Meh. The design of this study simply measures whether or not there is a treatment effect (getting help) and the researchers chose AA as the treatment. The results simply show AA is better than nothing; the study makes no attempt to compare the outcomes of AA to other treatment outcomes. Commenters should keep that in mind.
I have maintained alcohol abstinence for 3 months now and will continue this way for the rest of my life. I pay for and receive treatment from an addiction specialist once a week. I supplement my therapy with AA meetings because they don’t cost any money. Of course I always give a donation but i feel comfort i have AA as an back up because no money is required.
That is a very good suggestion. It may actually be easier than comparing AA vs. no treatment. It seems that, frequently AA is looked at as if it is the only treatment, or gets genericized as representing all treatment regimes.
"How about comparing AA to other treatment programs?" It's been done scientifically and it didn't win. Believing the 12 steps work because you live somewhere they've been popular and people seem serious is like believing wine really turns into Jesus's blood because you live in mainly Catholic neighborhood and people seem serious.
As a differentiation between having a support group and not having a support group I think it was important to study whether the group does have a positive impact and I'm glad that it does. This obviously doesn't change that AA itself is a very problematic program with its highly religious message, its content of denying the individual's ability to combat the addiction and a multitude of other attitudes that others have outlined better than I could here. AA is basically the Salvation Army of self-help groups, they're extremely prevalent and well known but also infamous for religious proselytising and sometimes outright bigotry as well as not actually being as good as other, less famous alternatives. So I think in terms of "is AA better than nothing" the answer being yes is a totally legitimate study, I just also believe it should be followed up with studies that compare its efficacy with other, hopefully less abusive alternatives.
There's another question about the study: when they count days of sobriety, are there grades of non-sobriety? Most people outside of AA agree that there is such a thing as non-abusive alcohol consumption. Only differentiating between total sobriety and not that would reflect AA's attitude towards drinking, but considering that it is this very attitude that is often blamed for very bad binges of heavy drinking when relapses occur it would be interesting if those "more days of sobriety" are balanced by worse inebriation on the non-sober days.
at the time I am reading and replying, this comment is the top one on youtube. I want everyone to take a moment to appreciate how great a community has been built around this channel. Jokes are great and all but having a well articulated comment with something of substance to say, is not common on youtube.
Once you get past physical dependence, "alcoholism" is all in your head. AA just redirects the obsession - instead of obsessing over drinking, members obsess over NOT drinking. Their entire lives still revolve around booze, which is why there's such a high relapse rate among AA members.
Are there studies that compare AA to other therapies like cognitive behavioral therapy or pharmacological therapies? The fact that it works a little better than doing literally nothing makes me wonder if there are more effective approaches to alcoholism recovery or treating addictions in general.
AA has at best a ten percent (10%) success rate. It *doesn't* work and never has. Go see a cognitive behavior therapist and gain the actual skills you need to solve your problems.
CBT is pretty shit for addiction too though, addiction is hard to treat we don't have effective solutions. A lot of people solve it themselves using a range of strategies over v long time with trial and error, or die an addict.
Jeff Credle Sadly, that is true, and in my humble opinion, that is why the billion dollars "rehab" industry constantly push the AA dogma; they know that for most people, it doesn't work, and often makes things worse, which means they have lots of "repeat customers," which equals *MORE MONEY💰 💰 💰!!* for the rehab centers, which do little more than indoctrinate addicts with 12-step dogma, which they can get for free in the "outside world." Yet Ibogaine treatment is *ILLEGAL* in the US, and probably most of Europe, because it is an *ACTUAL CURE* for addiction, and a one-time-only treatment! I would speculate that Ibogaine treatment is illegal in most "advanced" Western countries, simply because it would not generate enough profit.
I'd recommend the video, "Does Alcoholics Anonymous Work?", for comparisons to other treatments. I started going to AA this year, and I would recommend it to anyone with substance problems, but also for just about anyone. You walk into a room of people who have taken a hard look at themselves and look upon you without judgement, and welcome you back no matter how many times you may relapse. You listen to others and are listened to and find encouragement. The "higher power" thing is actually pretty flexible, and for those (like me) who aren't religious, the higher power could simply be the support of the group. In two months I have come a long way, mostly because I am drawn to the real happiness I see that others have achieved and have enjoyed for decades. I already know how miserable I was, beating myself up. Very few people realized I drank that much because I functioned so well, plus I'm a professional guitarist, so it didn't seem strange to most people to see me drink. I'm not an idiot, I can do the math and know that I was out of control and unhappy. I'm back in a big way, and AA has been a lifesaver.
either I am in denial or Alcoholics Anonymous did not work for me because I was supposed to talk about all the horrible things I did while I was under the effects of alcohol. the effects of alcohol did alter my judgement but it never made me do horrible things to anyone so I never got that part. What is Taught in AA is that one should just take away what applies to them and leave the rest, but how can one do that if everyone's saying that the reason why I didn't talk about the horrible things I did, was that I was in denial. Ever since I left AA, some ten years ago, I have never felt better I no longer have to feel like there is no hope for me without AA. However, if AA does work for anyone out there please continue to go take what I said with a grain of salt.
wait 2 more meetings a month only produces 3 more days? That damn near sounds like margin of error. It seems like any treatment is better than no treatment, but that doesn't mean AA works...
You heard that wrong. Attending 2 more meeting a WEEK will produce an extra 3 days of sobriety a month. So, 8 extra meetings a month to get an extra 3 days. That is even worse than you originally thought.
gwah, I went back and listened again. I wonder if there is a correlation between going to a meeting and then drinking at that point. There probably isn't, but wow that is the a terrible return on investment.
I spent seven years in a bottle I went to psychiatric facilities rehab programs even jails and I’m just happy that I’m sober now thank God that I’m sober
Part of the problem with AA is that it is a religious approach. That brings in placebo effects of prayer and the appeal to the undefined higher power. That is something that needs to be addressed, too. Take note that there have been court requirements for non believers to participate in such programs, implicitly requiring atheists to espouse God. That is not an approach that is going to help people.
Dave Fogarty, that is because it is an option that works. It's free, it saves lives and it gives peace, sobriety and serenity. It's also a program generalizable to a myriad of other problems. Come up with a better one that does all of that.
I am disappointed that this video isn't actually really a true analysis of whether AA works. While I'm glad to hear that it is better than nothing, in the real world AA has a really low retention rate. Of course it is an excellent and life changing resource for some people committed to change and receptive to how the program works. But there are many other types of programs that may be more universally effective.
AA only works for about 5% of people. These are the few who actually need the brainwashing. Most people don't fall for all the stupid slogans and lack of any real progress. 12 steps is a lifelong commitment to being powerless. This is a recipe for disaster for most people.
So going to AA now "works" because a subset of subjects reported a reduction in drinking, per month, of only 3 days for each 8 days of AA attendance? That is an incredibly low bar for a treatment to "work."
3:10 I still don't understand crossover study design or instrumental variable analyses. I guess I'm gonna have to read the wiki articles on both (and the articles linked from them) for a couple hours...
