home : overview : the steps : treatment : confession session : links : contact : letters : random : my aa writing : research
"When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading." (Henny Youngman)
Letters and Comments
LETTERS 11
You know fuckall where does it say you should do a fifth step at a meeting ...ie share your innermost secrets, liked ya video but its all about F>E>A>R> ...False Evidence Appearing Real.
Good evening to you too my friend. I know fuckall (sic)? I see; actually I don’t. I used to know ‘fuckall’ when I was a member of AA. I used to believe that I was powerless over alcohol which is pretty stupid considering I have a choice. In fact after sometime in AA I was reduced to knowing ‘fuckall’ and my thoughts had been replaced by a program. It was only when I ceased to suffer from admiration prior to investigation and researched all these nonsensical claims made by AA that I finally learned something. As for your point regarding doing a Fifth step at a meeting, I never suggested that in my video. All I was stating, and quite factually as it happens, is that people who go to AA should be careful who they share their inner most secrets with as no one is bound by secrecy in law or even within the program. Remember that everything is only a suggestion in AA? I know, it is easy to forget.
False Evidence Appearing Real – got to love that slogan for its thought stopping prowess! So when someone comes along with some real evidence as I am, does that mean the fact that it is real and true means it is false? I know, confusing – it’s your crossword puzzle; you figure it out. Hmm so if you support AA without evidence you have to be right, and if you doubt it with evidence, you have to be wrong and false? Interesting notion; anyone else getting the whiff of a cull here? How about AA's own study on its efficacy as fact: available here.
Oh well, thanks for the message nonetheless.
J a m e s G
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all of you who see this video and think you may have a problem with alcohol, please do yourselves a favor. Investigate both (AA and the orange papers) with an open mind. I sincerely hope that either way, you find what you're looking for. I found what I needed in AA (two meetings a week and freedom from alcohol, not to mention some peace of mind). AA isn't the only way, but for me it was the easiest, softest way.
I would second most of that but whatever you set to prove if you are honest then the truth will always shine through regardless. When I first went to the Orange Papers and read the first page I went on a crusade in my own mind to prove the man wrong; I concluded he was right after much investigation. When I began to investigate AA the opposite happened... But then again one can hardly be described as being on the program if they ask any questions.
Thank you for your comments.
J a m e s G
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"AA is a nasty and harmful cult needlessly taking people's lives." (not James G’s comments) - This made me laugh out loud. What are you a moron? AA helps hopeless alcoholics live sober meaningful lives, just ask them or their families. LOL, you make it sound like they are killing people. Hahahaahahaha. Orange papers guy is a deeply disturbed human being.
Personal testimonials are all AA has to prove its effectiveness. AA is not regulated and nobody can prove that AA works except from their own personal words. Studies done on AA’s efficacy shed a very different light on the reality as George Vaillant discovered when he set out to prove how wonderful AA was. AA has a 5% success rate at best, although when that is considered next to the fact that spontaneous remission has the same rate, it does leave one asking questions. I suspect that many people that fall into AA’s 5% success bracket do so because they arrived at AA with a motivation to stop drinking. In other words they stopped drinking by their own accord but they might be fooled into believing that AA was responsible for this because it just so happens that when they decided to do something about their drinking they went to AA.
And I have to ask how you can reduce Orange to being disturbed when all he has done is show the facts, long overdue in my opinion, that AA is a fraud and does not work? What does AA have to fear by these revelations that force some of their members to get so personal about them? AA is the Oxford Group rehashed as a program of recovery just like Narconon is a rehash of Scientology. How do you feel about Narconon? The purpose of the Big Book is to find God; it is not to quit as Bill Wilson admitted – “But there is One who has all power that One is God. May you find Him now!” (AA Big Book Chapter Five - in fact I would recommend people read that chapter here and take note of how much God comes into it.)
Thanks anyway.
J a m e s G
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This video was very moving - made me cry. You figured out in six months what took me ten years. You are a warrior and thanks for putting this out there.
Thank you so much for taking the time to say those things but I am far from a warrior. Recently I have tried very hard to find what is good in this program but alas I am yet to find anything that leads to something worthwhile. It is very hard to admit these things to yourself when you have invested so much time in something like this. I wanted to believe all I had done was not a waste, and perhaps it won’t be. It takes a lot of courage to question this program when you are in the midst of it when we consider that our new identity is so deep routed in the program; in many respects to question the program is to question ourselves and perhaps more importantly, a program that became our ‘lifeline’, and that is a frightening prospect for even the strongest amongst us. This is made even harder by all the people telling us not to do so, whether they have an agenda or not.
