, & 12 in drawing the AA name into potential controversy in a public forum (e.g., the NY DAILY NEWS), in openly promoting AA in said mass public media source (remember “maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films” line?), and in breaking your own personal anonymity (as well as hawking your books & such) in doing so?
i suspect you will try to weasel out of these charges by saying something along the lines of, “we’re individuals. we do not represent AA” or some such equivocating nonsense.
the bottom line is that your column as it regards personal health or science is pure chicanery & your practice of the program you so earnestly promote (and, yes, do promote the hell out of AA with every one of your columns) is deplorable.
think about that with your next bite of sweet, creamy anniversary cake.
enjoy,
speedy
********************
i’m not holding my breath waiting for a reply.
speedy
May 24, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Rock on, Speedy. I’m so glad you wrote them. I had a hell of a time registering to leave a comment on their page last night, and the whole process ended up freezing my browser. I’m going to try again today. Every single column these guys write is an endoresment for AA.
It was very strange how, when I had first linked to the article earlier in the day, it literally was only about 1/3 as long as it was when I went back to it later. I wonder what they added…
May 24, 2009 at 6:18 pm
As usual I am in awe of Speedy and his straight to the point writing.
Obviously it is up to you Speedy, but I would like to see that missive posted in the comments of the site as well. You know Doc and his pal are just going to disregard it.
I did write to the editorial email box of the Daily News:
voicers@edit.nydailynews.com
objecting to the statistics without citing sources.
Maybe you would consider doing the same thing.
Just a suggestion, take what you want and leave the rest.
May 24, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I agree, Anna… I’d like to see speedy’s post in their comments, too. I’ll go try to register again and get in there as well.
May 24, 2009 at 7:30 pm
a,
i actually did both, but thanks for the ‘suggestion’.
and since i didn’t mention any countering statistics in my response, i don’t know what ‘sources’ i would actually be citing. where supporting quotes were necessary, i provided them.
i don’t mince words & i don’t try pan my critiques off as indirect support of opinions i disagree with — adamantly.
wtf? if i’m not “bashing” then i’m “angry”. if i’m not “angry” then i’m “too smart”. when is someone going to suggest i “go do a 4th step” before going on at length about how pernicious they are?
you know what? i saw plenty of ice cream at “anniversary meetings” in my 6 year stretch of AA. am i “bashing” you now?
the “hey, thanks so much for your input … but let me eviscerate your tepid, insupportable argument” response to step horses**t isn’t a technique that comes all that readily to me. frankly, i can’t see the difference between that & the ‘dr. dave & bill’ homespun — even if thoroughly dishonest — sideshow.
i am angry at times & i’m neither ashamed nor regretful if i articulate that in no uncertain terms. and i’m smart enough to know what i know, how i came to know it, & where anyone can look it up if they choose to. (i’m also smart enough to know when people are using that characterization as a perjorative.)
i’m also direct & honest.
this is the web, fer chrissakes. the blog’s title is “stinkin’ thinkin'” & the URL is “donewithaa.wordpress.com”. i don’t think it’s a reach to expect direct (& sometimes very colorful) AA/12X12 criticism here. i’m not running for office or trying to win a beauty contest. or get caught up in the circle jerk of — as civilly as possible, of course — trying to prove negatives.
especially to people who’ve based their entire lives on those negatives to begin with.
s
May 24, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Er … um… Speedy, it was the guys in The Daily News that I was lambasting for failing to cite sources for statistics, not you.
Both my “just a suggestion” comment and the bit about ice cream were intended to be funny, jeez.
May 25, 2009 at 9:05 pm
a,
sorry — and i mean that sincerely & completely — for flying off the handle.
my yahoo & youtube ‘in-box’ are full of step hate-o-grams & i’m having a little difficulty even on this blog getting hold of what the proper etiquette is.
i’m an alcoholic, what do you expect from me? progress, not perfection — right? (snark, sarcastic titter, g.w. bush-like ‘heh heh heh’)
any way, i do apologize.
dr. dave & bill aren’t posting my comments, so i thought i continue throwing up on this board under the heading of this post. in response to ‘twists_of_truth’ comment on the column:
***********
twists – in your post you site “two studies” which a reflect a single meta-analysis summary of 181 separate studies (source, methodology, peer review, etc. still unknown) & three separate papers which support … “the actual statistic” (i.e, singular, reliable, empirical finding).