The basic idea comes from a long literature kickstarted by Joshua Angrist and Guido Imbens, and it works like this: you can imagine four groups of people. The first group is "compliers". Compliers do NOT receive the treatment if they're in the control group, but they DO receive the treatment if they're in the treatment group. They "comply" with what the researcher wants. In an experiment with perfect assignment, everybody is a Complier. The second and third groups are "always-takers" and "never-takers." These are people who don't care what the researcher assigns them to. They will either always receive the treatment, or never receive the treatment. Imagine someone who hates AA and won't go even if assigned (never-taker), or someone already planning to go to AA who would have gone anyway (always-taker). The fourth, nefarious, group, are the "defiers." These are rebellious people who do the exact opposite of what the researcher says! They only receive treatment if they're in the control group, and don't receive treatment in the treatment group. IF WE ASSUME that the "defiers" don't exist, then we can get a pretty good estimate of who is a complier by looking at how "assigned to treatment" affects the probability that you were actually treated. Very roughly, if 20% of people in the control group received treatment, and 70% of people in the treatment group received treatment, about 50% of people are compliers. A fancier analysis can pinpoint who those compliers are. The instrumental variable isolates the treatment that was applied only because you were assigned to treatment (i.e., it isolates the compliers). Why do we want that? Because the compliers are the people that the randomization worked correctly for, and so all the stuff we like about experiments applies to that sample. [Statistically, it isolates this group by only estimating the effect of the treatment using variation in treatment that arose as a result of variation in assignment]. So this gives us a proper experimental estimate. However, we had to toss out the always-takers and never-takers (and assume away the existence of the defiers) to do so. This means that we only get the average effect for the compliers. If there's something different about the effect of the treatment for compliers - say, AA works better for someone willing to go along with the assignment than it would have if we somehow forced a never-taker into the program - then we won't see that.
What? That's not really related at all. For one, "experiments run without difficulty" is not a prerequisite for science (if it were, astronomy wouldn't be science). And for another, this problem pops up in medicine as well, and sometimes in other, solidly-physical-science areas like agriculture.
Courts need to stop sending felons to AA and NA. It doesn't help the felon stay sober, as they resent being forced to attend. What happens though, is some of those felons are predators who find a roomful of willing victims. I left AA for several reasons, but this was the main one. I saw so many vulnerable newcomers being taken advantage of by those "oldtimers" whom they were told to trust. It happened to me back in the 80's when I was a "newbie". "Newbie" is just another term for "fresh meat" in AA.
Are there any studies that compare complete abstinence to learning how to drink in moderation? Temperance and moderation are such important skills in so many different aspects of life that it seems they should also be able to help alcoholics to get the social benefits of drinking without going overboard. I understand it's harder than it sounds, but that's why I'm curious to see if there is any data on this, to find out if it could be a realistic alternative to abstinence for people who are up for the challenge.
I can't get well being around a bunch of sick people trying to get well... Just doesn't work for me.. Why on hell would I take any advice from a sponsor in a 12step fellowship when even they admit their life is unmanageable... It's not a Disease that makes you pick up a drink it's your attitude and behaviour towards a reaction to a situation that makes you pick up a drink.. Don't be brainwashed with excuses..
My only problem with encouraging people to specifically go to AA is that they still use the rather archaic step of "admit that you're powerless and accept Jesus as your savior." Why can't they drop the religious bit and stop making non-religious people feel unwelcome?
Purpleman101 sorry, AA never tells us to accept Jesus as your savior. They encourage you to find your own version of a Higher Power. It can be your group. Anyone that isn't you!
Kevin Jaworski honestly I’m worried about this comment section. Do these people dislike AA because they truly believe it’s bad for people and shouldn’t exist? Or do they just have some personal resentment? Are they of the belief it’s an entirely religious organization and hate religion?
@@jkl3090 I think it's mostly the latter two. The religiosity of it REALLY turns some people off and I think there's a ton of personal and cultural baggage tied up in the capital G-word, which is used liberally in AA literature. There certainly are ligit critiques about aspects of AA, but for a subset of people struggling with substances it seems to work pretty well.
So explain why the long term effectiveness is as low as 5 to 8%. That for non religious people it cant help and that they deny the medications that have been proven to work better.
This is the first time I have herd that a.a actually had a treatment program. Usually all you hear about there that they are just a recruiting arm of a church. that being said. Has there been research about a.a's effectiveness vs non church based ones?
That would be much harder to study because many that attend AA are by court order and 2/3 of states don't recognize any outpatient program other than AA. A case went before an federal appeals court after losing in state courts after someone was found guilty of vehicular assault while intoxicated and had to attend AA after prison and he appealed because its religion-based and he was atheist and the courts ruled against him and the Supreme Court chose not to take the case, agreeing de facto with the lower court that even if you don't religiously agree agree, you can still be forced to attend AA.
@@heyheyhey0220 That is the party line for sure. So they can get around the constitution but don't kid yourself. It's a christianity group in every way but legally. You are free to pick an chose what ever denomination of christianity you like but it's still a recruiting center christianity.
But does it work though? Isn't the relapse rate in A.A. like 80-90%? Also the "accept god into your heart and understand that you are a sinner" isnt exactly what I would call treatment?
You can sum up AA in one of its steps 5th step states that we admit to God ourselves and another human being the exact 'nature 'of our wrongs. Now Google the word nature and find out just how AA glorifies wrong and encourages it.
Is AA a generalized term for alcoholic support groups, or is it a special reference to the 12 step "higher power" religious variant of alcoholic support groups?
Dr. Carroll, out of curiosity, has any study managed to quantify the level of harm caused by AA"s virtual monopoly on treatment in areas of the country? They've prevented CBT and other forms of addiction treatment from being adopted and studied and I would be interested to know if that harm could be quantified.
Do I remember an earlier episode in which you noted that standards in the US and standards in Europe regarding only amount of alcohol costumed per day are wildly different?
This is interesting! I read this article on NPR (from 2014) the other day interviewing Lance Dodes, who claims that AA has only a 5-10% success rate, and that those who do not remain abstinent are actually harmed by the way AA frames all failures as results of individual weakness. Sounds like there is still evidence coming out that suggests that it is effective. I do wonder about the ethics of mandating that people attend AA after a criminal conviction, if there is a risk of it further entrenching feelings of low self-worth and helplessness when they relapse.
It's hilarious how AA members try projecting their own weakness onto other people. I've been told that since I used to drink a lot and stopped on my own, I'm either in "denial" or I never had a problem to begin with. B.s. - I used to wake up with the shakes every day. Once I had a paradigm shift and got into healthy living, drinking no longer felt good to me anymore. Drink once a year or so and it never does anything for me.