Stay in touch and let us know how it goes.
J a m e s G
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I checked out orange-papers. That guy is really angry with AA over something. AA is not nearly so confining as all that. You can say what you want and be who you are.
Oh really? So why have I been banned by numerous 12 Step groups online, one of which was an official site, for doing just that? You can say what you like in AA meetings as long as you agree with it, or if you do not prove any doubt – that seems to be rules. The moment you start to show proof for your assertions you are silenced in the only way they know how; by being banished. When I spoke out in an AA meeting about my doubts surrounding this program I was told I needed to find God. Astounding considering I was told this was not a religious program. Oh and I might add that you assume Orange is angry about something and in the same breath you go on to say that AA allows you to be who you are – hmm provided you agree with AA more like?
Thanks anyways.
J a m e s G
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ported post from another forum for your consideration - just ideas - ouch:
I grant that the notion of suing any entity involved in the whole recovery debate sounds too far fetched to even contemplate. When I first began to research this, that idea was banished very quickly. At the beginning the purpose of all this for me was to ‘de-program’ as many others before me have come to call it. I wanted to unlearn the many untruths that AA had instilled in me through its literature, its slogans and other thought stopping methodology. Proximity could not be established between myself and AAWS, so any action against AA in the law of tort was unlikely to be successful. To prove psychiatric negligence on the part of AAWS would be very hard indeed.
However the proximity between the patient and the 12 step treatment centre (I need to make it clear that I am exploring the idea of bringing accountability to 12 step centres, not ALL of them) is easily established. On first inspection of the situation, I then assumed this idea was nothing short of fancy, if not a little fanatical. I buried it for a few months. Whether there is a case to answer is not for any one individual to ultimately decide; it would be for a court to determine should anyone have the courage to issue a writ.
I think many good points have been made and I wish to address some of them now:
“Don't mean to get nit picky, but treatment centers are voluntary. You can leave anytime you want and don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out.”
Ah but are they? In strict terms they are, but what needs to be established at this point is not whether they are ‘voluntary’ but how any decision is made once in treatment, and who or what body provides the information that leads to said choice. A 12 Step treatment centre guilty of describing its program as spiritual and NOT religious is dishonest, as established by many courts in the US. The court would then have to ask what information was the client being given that led to any ‘voluntary’ choice that he or she had made to stay. If the information provided is proved to be false, then the decision is no longer voluntary. At this point I would like to bring to the fray one other point: many 12 Step treatment centres subtly suggest that we have to ‘do the Steps or die.’ If this could be proven then it would be very easy to establish that no real choice exists if the only alternative offered is effectively death; or in the case of N.A.’s Basic Text (readily available in most if not all 12 Step Treatment centres) “jails, institutions or death”. The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions echo this sentiment - “Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant. His drunkenness and dissolution are not penalties inflicted by people in authority; they result from his personal disobedience to spiritual principles.” Further to this many of these treatment centres openly state that the program is perfect and it is the individual that is not. (As for the point of choice for those mandated to either a treatment centre or the unregulated rooms, that is not for the scope of this current debate and falls under a different branch of law, namely public law.)
“Better yet, let's sue ALL religions while we are at it. They are just as voluntary, but they charge more money and they offer no proven guarantee of salvation. They are also cults by definition.”
Good idea save the fact that consideration cannot be established for a voluntary donation, add to that the fact that most religions do not claim to treat a ‘disease’ and no contract exists between either of the parties. Establish those things and then you have a duty of care in both contract law and the law of tort.“Curious about something. What alternative to the 12 Steps would you use n your treatment center ideal? What is the proven rate of success in this type of treatment? Why not invest your money in your ideal type of treatment center instead of investing your money in suing existing treatment centers?”
Again a very good point and for now the onus of proof is not on me as I am not offering anything, unlike treatment centres, or A.A.. I am of the opinion that we need to take some steps back (excuse the pun ) and open up the barriers to entry for new methods of treatment. 12 Step treatment is so deep routed in our society that it has been able to stifle much of the progress that might be made when ‘testing’ alternatives. I would even stop short of suggesting alternatives such as SMART or Rational Recovery because one of the biggest problems I see with the vast majority of treatment models like these is that they remain unregulated and with that it is very hard to get a real and accurate picture of their success rates. However A.A. unwittingly opens itself up to regulation for claiming to treat a disease, a fatal one no less. Any body offering such services should be regulated.