that’s a lot to unpack, but i’ll give it a shot.
so dr. dave’s “actual statistic” for AA efficacy is really a measure of the efficacy of the “minnesota model”? and the two are interchangeable now? perhaps you can point me to the AAWS press release that states that uneqivocally & then explain how that doesn’t violate AA’s 6th tradition.
and that ‘efficacy’ statistic is garnered from two studies that offer the same meta-analysis of 181 studies (which still go uncited) overseen by unabashed AA cheerleader W.R. Miller?
that’s sort of like going to the bible or the vatican for a meta-analysis on the evidence for an afterlife.
please tell me that’s not all your bringing to the table.
i mean, why not just go with the apocryphal 75% ‘success rate’ of dr. bob & his new testament as alcoholism treatment approach?
i’m neither a statistician, research scientist, nor medical doctor. i’m just an interested layman. still, i suspect if i got my hands on the source material, dug into it, & got some assistance from some genuinely dispassionate scientific peers, the “actual statistic” might not hold up all that well. of course even with such a spectacular ‘success rate’ for AA or 12X12 or the ‘minnesota model’ or whatever you want to call it (evidenced by dr. dave’s “actual statistic”), we still have dr. nida volkow (director NIDA), dr. mark willenbring (of the NIAA), dr. bankole johnson (of UVA), dr. joseph volpicelli (of UPenn), among a whole host of other scientific professionals in the fields of abuse & treatment actively lobbying for “alternative methods”.
perhaps they missed that “actual statistic”.
dr. dave & bob didn’t publish my last comment & i’m guessing they’ll squash this one, too. guess i’ll just have to publish it on my own blog — donewithaa.wordpress.com.
you & dr. dave can cherry-pick all the studies you want to get the numbers you want. it’s good to know that professionals in the field with real power aren’t all that wedded to a ‘solution’ that was antiquated even at its time of publication (1939).
**********
still not holding my breath.
speedy
May 25, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Speedy, My comments aren’t showing up either. I guess Anna squeaked in there before they started moderating. And I also swear that evertime I look at that damn article, there have added more to it… it keeps getting longer. It’s almost like they’re getting our comments and revising the article to respond to the criticism withouth actually addressing it. Am I crazy? Next week, I am going to pay very closer attention. I might be crazy.
May 25, 2009 at 12:22 am
Well, sort of interesting. Dr. Dave did say that measuring those who quit cold turkey is almost impoosible. Which means, of course, that he knows nothing of them. He knows nothing of the how or why. These are the people who may be able to tell him something useful. Ok.
Ignorance is, indeed, bliss.
May 25, 2009 at 3:43 pm
There is a new response to the source question in Dr. Dave and Bill’s comment section.
May 26, 2009 at 5:13 am
ftg,
yeah & it’s nearly as full of hot air as dr. dave’s initial blanket assertion.
just google “miller, w.r.” & scan a couple of his papers. not exactly the guy to be doing an objective, dispassionate, scientific meta-analysis of anything regarding AA.
i suspect dr. dave is well aware of the fragile nature of his “actual statistic” & is letting the post by “twists_of_truth” do his dirty work for him. i countered ‘twists’ with the post above … & it was summarily dumped into the bit bucket.
flipped through their book at a B&N a few hours ago. i was knocked flat. same folksy bullshit “hey dr. dave” followed by the smarmy voice of authority “well that’s a good question bill.” no doubt, these guys are true blue AA believers — with just one fairly significant catch. that catch is that they get to re-write & re-interpret or just plain make up any AA doctrine, dogma, or practice they themselves can’t actually come to terms with.
one example: fuzzy old bill side-steps the anonymity violation clause by — and this is a thing of beauty — citing the antiquated nature of the traditions (i.e., “these things were written back in the days when presidents wore tophats” & other such balderdash; funny, i don’t remember seeing many photographs of truman or eisenhower in tophats).
dr. dave & bill take what they need … & just make up the rest! it would be hilarious if it didn’t have genuine social repercussions.
exhausted,
speedy
May 26, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Oh no, they have a book out? Top hats? Jeezusghod. They’re folksy style is a insulting. Who, exactly, is their audience?
My comments are getting dumped too, and it ocurs to me that their own idea of not drawing AA into public controversy simply means not allowing anyone to hold them accountable for any stupid thing they say. I guess we can do that here, though.