@D That's great! Yeah, AA is a cult that revolves around psychologically manipulative doublespeak. Basically the group just takes the 19th century morality-based approach to drunkenness and drapes that outmoded moralistic ideology in thinly-veiled euphemisms. Back then, drunks were weak, immoral hedonists who needed God. Now, they're "powerless" and need to complete a "moral inventory" and submit to a "higher power." Same shit, different wording. If addiction is an involuntary physical disease, then why are AA members urged to complete a "moral inventory" to begin with? That heavily implies that addicts are immoral, which contradicts the entire premise of the disease model. I haven't met a single 12 stepper who can answer that. That's why I don't respect their group - they take the morality-based "tough love" approach, while simultaneously claiming that addiction is an involuntary disease. It's blatantly illogical.
I've seen AA data that puts their effectiveness at about the same as just trying to quit drinking. It was old data, but at the time at least, they didn't release that kind of data anymore.
I love it when people try and make Alcoholics Anonymous into real science. LOL. This cult that I was forced into by my employer) ruined my life ...so glad to be away from it. Am I sober :-)? That's their favorite question. No. I enjoy a beer every once in awhile. Nothing tragic has happened. I am either not an alcoholic, or there is no such thing as an alcoholic. I'm going to rest firmly on the latter. Calling yourself an alcoholic is it convenient fairytale way to feel better about yourself and your group that's all it is. Being adult and don't drink like an idiot. Drugs are another matter I don't know about that stuff. That's the other thing I hate it AAA is increasingly more about drugs than anything else
Unrelated, but would you do a video on Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS)? Thyroid issues would be another interesting topic. Both are relatively common from my understanding and difficult to cope with. Thanks for all of the good information!
Your conclusion is rather flawed. It should have been along the lines of "AA can work for some, but further study and comparison to other evidence based alternatives must receive aggressive research as well before we can draw strong conclusions." Your sign off conclusion is honestly so tone deaf and completely at odds with actual addiction research as well as what many many addicts already know, that 12 step programs are better than nothing and that is about it. I am actually floored at your conclusion, and can only conclude you have not done your own research into other alternatives. No actual psychiatrist or psychologist worth their salt would simply recommend AA to a client and call the problem solved. Many dislike the program is it removes their patients agency which is extremely important to show addicts they still posses. No psychiatrist wants any patient of theirs convinced they are not in control of their actions, there are entire therapeutic strategies to show yes you are in control and make choices. AA attempts to remove that feeling of control. I have literally only heard it recommended for people to make connections to others and it is always suggested by a social worker, never a physician, I find that rather telling. Addiction is an incredibly complex topic, you picked one of its most contentious treatments then drew an incredibly simplified conclusion based on a single study that shows a passable effect at best. Disappointing video, usually you're much better. Going forward you should stick to topics you have some level of personal knowledge of. I don't mean to sound insulting, but addiction research is so so incredibly complex that drawing a conclusion like yours based on such a fractional improvement is frankly irresponsible. Doctors like you are personally responsible for AA being considered the only court ordered treatment option for alcoholics, many who drop out for many reasons not related to "unwillingness to stay sober" and wind up back in jail. Please, for all of us; don't "recommend" or "conclude" anything about topics you clearly have a passable understanding of. Thanks you for your time.
while AA may not be the very best treatment for alcoholism, it is at the very least one of the most accessible, especially for those who cannot afford long stints in therapy or rehab. it is also communal and creates a support network of other alcoholics who can help keep each other accountable and share what gets them through recovery. without AA my dad would most likely still be an alcoholic and drug addict, and i'm so grateful that he's been sober for more than a decade. attend an AA meeting and you'll find a lot of people for whom other methods are unattainable.
I just asked my Dad this question, who is himself an alcoholic. This is what he told me, and I think it's pretty good input for your question. Primarily, I think it's because many alcoholics (though this applies to all drugs addicts) cannot control themselves once they begin taking a drink. He explained it like this. You know the feeling of "perfect drunk" that comes after drinking for a while? When you feel great, you start to drink faster, and drink more heavily partly because your better judgment is inhibited. For my Dad, he has that feeling after one sip of beer, so once he starts he cannot stop. There may be a few alcoholics who can moderate their drinking, perhaps more of them than we know, but many alcoholics report similar sentiments. Another reason for complete abstinence instead of moderation is because for many alcoholics (again, my Dad's words here) the consequences are too steep to begin a moderation plan rather than an abstinence plan. Consequently, they'd rather take the awkwardness of never drinking out at social events over potentially ruining their lives once again.
As people come to bash the program in the comments, let me remind you that certain things work better for certain people. It has plenty of benefits AND problems. For some though (like my own mother and a couple friends) it is literally life saving.
Alvin Tossler That would explain my question, wouldn't it? -Your lack of answer is less than reassuring though you actually have anything to say, though.- Sorry, that was rude.
I have spent 9 years at AA been 1000s and 1000s of meetings all over did the steps best I could got some time but always got drunk again I'm sober today so that's a good thing but I'm thinking I'm going to walk away from AA for good I just have had it with it all I did my best I really did god bless 🙌 ps that don't mean I'm going to give up on this I will find my way god bless 🙏
so it helps as long as you are actually going to the meetings. but the more important question is: does it work in the long term after you no longer visit AA meetings.
One of the issues with AA is the lack of alternatives for atheist. I've heard from people who had to accept god. I've also read articles stating that groups who try to loosen up on these rules are excommunicated by the overarching organization. If this is true, it is a sad state of affairs. Especially because there are no alternatives, and AA meetings can be a condition for probation.
I should note that in the US it's illegal for a court to order someone to take part in a religious ceremony and appeals of atheists who claimed that AA is a religious organisation and requested a secular alternative have thus been generally successful (at least as far as I'm aware). I'm almost sure there is legal precedent for AA being considered a religious organisation. The larger problem would be local availability.
AA has convinced me there is no god. I spent 2.5 years trying to come to believe that a Power greater than myself could restore me to sanity and making a decision to turn my will and my live over to the care of God as I understood Him. After over 2 years I had zero reason to believe that there was any god and I got conned out of some money by my sponsor with 13 years sobriety. After over 2 years in AA trying to honestly seek god because it was supposedly my only solution gave me the tools to now know with confidence there is no god. I tried, god failed.
I feel like a lot of people are chiming in and saying this, and I agree: Alcoholics anonymous may work better than absolutely no treatment, but that does not mean it is an evidence-based treatment option. It is demeaning to the alcoholic and sacred in way that is completely inappropriate for a treatment option recommended to the general public. Why would we want to increase adoption of a treatment with lots of undesirable sham procedures when we could spend our time isolating the parts of AA that work and discard the rest?
.... but avoiding crossover patients also selects for the type of people who don't want treatment (who remain in controls) vs those who are motivated to seek help (who remain in AA). When the choice to change groups is free, its no longer a "random" grouping. Particularly as those who remain in AA are doing more work to do so (vs not doing anything to be in the controls). But why differentiate the seeking vs the effect? Seems either there is an effect (bully for AA but seems pretty unmeasurable alone) or AA simply provides something for those wanting to change to actively seek out, and having something thats well-advertised with ubiquitous public awareness to seek out provides an accessible target for that motivation.