“Even if the center doesn't explicitly endorse AA/NA, the use of AA/NA literature along with having AA/NA meetings on site is still a pretty strong endorsement that this is the way that you should be doing it.”
Precisely. From my experience if I was to choose to attend a 12 Step rehabilitation centre and not ‘work’ the steps, or I refused to go to the enforced number of 12 Step meetings a week, I don’t think I would be allowed to stay very long. Should I question the program and be greeted with chants of denial, or slogans like ‘it was your best thinking that got you here’, I am not sure that displays the meaning of choice in any civilised society. At one rehab I was told I had to share at least five secrets with my ‘counsellor’ in order to progress.
“I'm so sick of this treatment debate.”
Fair enough but with all due respect you may have had your chance to debate these points, but I have not. I want to look at the facts, not opinions, and see how they might be applied to the law. I am not advocating that treatment centres should be closed down, just that they should be more honest about the ‘product’ they sell.
“****, your idea is good. I don't see anything wrong with it. However, you'll be sued if you can't show in percentage numbers that it is effective. I mean, isn't that really what this debate is about? AA isn't effective so treatment centers should be sued for endorsing AA? If so, you'll have to provide a counter plan with some sound evidence that your plan will work.”
Ok let us slow down here. *********, in order to prove something wrong in law you do not then have to prove that someone else is right – where do you get that idea from? If any argument can establish that A.A. membership is harming people, and treatment centres are selling A.A. based on false information, then no alternative has to be considered by the court at all. The onus of proof remains with the treatment centres for offering a solution, as previously stated.
Your point about proving so called success rates in order not to be sued is also wrong, provided no treatment centre claims success rates. From the research I have done the methods employed by many 12 Step treatment centres for correlating this evidence leaves a lot to be desired. For example some may send out a form to previous patients and they only take into account those questionnaires returned! It does not take a genius to deduce that those who return the form are more than likely to be sober/clean or happy with their treatment. The treatment centres should include in those statistics the number of non-respondents. Better yet, these stats should be produced by an independent body. Again this point could be used in any case trying to establish the misinformation provided to patients of 12 Step treatment centres.
“I throw up my hands in disgust!! Most people that go to treatment centers end up relapsing anyway.”
Very true ******. For a 12 step treatment centre, relapse (or relapsers) may as well be called what normal businesses would describe as a repeat customer. Again this leads to the question, but if people relapse, why do they go back? The treatment centres I went to did not ‘cure’ me, but I still went back there. This is because its not that the program did not work, it’s that I did not work it, or so they sell it to us. And what is the first message they tell you when you arrive? A.A. is the only way, so as soon as you relapse you go back to them in belief of this, blaming yourself for not working the program. The majority of people in treatment with me had been in treatment at least once before. I cannot find the statistic, but somewhere it states that the more expensive the treatment the less effective it is. In other words, it pays to fail in the business of addiction. And what is the criteria of a relapse? It is the use of any chemical. The rules are unrealistic, but failure feeds this whole beast, and our failure is their success.
Babaganoosh wrote: “As to people who don't like the 12 step approach going somewhere else, that would be all well and good IF there was somewhere else for them to go.”
How true! I wonder why that is the case; maybe because AA has more front organisation than it cares to admit? Oh, and how about all the money that is being made by businesses like Hazelden, and large chain rehabs that are selling A.A.? Keeping the barriers to entry non existent is in their interest, and that is why the truth about A.A. has to be brought into the public domain, and I fear the only way to do that is to prove the misinformation peddled in many 12 Step treatment centres. A.A. has very cleverly made itself virtually impossible to sue.
“You have to show criminal negligence and there is just know way to do that when no criminal negligence exists.”
We don’t have to show criminal negligence at all. Look at the O.J. Simpson case; he was found not guilty in a criminal court but liable in a public court. I am not advocating criminal charges against any 12 Step treatment centre, but rather claims in contract law, and possibly tort. In the UK the limitation of any claim in contract is that the court is only able to ‘make good’ as far as the contract failed. i.e. In this case a return of the fees, and possibly costs. A full refund of the fee’s would be unlikely however as the court would have to determine the level of contributory negligence by anyone bringing the claim, and for anyone who drinks a lot of alcohol or drugs, that percentage would be pretty high. In terms of psychiatric negligence, that would have to be brought in tort, but establishing any patient’s as a primary victim would be very hard. The issue would arise with the question of how foreseeable the damage this misinformation might have had on any claimant; but that does not mean it could not be shown.
