HR 1258 TREAT America Act of 2005

[Anonymous]

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-action.html



HR1258  Time for Recovery and Equal Access to Treatment in America (TREAT America) Act of 2005




Hello. I am writing to ask for your "NO" vote on HR1258, the
so-called "Equal Access to Treatment" bill.

That bill is just another attempt to force government agencies
and health insurance plans to pay for ineffective quack medicine
-- specifically for the failed "12-Step" treatment for alcoholism
and drug addiction, which 93% of the treatment centers in the
USA foist on their clients.

The 12-Step treatment has been repeatedly proven to be ineffective
and worthless, and even harmful.  See:
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html
for more details on that issue.

It is blatantly illegal for someone to set up a cancer clinic that
"treats" its patients with cures that are based on cult religion
and quack medicine, and then to charge the government and health
insurance plans for the patients' "treatment". It should be just
as illegal to foist such quackery on alcoholics and addicts.

I would also like to see you place an amendment in some bill or
other that would require the FDA, NIMH, NIAAA, or NIDA, to do
Randomized Longitudinal Controlled Studies of drug and alcohol
treatment programs, to determine which work and which are a
fraudulent waste of money.

That wording is important:
"Controlled" means that there are two groups in the test: One gets
the treatment, and one does not.
"Randomized" means that the patients are randomly chosen to get the
treatment, or no treatment.
"Longitudinal" means that the test goes on for a "long time", like
preferably for a year or longer, to see how much holding power the
treatment has, and what percentage of the "graduates" from
treatment relapse after graduation.

The effectiveness of the treatment is determined by comparing the
outcomes of the treated and untreated groups, to see what
difference, if any, treatment makes.

The FDA, NIMH, NIAAA, and NIDA know exactly what "Randomized
Longitudinal Controlled Studies" means. They won't have any
trouble with that.  They test lots of new medications and
treatments that way.

Neither Medicare nor the health insurance industries should have
to pay for ineffective treatment programs, or for voodoo medicine.

If the FDA, NIMH, NIAAA and NIDA actually test the treatments for
alcoholism and drug addiction that people have been paying for
(and not getting cured by), and weeds out the frauds, fakes, and
quacks, then perhaps we can move on to some other things that
actually work, just for a change. And we can end a lot of criminal
fraud. And we can save some wasted money.

And it would be wise to put a criminal penalty in the law for
tampering with or sabotaging the testing of the substance abuse
treatments, or for fabricating false results. Considering the
immense amounts of money that are at stake here, some people will
be tempted to change the results by giving free drinks or drugs
to "the other group", and causing them to relapse. There must be
statutes barring such behavior, and penalties for such conduct.

Another aspect of the needed changes is to require treatment
centers to honestly report their success rates in their
advertising, rather than the completely false statements that
they issue now, like "80% of our graduates stay clean and sober",
without revealing that only 10% of the patients ever "graduate",
and without revealing that they only polled their graduates once,
a month after graduation.

Thank you for your time.

[Anonymous]

WTF? AA is voluntary. It's not for everyone, but it has helped a great many alcoholics live sober lives. It also doesn't get involved in political causes. I'm not sure what AA has to do with this bill or these treatment centers you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

WTF? AA is voluntary. It's not for everyone, but it has helped a great many alcoholics live sober lives. It also doesn't get involved in political causes. I'm not sure what AA has to do with this bill or these treatment centers you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

WTF is up with your cute little poll and what does AA have to do with the treatment programs you are opposing? AA is voluntary and non-political. It may not be for you, it's definitely not for everyone, but it has helped huge numbers of alcoholics in recovery. That's "bad for society?"

[Anonymous]

WTF is up with your cute little poll and what does AA have to do with the treatment programs you are opposing? AA is voluntary and non-political. It may not be for you, it's definitely not for everyone, but it has helped huge numbers of alcoholics in recovery. That's "bad for society?"

You're completely wrong.  If you can show me just one study that shows AA "works", I'll eat my shorts.

And it's not voluntary.  People are court ordered to attend every day.  The 12 Steps are used in countless treatment centers all over the world.  It's a cult and a farce.  Do some research and then come talk to me about the "good" that AA does.