The randomization should be between AA and another common treatment, this would decrease cross over because the control is receiving at least some sort of treatment. This also doesn't account for (as mentioned) that those willing to participate in a study are not random. ~8 days a month of AA for 3 days of abstinence seems a bit pitiful as an effect. CBT is much higher more effective and gives people long term tools to stay abstinent.
It is difficult to study the "success" of AA because first one must define "success". As a member of AA, our only measurable goal is to not pick up a drink... Today. The days stack up and turn to weeks which turn to months and years, etc. I have 10,351 days as I type this... One day at a time. We don't claim to be the only game in town when it comes to getting sober.... but for 89 years and millions of alcoholics around the globe, it works.... If you work it. "Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path."
So when you don't count the people who abandon AA, it seems to have a high success rate? Isn't this selection bias at its worst? Don't most people who stop AA do so because they don't think it's working?
I take this as none here have gone to a AA meeting before. The entire 12 step is 'suggestion '. We make no claim it is better and every thing is suggestive only. Take what you need leave what you dont. One of the difficult parts of many, many people of quitting drinking have, is that few hours of social outing. We drank in bars for social interaction.. the advantage is we are people who have a commonality, alcoholism and at the beginning we come to accept we are , we also become accepting of so many different people, racism, hatred anger, all melt away when we share our 'war stories, we listen and find the common about ourselves, the best of friendships and greatest people have come out of AA. Unlike most treatment centers. History is... AA came from one aspect of Freemasons "making good men....better" the 12 steps came from somewhat Freemasons, the process not really the dialog, just like any other addiction it takes days often months to get the serious craving out of our system. How ever you do that is ok, and AA never say it is the only, it suggests other therapy for much more chronic along with the social aspect . It works if you work it...bur you have to WORK it, not counting on AA to do it all for you..got to man /woman adult up Responsibility and Maturity are two topics we discuss often
"experimental studies have on the whole failed to demonstrate their effectiveness in reducing alcohol dependence or drinking problems when compared to other interventions." - Cochrane Review 2006 This conclusion was based on a meta-analysis of the results of eight trials involving a total of 3,417 individuals. And, why are we really talking about AA versus nothing? I think we should be comparing AA against other tested treatments.
Social interactions or connections are proven to be helpful to people suffering from addictions. If AA provides possibility for genuine its great. I would suggest trying to compare and contrast other methodologies that compete with AA without excluding the fluidity groups or benefit of social interaction to maximize said effect.
book in A.A. states 'rarely' (look it up\ clue: hailey's comet is seen 'rarely') have "we' seen a person fail (not succeed) who has thoroughly (hmmm, IDK) followed our path' followed followed followed= action,. No statistics offered or needed. Rehabs are not A.A. A.A. is not a business of rehab. They were, a very long time ago, briefly. It did not work for A.A. period. Read the books, prior to lip flapping with big erronous yet impressive wordage.
Aa is fake period. Been in aa for 20 years or so. Wasted 20 years. Make your amends aa and let me have it back. I would go on a "rant" but even in the aa big book " this program is not for everyone". If it works for you great but not for me
REDO YOUR CIRCUMCISION VIDEO. NO BIAS. NO BS. Studies are great, but we cannot forget our morality. Every human, male or female, has the right to bodily integrity. If parents cannot legally circumcise their girls in the name of religion, why do we do this to boys?
While I agree with your sentiment, I don't see what it has to do at all with AA or the topic of this video. Nor do I think it likely Aaron will take heed to this comment.
So... no word on wether AA is good at what they are trying compared to other organizations with the same goal. No mentioning about all the problems with AA, like their 12-points program having no scientific basis and them declaring nearly every relapse to be a failing exclusevly of the patient.
I was going to leave a comment like the other ones until I realized you were only referring to selection. the way AA obfuscates what they consider to be success and other shenanigans about recidivism and not counting failures at all is really, really bad. the title of this video is offensive and detracts from the actual content. you could restate it as is to 'why does stopping drinking work' and only consider people that just decide to stop drinking. I respect the content of this channel and Aaron Carroll very much, and I think this video does not live up to what I've come to respect them for, it is a detour to non-science land to uncritically talk about AA and 'addiction' 'treatment' of the kind they 'practice'. suggest changing title to say something about self selection and maybe follow-up video that deals with the effect without directly making a reference to an organization that can really muddle the point you are trying to make
Why not create a control group where the sessions are bogus like doing sudoku? That way, the patients who stick with the bogus treatment are equally as motivated as the ones attending AA meetings. What about court mandated AA meetings?
AA is what you make it and it's made by the people in it. I see a lot of comments saying AA is Christian but my local AA group has few Christians (they're more likely to get help from local prayer groups) so the people left who seek AA tend to be non-Christian, non-religious or overwhelmingly (in my area) kind of a pagan-hippie-thing.
The program of Alcoholics Anonymous 12 Steps are within the first 164 pages. Meeting's had not much to do with one's own recovery. The miracle of recovery happens "when one dose as they did" and " they get what they got". Most today don't or haven't even finished the 12 Steps required for the recovery miracle they talked about in the book. If your not solber and wonder why, maybe one should go back and review the first 164 pages. Recovery Centers and or AA Meetings don't do the steps for you. The steps are something the alcoholic needs to do, no-one can do it for the individual. This video hasn't a clue on how it works in a 12 Step program. But it a good topic!
Alcoholics anonymous may offer some marginal benefit to alcoholics, but does it help alcoholics achieve long term sobriety? Based on these studies, that does not appear to be the case. There are certainly other treatment options more common in other countries that are proven to be more effective.
I would respect AA a lot more if A) they didn't rabidly enforce Christian values (they say 'a power greater than yourself', and *say* it can be whatever you choose, then proceed to exclusively lead prayer in Christian manner), and B) they didn't force people who are NOT alcoholics to join. I encountered the latter when I was homeless for about a year in the mid-00s, and about a third of the AA group I was assigned to were either completely dry prior to attending, or merely occasional drinkers (at social events and rarely to excess, for example). My experience is anecdotal, and may be atypical, but I question any system which requires people -not- affected by the condition to attend the treatment.
Its funny i was forced to do AA(dui) but i hated it so much where id want to drink more after. Although i wasnt a everyday drinker more like a once a week drown out drinker. AA personally did not help me, but the way out is to find within yourself. I get it easier said than done but guess what.. find a reason, a purpose, a goal, your family, your friends(who may also be be hurting), your future .........whos wants to remembered you when you die as..." *insert name here* the drunk and the example of what not to be"
AA program is created by Alistair Crowley the anti christ. The first three steps are a soul trap. Bill Wilson who wrote the big book is known for witchcraft using Ouija boards. The AA symbols come from a cult called thelematic cult. The triangle in a circle is for conjuring demons
In my experience it was a competition like atmosphere where the people there were on some kind of high school trip where if you fit in there click and you were OK I had nothing to do with Sobriety success rate Is too low tradition is the opposite of evolution and things should Evolve with time But they are threatened by change they say it works it works for some people there is no way but the way and if I tell you I know the way I do not not everybody reacts the same way to the same thing that’s why the success rate is so low
Hey people deriding AA, how about listen to honest opinions by participants in AA programs? Would love to hear their experience rather than people throwing random generic insults ("NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE BLABLA) at a study trying help these people when laboratory experiments are not feasible.