Apologies for the length of this post, but I wanted to clear a few things up. I doubt many of you will read it; I know I wouldn’t ha ha but if anyone does and wishes to challenge the points I make, I would be most pleased. Any good argument always seeks to play devil’s advocate, and in a way build one against itself in the first instance.
J a m e s G
PS I knew this would not be a popular topic considering how many of our members work in treatment centres, but I am willing to look into it.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi James
I keep seeing you popping up on sites critical of AA and you always
seem to have some sane and helpful things to say. I also saw and
liked your own website.
I'm quite new to computers and the internet, but I really want to
thank you for helping me, along with the Orange Papers, AA
Deprogramming,More Revealed and others, to realise that I am not
alone and not completely mad in thinking that there is a much more
sinister and coercive side to AA than most people realise ( current
reports about Washington Midtown AA may turn out to be a good
example).
If I hadn't got myself online I don't think I would ever have
stumbled upon this alternative body of opinion and source of
information which confirms so much of what I experienced during years
of attending AA meetings in London. Actually, London was not the
worst place to attend meetings,because at least there were so many
to choose from that it was posssible to avoid the ones full of
barking mad step-nazis, such as the 'joys of Recovery' ones in
Chelsea and find ones where there were at least some reasonably sane
and helpful people who didn't all talk entirely in AA slogans. Since
moving to North ***** about 8 years ago the only meetings available
push a relentless hard-line stepper agenda and anyone who uses a word
containing more than one syllable is sneered at and put down for that
worst of all crimes, having a brain. Consequently, it's not really
worth the hassle of bothering to go, although occasionally I do turn
up and say what I think. Sorry to go on so long!
The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop thinking.
It's the first sponsor that does the damage.
All the best
AndyAndy,
Thank you for your email and for bringing to my attention the practices at the Midtown Group – for those of you that don’t know look at the links below provided by Orange. Joys of Recovery in Chelsea is something I am more than familiar with.
Hang in there and keep researching as I am.
J a m e s G
The following links are taken from here.
I found some more information about the Washington DC "Q Group":
- http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm? fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=10139602
About halfways down the page, there is a letter from "THE FALL OF MIDTOWN. AKA: THE Q. GROUP", that says:
Jan 10 2007 12:39P
"As a measure of validity here are some key names of the midtown Hierarchy: Mike Q, jack, John, Chris Dugan, Joe Snider, Arno Sewall, Kevin, Mike(pizza),...I was a member of Mid town from 1999 to 2004...."
It's worth reading.
Information on sexual exploitation and financial mismanagement.
Also, sponsors tell newcomers to stop taking their doctor-prescribed psychiatric medications.
- http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm? fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=137850505
More on THE FALL OF MIDTOWN. AKA: THE Q. GROUP
- http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view &friendID=137850505&blogID=221441430
== A call to send letters to Senators and Congressmen. It also lists police officers who are investigating the group.
- http://www.myspace.com/loveandservice
== Another overview of the problem.
- http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view &friendID=137850505&blogID=214221299
== "My 12-Step sober friends and I all knew Mike Quinonis and his group of "13-steppers" that were known for focusing on "helping" young females through Mike's pre-designed set of concepts of the 12-Step process, which focused primarily on having sex."
- http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view &friendID=137850505&blogID=211591362
== "in midtown your sponser is chosen for you. sponsership is a prestige thing in this group, the more sponsees the higher up you are. they also encourage different sex sponsership. anything you share with your sponser becomes group knowledge, its shared and used against you."
- http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view &friendID=137850505&blogID=210142254
== "The Q Group is appealing. What do I mean by this, you ask? They do things. Fun things. They have dances, beach houses, ski trips, they bid for conferences, they host conferences, they travel...you name it. This is VERY appealing. You have to admit it!"
- http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view &friendID=137850505&blogID=208664621
== The origins of the "Mid-town" group.
- http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view &friendID=137850505&blogID=205272365
== Her sponsor sets up an underage girl to get raped by a 60-year-old oldtimer.
Also, sponsors tell newcomers to stop taking their doctor-prescribed psychiatric medications, and to stop going to therapy.
- http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view &friendID=137850505&blogID=204885675
== Financial mismanagement and domination of the local intergroup -- the WAIA (Washington Area Intergroup Association).-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More letters to be added soon.
-------------------------------------------------------------