[Oz girl]

I may be missing something here but what is the problem with AA? I thought it helped a lot of people who genuinely had addiction problems & voluntarily sought help. Moreover it is an affordable option for all of the people who cannot afford rehab programmes.
Just because it has been warped by crazy cults and by an industry which forces kids into all kinds of crazy situations does not mean that it is by definition bad and damaging. Wasn't the original message of AA to take what helps and apply it to your life?
I would be strongly opposed to sending any kid to AA based programme but there is a difference between a kid who is forced to confess things they are not comfortable with and an adult who has a dependency on any drug and is seeking some kind of help and support from people who have a genuine insight into his or her issue.

[blombro]

It makes sense to get the "no" vote for this bill.  The government being required to funnel money to treatment centers, just because they fall under the banner of providing "drug treatment" services using the AA/NA model, is just going to lead to the further development of these quack facilities that we all agree should be closed down.

However, let's not completely sell out the AA method when the person using it is a) an adult and b)doing it voluntarily.  I realize that it may not be the method but the person that causes the anecdotal successes, a placebo effect if you will.  That said, in certain instances it is an effective placebo.

[Deborah]

***I would be strongly opposed to sending any kid to AA based programme but there is a difference between a kid who is forced to confess things they are not comfortable with and an adult who has a dependency on any drug and is seeking some kind of help and support from people who have a genuine insight into his or her issue.

If you want insurance money for your 'addictions treatment' in a program, it must be AA/NA, to my knowledge.
Kids are required to divulge the extent of their use when they enter a program. If a kid has only experimented with pot a few times s/he will be labeled an addict or with addictive personality and required to attend regular AA/NA meetings for the duration of their stay in an EGP/TBS. You have to be a saint or a good liar to avoid participation in AA.

As someone else mentioned, many are forced into AA.
It has become the industry standard for substance abuse treatment. When I was in school it was the only program an SAC could refer to.
AA reportedly has a 5 (or 6%) success rate. Before we shell out hard earned tax dollars, shouldn't we have the efficacy studies suggested?

[Anonymous]

It makes sense to get the "no" vote for this bill.  The government being required to funnel money to treatment centers, just because they fall under the banner of providing "drug treatment" services using the AA/NA model, is just going to lead to the further development of these quack facilities that we all agree should be closed down.

However, let's not completely sell out the AA method when the person using it is a) an adult and b)doing it voluntarily.  I realize that it may not be the method but the person that causes the anecdotal successes, a placebo effect if you will.  That said, in certain instances it is an effective placebo.

As long as they know that.  But they don't.  AA doesn't tell them that.  AA says it's the only way.  They pity the poor souls who just can't  "grasp this program of rigorous honesty".  It teaches people that they're powerless.  It teaches them that the next relapse will kill them.  It forces confession (strongly urges through group and sponsor pressure w/ threats of relapse and death if they're not) to people that aren't trained to handle some of the intense personal shit people can get into.  It teaches that the ego and sense of self is a bad thing, except when it comes to meetings and working a program, then it's just fine to be selfish as hell and go to 5 meetings a week and if the spouse complains?  Send her to Alanon.  The kids?  Get 'em in Alateen.  

f you want insurance money for your 'addictions treatment' in a program, it must be AA/NA, to my knowledge.
Kids are required to divulge the extent of their use when they enter a program. If a kid has only experimented with pot a few times s/he will be labeled an addict or with addictive personality and required to attend regular AA/NA meetings for the duration of their stay in an EGP/TBS. You have to be a saint or a good liar to avoid participation in AA.

As someone else mentioned, many are forced into AA.
It has become the industry standard for substance abuse treatment. When I was in school it was the only program an SAC could refer to.
AA reportedly has a 5 (or 6%) success rate. Before we shell out hard earned tax dollars, shouldn't we have the efficacy studies suggested?

Deb, you're spot on.  AA's been around for what, 70 years now?  You'd think someone somewhere would be able to produce just ONE study that shows that AA is beneficial and not detrimental.

[Anonymous]

So lemme make sure I got this. The anti-programmies on this forum advocate "community based treatment" as the preferred alternative to wilderness/RTC/TBS programs. Community-based treatment often includes therapy sessions AND a support group of some kind. AA/NA are the most widely available, regardless of how successful they are or are not. In bigger cities, you might find SOS groups or some of the alternatives, but I doubt you can find any research showing those are any more effective than the 12-step model.

So the conclusion is what? Don't send kids to "programs," but don't send them to community-based support groups either, at least not ones based on the 12-step model. Hell, don't send them to therapists either, because they don't have a great success rate either.

Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason the statistics on substance abuse recovery are so bad might simply be that it's a damn difficult problem to overcome?