You ever heard the phrase "If you know it well enough, you can explain it simply (or in simple terms)."? The only issue I see here is that you overly explain it and often repeat yourself. And when someone has to keep reaffirming their claims, its usually due to lack of basic means to lay it out simply. In debate team logic... There isnt much to go on besides its all in the data repeat. Don't get me wrong. AA is a viable source for those that actually want to seek help. And yes they may relapse but for those that actually want the help will come back or seek ways to follow through. You can lead a horse to water but you cant make them drink. And with that, its plainly put into a simple phrase of those who seek and pursue the help will eventually recieve it. But the underline process of AA is to replace one addiction with another. And that doesnt have to necessarily be a bad thing. In a way you are replacing a crutch that is destroying you with support and a new line of coping mechanisms to better yourself. And with AA, it actually can help you see the light from where you only seen darkness. It does sound religious but i am far from being the christian type. You can say its just that little boost to help see that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
Folks, I have to wonder why there's so much antagonism against AA on the basis that they use this term "higher power" as a part of the program. The thing is, any AA program worth its salt allows its members to interpret this term as they see fit. It need not be religious if that's unhelpful, and it's not really AA if they force a specifically religious interpretation. I don't think there is any harm in giving folks that freedom to interpret-- and there is certainly a lot of benefit. People who are non-religious simply interpret it as something other than God / a deity / some other supernatural thing. It could be a sense of purpose, or the power in other members supporting them. It's whatever a person needs to resist drinking.
5% of addicts/alcoholics will achieve long-term, or permanent sobriety *with or without* AA (or other 12-step programs, like NA). Now, I'm not "bashing" AA/NA; for all I know, maybe the 5% who stayed sober through AA, would not have otherwise stayed sober. The same goes for the 5% who do it all on their own; maybe doing it *without* a religious/spiritual program, or any kind of program, is the only way that works for them...perhaps going to meetings and hearing people talk about past drug or alcohol use, could potentially trigger some people to want to drink or use drugs, even more... simply because they hear others talking about it...even though they are likely hearing all the negatives about it, it could cause them to fantasize about the good feelings it used to give them. For some people, just finding new, constructive and healthy hobbies to take their minds off of alcohol or drugs, is the only way that works for them; similar to the "out of sight, out of mind" type of thing. Every human being is different. There is no magic "one-size-fits-all" program that works for everyone, nor do all addicts require a "program" of any sort. People should do what they know, in their heart, works best for them, and not do what family, friends, or anyone *says* they should do!
Very gratefull member of AA.. 9 YEARS SOBER. 12 STEPS OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS. WORKS IF YOU WORK IT... YOU GOTTA WANNT IT... WHEN YOU'VE HAD ENOUGH... 3 FOLD MALLADY.. BODY. MIND. SPIRIT. GOD BLESS YOU... SEE YOU THERE. X
I hate to say this, but this video has me questioning everything you've made before and thinking about unsubscribing. This analysis is very biased. 3 days of sobriety a month is nothing. That's 10%. In that time period you're barely able to get past the withdrawal symptoms. That's even drinking on days you had a meeting. Is it more effective than nothing? Yes. Does that mean it works? No. Does eating only McDonald's help me stay alive? Yes, more than eating nothing does. Just not an indicator of working. I really hope you make a follow up, I'd really hate to not have you as a reliable resource anymore.
AA saves lives. You may not be done with your alcoholism. You may still be in denial or on a dry drunk. That's your right. AA does save lives and gives a better life than any drinking possibly can.
The Laughing Hyenas I gave myself a better life by not drinking everyday anymore. AA is a cult that shames people when they fail to be perfect. Thats all they do. Did you know that the founder of AA used LSD to help himself quit drinking? But now they are a cult of sadness. Fuck AA. They have caused thousands of suicides.
This video was profoundly disappointing. First, it never attempts to put in perspective the degree of improvement from treatment (3 days more of abstinence per month? What does that mean? How many days of abstinence is normal in the treatment group? How much improvement is there from other methods? How compare to people who merely say they want to quit and aren't provided any treatment?). Second, it doesn't bother to consider the possibility that some of the crossover occurs not because of availability, but because people who find themselves doing poorly with abstinence may self-select out of treatment. Third, it doesn't even consider the possibility of harms before suggesting that we should expand treatment. AA is already the default treatment program for alcoholism in the US. It doesn't need to be promoted further. What we need to do is find out how well it compares with other treatment methods to see if it makes sense to modify the system or change to a different treatment method altogether. This whole video extremely unfairly stacked the deck in favor of AA in comparison to most of your videos, which are usually pretty balanced. Please, you can do better than this.
Meh. The design of this study simply measures whether or not there is a treatment effect (getting help) and the researchers chose AA as the treatment. The results simply show AA is better than nothing; the study makes no attempt to compare the outcomes of AA to other treatment outcomes. Commenters should keep that in mind.
+
+
+
+
+
I have maintained alcohol abstinence for 3 months now and will continue this way for the rest of my life. I pay for and receive treatment from an addiction specialist once a week. I supplement my therapy with AA meetings because they don’t cost any money. Of course I always give a donation but i feel comfort i have AA as an back up because no money is required.
I noticed the assumption that AA *did* work.
+
+
That wasn't an assumption. It was the conclusion based on the studies he cited.
+
+
How about comparing AA to other treatment programs?
+
That is a very good suggestion. It may actually be easier than comparing AA vs. no treatment. It seems that, frequently AA is looked at as if it is the only treatment, or gets genericized as representing all treatment regimes.
+
AA is one of the least effective programs. Because it's not based on science and they don't use modern methods to help the addicts.
"How about comparing AA to other treatment programs?" It's been done scientifically and it didn't win. Believing the 12 steps work because you live somewhere they've been popular and people seem serious is like believing wine really turns into Jesus's blood because you live in mainly Catholic neighborhood and people seem serious.
As a differentiation between having a support group and not having a support group I think it was important to study whether the group does have a positive impact and I'm glad that it does. This obviously doesn't change that AA itself is a very problematic program with its highly religious message, its content of denying the individual's ability to combat the addiction and a multitude of other attitudes that others have outlined better than I could here. AA is basically the Salvation Army of self-help groups, they're extremely prevalent and well known but also infamous for religious proselytising and sometimes outright bigotry as well as not actually being as good as other, less famous alternatives. So I think in terms of "is AA better than nothing" the answer being yes is a totally legitimate study, I just also believe it should be followed up with studies that compare its efficacy with other, hopefully less abusive alternatives.
+
There's another question about the study: when they count days of sobriety, are there grades of non-sobriety? Most people outside of AA agree that there is such a thing as non-abusive alcohol consumption. Only differentiating between total sobriety and not that would reflect AA's attitude towards drinking, but considering that it is this very attitude that is often blamed for very bad binges of heavy drinking when relapses occur it would be interesting if those "more days of sobriety" are balanced by worse inebriation on the non-sober days.
+
at the time I am reading and replying, this comment is the top one on youtube. I want everyone to take a moment to appreciate how great a community has been built around this channel. Jokes are great and all but having a well articulated comment with something of substance to say, is not common on youtube.
+
Once you get past physical dependence, "alcoholism" is all in your head. AA just redirects the obsession - instead of obsessing over drinking, members obsess over NOT drinking. Their entire lives still revolve around booze, which is why there's such a high relapse rate among AA members.
So .. err .. Why Does Alcoholics Anonymous Work?
+
The question wasn't really adressed, wasn't it? He basically just told us that it works better than nothing. Very little about the "why".
I've heard that it works, in part, because it give the addict a support system to get away from the addiction
which can be done without all the guilt tripping and religious BS in AA. Now how does AA stack up against other support group-type settings?
+
Are there studies that compare AA to other therapies like cognitive behavioral therapy or pharmacological therapies? The fact that it works a little better than doing literally nothing makes me wonder if there are more effective approaches to alcoholism recovery or treating addictions in general.
+
This. Would be particularly interesting to know given the more problematic aspects of AA 'treatment'.
+
+
+
AA has at best a ten percent (10%) success rate. It *doesn't* work and never has. Go see a cognitive behavior therapist and gain the actual skills you need to solve your problems.
+
++
CBT is pretty shit for addiction too though, addiction is hard to treat we don't have effective solutions. A lot of people solve it themselves using a range of strategies over v long time with trial and error, or die an addict.
tetsubo57 lol 90 % of people in aa have been sober for years
Jeff Credle
Sadly, that is true, and in my humble opinion, that is why the billion dollars "rehab" industry constantly push the AA dogma; they know that for most people, it doesn't work, and often makes things worse, which means they have lots of "repeat customers," which equals *MORE MONEY💰 💰 💰!!* for the rehab centers, which do little more than indoctrinate addicts with 12-step dogma, which they can get for free in the "outside world." Yet Ibogaine treatment is *ILLEGAL* in the US, and probably most of Europe, because it is an *ACTUAL CURE* for addiction, and a one-time-only treatment! I would speculate that Ibogaine treatment is illegal in most "advanced" Western countries, simply because it would not generate enough profit.
I'd recommend the video, "Does Alcoholics Anonymous Work?", for comparisons to other treatments. I started going to AA this year, and I would recommend it to anyone with substance problems, but also for just about anyone. You walk into a room of people who have taken a hard look at themselves and look upon you without judgement, and welcome you back no matter how many times you may relapse. You listen to others and are listened to and find encouragement. The "higher power" thing is actually pretty flexible, and for those (like me) who aren't religious, the higher power could simply be the support of the group. In two months I have come a long way, mostly because I am drawn to the real happiness I see that others have achieved and have enjoyed for decades. I already know how miserable I was, beating myself up. Very few people realized I drank that much because I functioned so well, plus I'm a professional guitarist, so it didn't seem strange to most people to see me drink. I'm not an idiot, I can do the math and know that I was out of control and unhappy. I'm back in a big way, and AA has been a lifesaver.
But what about AA vs secular treatment?
+
+
+
+
+
either I am in denial or Alcoholics Anonymous did not work for me because I was supposed to talk about all the horrible things I did while I was under the effects of alcohol. the effects of alcohol did alter my judgement but it never made me do horrible things to anyone so I never got that part. What is Taught in AA is that one should just take away what applies to them and leave the rest, but how can one do that if everyone's saying that the reason why I didn't talk about the horrible things I did, was that I was in denial. Ever since I left AA, some ten years ago, I have never felt better I no longer have to feel like there is no hope for me without AA. However, if AA does work for anyone out there please continue to go take what I said with a grain of salt.
wait 2 more meetings a month only produces 3 more days? That damn near sounds like margin of error. It seems like any treatment is better than no treatment, but that doesn't mean AA works...
+
+
You heard that wrong. Attending 2 more meeting a WEEK will produce an extra 3 days of sobriety a month. So, 8 extra meetings a month to get an extra 3 days. That is even worse than you originally thought.
gwah, I went back and listened again. I wonder if there is a correlation between going to a meeting and then drinking at that point. There probably isn't, but wow that is the a terrible return on investment.
90 MEETINGS IN 90 DAYS...THAT WOULD CAUSE ANYONE TO DRINK...HAHAHA
I spent seven years in a bottle I went to psychiatric facilities rehab programs even jails and I’m just happy that I’m sober now thank God that I’m sober
Part of the problem with AA is that it is a religious approach. That brings in placebo effects of prayer and the appeal to the undefined higher power. That is something that needs to be addressed, too. Take note that there have been court requirements for non believers to participate in such programs, implicitly requiring atheists to espouse God. That is not an approach that is going to help people.
A.A. is only one of many options. It is too often treated as the only one.
+
Dave Fogarty, that is because it is an option that works. It's free, it saves lives and it gives peace, sobriety and serenity. It's also a program generalizable to a myriad of other problems. Come up with a better one that does all of that.
weed works better than any boring meeting.
I am disappointed that this video isn't actually really a true analysis of whether AA works. While I'm glad to hear that it is better than nothing, in the real world AA has a really low retention rate. Of course it is an excellent and life changing resource for some people committed to change and receptive to how the program works. But there are many other types of programs that may be more universally effective.
such as what?
AA only works for about 5% of people. These are the few who actually need the brainwashing. Most people don't fall for all the stupid slogans and lack of any real progress.
12 steps is a lifelong commitment to being powerless.
This is a recipe for disaster for most people.
چرت پرت گفتی چرا
Title is completely inaccurate. This video was about studies, not about why AA works. Don't do clickbait Healthcare Triage.
+
Word.
+
Agreed. Whilst it was interesting and useful information, it is not the video I thought it would be...
I have a serious issue with the title "WHY does AA work" as if this is some sort of strong consensus in the scientific community, which it is NOT.
So going to AA now "works" because a subset of subjects reported a reduction in drinking, per month, of only 3 days for each 8 days of AA attendance? That is an incredibly low bar for a treatment to "work."
+
3:10 I still don't understand crossover study design or instrumental variable analyses. I guess I'm gonna have to read the wiki articles on both (and the articles linked from them) for a couple hours...
The basic idea comes from a long literature kickstarted by Joshua Angrist and Guido Imbens, and it works like this: you can imagine four groups of people. The first group is "compliers". Compliers do NOT receive the treatment if they're in the control group, but they DO receive the treatment if they're in the treatment group. They "comply" with what the researcher wants. In an experiment with perfect assignment, everybody is a Complier.
The second and third groups are "always-takers" and "never-takers." These are people who don't care what the researcher assigns them to. They will either always receive the treatment, or never receive the treatment. Imagine someone who hates AA and won't go even if assigned (never-taker), or someone already planning to go to AA who would have gone anyway (always-taker).