If you don't like AA/NA, then don't go to the meetings. It's that simple. If you are truly an addict, you will eventually realize you need to do SOMETHING. Addiction may or may not kill you, but it sure makes life a lot more difficult in the long run.

[Deborah]

If you don't like AA/NA, then don't go to the meetings. It's that simple. If you are truly an addict, you will eventually realize I want you to do SOMETHING. Addiction may or may not kill you, but it sure makes life a lot more difficult in the long run.

Not the issue we're discussing. I'm pretty sure people will do what works for them and AA seems to work, sometimes, for some small percentage of the population. Not what I would want for my family member.

The issue is- tax dollars for programs that aren't "evidence based", just like the industry. Oh shudder... can you imagine our tax dollars going for TBS/EGPs?

- I would also like to see you place an amendment in some bill or
other that would require the FDA, NIMH, NIAAA, or NIDA, to do
Randomized Longitudinal Controlled Studies of drug and alcohol
treatment programs, to determine which work and which are a
fraudulent waste of money.-

It appears that AA indeed falls into the "fraudulent waste of money" catagory, for the time being.

[Anne Bonney]

So lemme make sure I got this. The anti-programmies on this forum advocate "community based treatment" as the preferred alternative to wilderness/RTC/TBS programs. Community-based treatment often includes therapy sessions AND a support group of some kind. AA/NA are the most widely available, regardless of how successful they are or are not. In bigger cities, you might find SOS groups or some of the alternatives, but I doubt you can find any research showing those are any more effective than the 12-step model.

First, I'm speaking about my opinion.  I do not speak for this site or any other 'anti-prorammies'.  Second, lemme make sure I got this.  You don't even care if the AA model is successful or not, there's just nothing else and anything is better than nothing, right?  Don't bother me with the facts, I have my opinions.  Prof. George E. Vaillant, a Member of the Board of Trustees of Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc.,  did an 8 year long study of AA and found that not only did AA not work, it actually had the highest death rate of any of the treatments studied.  

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-eff ... ant_deaths



[

So the conclusion is what? Don't send kids to "programs," but don't send them to community-based support groups either, at least not ones based on the 12-step model. Hell, don't send them to therapists either, because they don't have a great success rate either.

No, what I'm hoping to do is get at the actual root cause of this shit.  Use community based programs(for those that really need them, for the most part parents just need to pay more attention to being a parent than earning a buck, seriously), but let's start to re-examine the 70 year old methods based on the tyrannical rantings of a lunatic narcissist, actually two lunatic narcissists if you count Frank Buchman's Oxford Group, on which Bill Wilson based AA?  I've asked anyone to find a study, one legitimate study that says that AA is effective.  No one can.  There isn't one because it's not.  It has the exact same success rate as spontaneous remission.....doing nothing.  And at least with doing nothing no harm is done....primum non nocere.

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-eff ... l#Brandsma
In spite of the scarcity of good, properly run controlled longitudinal studies of the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous, there are still several tests and studies which were done properly, and give us a good idea of what is happening.

There is also experimental evidence that the A.A. doctrine of powerlessness leads to binge drinking. In a sophisticated controlled study of A.A.'s effectiveness (Brandsma et. al.), court-mandated offenders who had been sent to Alcoholics Anonymous for several months were engaging in FIVE TIMES as much binge drinking as another group of alcoholics who got no treatment at all, and the A.A. group was doing NINE TIMES as much binge drinking as another group of alcoholics who got rational behavior therapy.

Those results are almost unbelievable, but are easy to understand -- when you are drunk, it's easy to rationalize drinking some more by saying,

    "Oh well, A.A. says that I'm powerless over alcohol. I can't control it, so there is no sense in trying. I'm doomed, because I already took a drink. I'm screwed, because I already lost all of my sober time. Might as well just relax and enjoy it. Pass that bottle over here, buddy."

It's also easy to rationalize taking the first drink with,

    "I'm powerless. I can't help it. The Big Book says that I have no defense against those strange mental blank spots when I'll drink again. Bottoms up!"