The fourth, nefarious, group, are the "defiers." These are rebellious people who do the exact opposite of what the researcher says! They only receive treatment if they're in the control group, and don't receive treatment in the treatment group.
IF WE ASSUME that the "defiers" don't exist, then we can get a pretty good estimate of who is a complier by looking at how "assigned to treatment" affects the probability that you were actually treated. Very roughly, if 20% of people in the control group received treatment, and 70% of people in the treatment group received treatment, about 50% of people are compliers. A fancier analysis can pinpoint who those compliers are.
The instrumental variable isolates the treatment that was applied only because you were assigned to treatment (i.e., it isolates the compliers). Why do we want that? Because the compliers are the people that the randomization worked correctly for, and so all the stuff we like about experiments applies to that sample. [Statistically, it isolates this group by only estimating the effect of the treatment using variation in treatment that arose as a result of variation in assignment].
So this gives us a proper experimental estimate. However, we had to toss out the always-takers and never-takers (and assume away the existence of the defiers) to do so. This means that we only get the average effect for the compliers. If there's something different about the effect of the treatment for compliers - say, AA works better for someone willing to go along with the assignment than it would have if we somehow forced a never-taker into the program - then we won't see that.
What? That's not really related at all. For one, "experiments run without difficulty" is not a prerequisite for science (if it were, astronomy wouldn't be science). And for another, this problem pops up in medicine as well, and sometimes in other, solidly-physical-science areas like agriculture.
Would prefer a video on AA vs secular alternatives.
+
+
You can end up in a Mental home because of AA.
Just look at the Oldtimers
Courts need to stop sending felons to AA and NA. It doesn't help the felon stay sober, as they resent being forced to attend. What happens though, is some of those felons are predators who find a roomful of willing victims. I left AA for several reasons, but this was the main one. I saw so many vulnerable newcomers being taken advantage of by those "oldtimers" whom they were told to trust. It happened to me back in the 80's when I was a "newbie". "Newbie" is just another term for "fresh meat" in AA.
Are there any studies that compare complete abstinence to learning how to drink in moderation? Temperance and moderation are such important skills in so many different aspects of life that it seems they should also be able to help alcoholics to get the social benefits of drinking without going overboard. I understand it's harder than it sounds, but that's why I'm curious to see if there is any data on this, to find out if it could be a realistic alternative to abstinence for people who are up for the challenge.
+
I can't get well being around a bunch of sick people trying to get well... Just doesn't work for me..
Why on hell would I take any advice from a sponsor in a 12step fellowship when even they admit their life is unmanageable...
It's not a Disease that makes you pick up a drink it's your attitude and behaviour towards a reaction to a situation that makes you pick up a drink..
Don't be brainwashed with excuses..
Or get Sane around Insane people who some actually gleefully & proudly admit they are Insane.
My only problem with encouraging people to specifically go to AA is that they still use the rather archaic step of "admit that you're powerless and accept Jesus as your savior." Why can't they drop the religious bit and stop making non-religious people feel unwelcome?
Purpleman101 sorry, AA never tells us to accept Jesus as your savior. They encourage you to find your own version of a Higher Power. It can be your group. Anyone that isn't you!
Wow, some people HATE being presented with evidence that supports the efficacy for AA.
Kevin Jaworski honestly I’m worried about this comment section. Do these people dislike AA because they truly believe it’s bad for people and shouldn’t exist? Or do they just have some personal resentment? Are they of the belief it’s an entirely religious organization and hate religion?
@@jkl3090 I think it's mostly the latter two. The religiosity of it REALLY turns some people off and I think there's a ton of personal and cultural baggage tied up in the capital G-word, which is used liberally in AA literature. There certainly are ligit critiques about aspects of AA, but for a subset of people struggling with substances it seems to work pretty well.
So explain why the long term effectiveness is as low as 5 to 8%. That for non religious people it cant help and that they deny the medications that have been proven to work better.
This is the first time I have herd that a.a actually had a treatment program. Usually all you hear about there that they are just a recruiting arm of a church. that being said. Has there been research about a.a's effectiveness vs non church based ones?
+
That would be much harder to study because many that attend AA are by court order and 2/3 of states don't recognize any outpatient program other than AA.
A case went before an federal appeals court after losing in state courts after someone was found guilty of vehicular assault while intoxicated and had to attend AA after prison and he appealed because its religion-based and he was atheist and the courts ruled against him and the Supreme Court chose not to take the case, agreeing de facto with the lower court that even if you don't religiously agree agree, you can still be forced to attend AA.
Association with any organization is against the principles of AA
@@heyheyhey0220 That is the party line for sure. So they can get around the constitution but don't kid yourself. It's a christianity group in every way but legally. You are free to pick an chose what ever denomination of christianity you like but it's still a recruiting center christianity.
@@lucidmoses that hasn't been my experience
But does it work though? Isn't the relapse rate in A.A. like 80-90%? Also the "accept god into your heart and understand that you are a sinner" isnt exactly what I would call treatment?
+
AA is a religious organization that should not be supported or forced on alcoholics.
+
So how do you get clean and sober ?
It has the same rate of "helping" people as spontaneous relapse.
Porn cures alcoholism, too, by distracting the victim/patient/subject/player with porn instead of booze.
You can sum up AA in one of its steps 5th step states that we admit to God ourselves and another human being the exact 'nature 'of our wrongs. Now Google the word nature and find out just how AA glorifies wrong and encourages it.
Is AA a generalized term for alcoholic support groups, or is it a special reference to the 12 step "higher power" religious variant of alcoholic support groups?
SICK PEOPLE CANNOT MAKE SICK PEOPLE WELL!!
Dr. Carroll, out of curiosity, has any study managed to quantify the level of harm caused by AA"s virtual monopoly on treatment in areas of the country? They've prevented CBT and other forms of addiction treatment from being adopted and studied and I would be interested to know if that harm could be quantified.
+
+
+
Do I remember an earlier episode in which you noted that standards in the US and standards in Europe regarding only amount of alcohol costumed per day are wildly different?
This is interesting! I read this article on NPR (from 2014) the other day interviewing Lance Dodes, who claims that AA has only a 5-10% success rate, and that those who do not remain abstinent are actually harmed by the way AA frames all failures as results of individual weakness. Sounds like there is still evidence coming out that suggests that it is effective. I do wonder about the ethics of mandating that people attend AA after a criminal conviction, if there is a risk of it further entrenching feelings of low self-worth and helplessness when they relapse.
Not to mention the ethical consideration of taking a group of sick people and telling them to not seek treatment for their life-threatening condition.
Alcoholism is not a life threatening condition.
You are misinformed. Alcoholism and conditions caused by it kill many people.
Tell that to my dad that died in 2014 from complications from alcoholism.
You, uh, don't seem to understand what alcoholism is.
It's hilarious how AA members try projecting their own weakness onto other people. I've been told that since I used to drink a lot and stopped on my own, I'm either in "denial" or I never had a problem to begin with. B.s. - I used to wake up with the shakes every day. Once I had a paradigm shift and got into healthy living, drinking no longer felt good to me anymore. Drink once a year or so and it never does anything for me.