Dr. Jeffrey Brandsma and his associates Dr. Maxie Maultsby (co-inventor of Rational Behavior Therapy) and Dr. Richard J. Welsh

 Let's change the way we view drugs and alcohol.  Let's stop demonizing and trying to moralize it, that only creates more problems.  Let's re-examine our approach to those that legitimately do have problems.  What we've been doing hasn't worked and has ended up with such disastrous consequences.  Let's stop all this nonsense and start talking reality.  Teach kids through example.  Pay attention to them.  Let's stop this "war" mentality and try and figure out how to deal with drugs and alcohol being around.  It doesn't matter if they're legal or not, people are going to use.  It's sort of like preaching abstinence (prohibition) to teens.  I teach mine responsibility, both emotional and physical.  I'd rather they wait, but they won't so I hand them a condom and put them on the pill .

Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason the statistics on substance abuse recovery are so bad might simply be that it's a damn difficult problem to overcome?

Yes, but why make it worse by diagnosing people as addicts who really aren't?  Why make it worse by telling them they're powerless..and not letting them progress in their lives (programs, because it becomes their lives) until they believe it?  Why make it more attractive to teenagers by demonizing it?

If you don't like AA/NA, then don't go to the meetings. It's that simple. If you are truly an addict, you will eventually realize y0u to do SOMETHING. Addiction may or may not kill you, but it sure makes life a lot more difficult in the long run.

I don't go.  I used to.  It screwed me up for years.  It wasn't until I stopped buying their bullshit that my life truly, finally got better.

Check out those links above.  Browse around that guys site.  Love him or hate him you can't refute what he says.  Many, many, many, many have tried.  Read his never ending "Letters" section.  I"m honestly not trying to pick a fight with anyone.  I want a solution to all this.  This whole mentality ruined my family for way too long.   I've tried my damndest to figure it all out.  It's taken me the better part of 6 years but the best answers I can come up with are found on that site and LEAP.  I hope you can go read them with a truly open mind.

http://www.orange-papers.org/

http://www.leap.cc/

[Oz girl]

So is the objection to funding AA itself or the fact that it is mandatory? Are these studies based on programmes with a majority of participants who are being "made" to go or who want to be there? Because I would agree that if somebody is forced by the court to go, they may not have a substance abuse problem or they just may not want the help so fail. What percentage of people "fail" because they are not addicted to anything in the first place. Mel gibson for instance was made to go to rehab because he behaved like and asshole.

[Anne Bonney]

Shit, this post...Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:20 pm.....was mine.

[Anonymous]

I strongly disagree with forcing "treatment" on anyone, and that includes forcing people to attend AA or any other support group meetings, whether it's by court order or whatever. I would think the people on this forum would know that AA doesn't accept funding from anyone but it's members, so I don't what this bill has to do with AA in the first place.

You want to get support to defeat a bill that would force treatment on people, but the thread starts with a poll about whether a completely voluntary organization that tries to help addicts in recovery is good or bad for society. That's just fucked up.

You don't even care if the AA model is successful or not, there's just nothing else and anything is better than nothing, right?

I know firsthand that it is successful for some people. I really don't give a shit if the success rate is 1%, 5%, 20% or whatever. The statistics don't say WHO is going to get sober and who is not. If it works for me or someone I care about, that's all the fucking statistics I need.

BTW, if you can find a treatment method or support group that has a high success rate in helping people recover from true addiction -- let's say anything over 40 or 50% success rate -- then you will become very wealthy, because today there is no such thing.

Let's change the way we view drugs and alcohol.  Let's stop demonizing and trying to moralize it, that only creates more problems.  Let's re-examine our approach to those that legitimately do have problems.  What we've been doing hasn't worked and has ended up with such disastrous consequences.  Let's stop all this nonsense and start talking reality.  Teach kids through example.  Pay attention to them.  Let's stop this "war" mentality and try and figure out how to deal with drugs and alcohol being around.  It doesn't matter if they're legal or not, people are going to use.  It's sort of like preaching abstinence (prohibition) to teens.  I teach mine responsibility, both emotional and physical.  I'd rather they wait, but they won't so I hand them a condom and put them on the pill.

Yes, and while we're at it, let's have love and happiness and world peace. You just don't fucking get it. You obviously are not an addict and have no experience with addicts.

I don't go.  I used to.  It screwed me up for years.  It wasn't until I stopped buying their bullshit that my life truly, finally got better.

I assume you must've been coerced, so I'm not surpirsed you didn't get anything positive from it. If, on the other hand you went voluntarily -- the way it's supposed to be -- and continued to go even when you weren't getting anything out of it and it screwed you up for years, then I'm sorry to ask, but what the fuck is wrong with you? If I find myself doing something that is harmful to me or to people I care about, I try to recognize that fact and stop fucking doing it.