@D That's great! Yeah, AA is a cult that revolves around psychologically manipulative doublespeak. Basically the group just takes the 19th century morality-based approach to drunkenness and drapes that outmoded moralistic ideology in thinly-veiled euphemisms. Back then, drunks were weak, immoral hedonists who needed God. Now, they're "powerless" and need to complete a "moral inventory" and submit to a "higher power." Same shit, different wording.
If addiction is an involuntary physical disease, then why are AA members urged to complete a "moral inventory" to begin with? That heavily implies that addicts are immoral, which contradicts the entire premise of the disease model. I haven't met a single 12 stepper who can answer that. That's why I don't respect their group - they take the morality-based "tough love" approach, while simultaneously claiming that addiction is an involuntary disease. It's blatantly illogical.
@@steve9094 AA's main was and is to get a person to believe in the Oxfords Group's God. It is simply a back/trap door to make a person a Believer!!
focus
I've seen AA data that puts their effectiveness at about the same as just trying to quit drinking. It was old data, but at the time at least, they didn't release that kind of data anymore.
I love it when people try and make Alcoholics Anonymous into real science. LOL. This cult that I was forced into by my employer) ruined my life ...so glad to be away from it. Am I sober :-)? That's their favorite question. No. I enjoy a beer every once in awhile. Nothing tragic has happened. I am either not an alcoholic, or there is no such thing as an alcoholic. I'm going to rest firmly on the latter. Calling yourself an alcoholic is it convenient fairytale way to feel better about yourself and your group that's all it is. Being adult and don't drink like an idiot. Drugs are another matter I don't know about that stuff. That's the other thing I hate it AAA is increasingly more about drugs than anything else
But how do you tell the difference between marginalised patients and others?
Unrelated, but would you do a video on Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS)? Thyroid issues would be another interesting topic. Both are relatively common from my understanding and difficult to cope with. Thanks for all of the good information!
Your conclusion is rather flawed. It should have been along the lines of "AA can work for some, but further study and comparison to other evidence based alternatives must receive aggressive research as well before we can draw strong conclusions."
Your sign off conclusion is honestly so tone deaf and completely at odds with actual addiction research as well as what many many addicts already know, that 12 step programs are better than nothing and that is about it. I am actually floored at your conclusion, and can only conclude you have not done your own research into other alternatives. No actual psychiatrist or psychologist worth their salt would simply recommend AA to a client and call the problem solved. Many dislike the program is it removes their patients agency which is extremely important to show addicts they still posses. No psychiatrist wants any patient of theirs convinced they are not in control of their actions, there are entire therapeutic strategies to show yes you are in control and make choices. AA attempts to remove that feeling of control. I have literally only heard it recommended for people to make connections to others and it is always suggested by a social worker, never a physician, I find that rather telling.
Addiction is an incredibly complex topic, you picked one of its most contentious treatments then drew an incredibly simplified conclusion based on a single study that shows a passable effect at best.
Disappointing video, usually you're much better. Going forward you should stick to topics you have some level of personal knowledge of. I don't mean to sound insulting, but addiction research is so so incredibly complex that drawing a conclusion like yours based on such a fractional improvement is frankly irresponsible. Doctors like you are personally responsible for AA being considered the only court ordered treatment option for alcoholics, many who drop out for many reasons not related to "unwillingness to stay sober" and wind up back in jail. Please, for all of us; don't "recommend" or "conclude" anything about topics you clearly have a passable understanding of.
Thanks you for your time.
And what were they effects of AA on those who did not remain abstinent?
+
What other videos cover instrumental variable analysis besides this one and the Oregon Experiment?
while AA may not be the very best treatment for alcoholism, it is at the very least one of the most accessible, especially for those who cannot afford long stints in therapy or rehab. it is also communal and creates a support network of other alcoholics who can help keep each other accountable and share what gets them through recovery. without AA my dad would most likely still be an alcoholic and drug addict, and i'm so grateful that he's been sober for more than a decade. attend an AA meeting and you'll find a lot of people for whom other methods are unattainable.
Why abstinence as the standard? How about just not being addicted?
+
Because we don't know how to cure addiction.
rjr81 But people can go from being addicted to being able to drink without going overboard.
I just asked my Dad this question, who is himself an alcoholic. This is what he told me, and I think it's pretty good input for your question.
Primarily, I think it's because many alcoholics (though this applies to all drugs addicts) cannot control themselves once they begin taking a drink. He explained it like this. You know the feeling of "perfect drunk" that comes after drinking for a while? When you feel great, you start to drink faster, and drink more heavily partly because your better judgment is inhibited. For my Dad, he has that feeling after one sip of beer, so once he starts he cannot stop.
There may be a few alcoholics who can moderate their drinking, perhaps more of them than we know, but many alcoholics report similar sentiments.
Another reason for complete abstinence instead of moderation is because for many alcoholics (again, my Dad's words here) the consequences are too steep to begin a moderation plan rather than an abstinence plan. Consequently, they'd rather take the awkwardness of never drinking out at social events over potentially ruining their lives once again.
Its even more obvious in the case of food addiction. We all have to eat. Some of us just need to learn to do so in moderation.
As people come to bash the program in the comments, let me remind you that certain things work better for certain people. It has plenty of benefits AND problems. For some though (like my own mother and a couple friends) it is literally life saving.
And for others it ruins life
+Alvin Tossler I'm curious, how exactly would AA ruin someone's life?
PolyJohn I take it you've never been
Alvin Tossler That would explain my question, wouldn't it? -Your lack of answer is less than reassuring though you actually have anything to say, though.- Sorry, that was rude.
+Alvin Tossler Could you give an example how it ruins lives?
I have spent 9 years at AA been 1000s and 1000s of meetings all over did the steps best I could got some time but always got drunk again I'm sober today so that's a good thing but I'm thinking I'm going to walk away from AA for good I just have had it with it all I did my best I really did god bless 🙌 ps that don't mean I'm going to give up on this I will find my way god bless 🙏
so it helps as long as you are actually going to the meetings. but the more important question is: does it work in the long term after you no longer visit AA meetings.
Meetings are for life mate that's the point
They want you in a rotten bar fly cult for life, just like SATAN
One of the issues with AA is the lack of alternatives for atheist. I've heard from people who had to accept god. I've also read articles stating that groups who try to loosen up on these rules are excommunicated by the overarching organization.
If this is true, it is a sad state of affairs. Especially because there are no alternatives, and AA meetings can be a condition for probation.
+
+
Secular Organizations for Sobriety
I should note that in the US it's illegal for a court to order someone to take part in a religious ceremony and appeals of atheists who claimed that AA is a religious organisation and requested a secular alternative have thus been generally successful (at least as far as I'm aware). I'm almost sure there is legal precedent for AA being considered a religious organisation. The larger problem would be local availability.
AA has convinced me there is no god.
I spent 2.5 years trying to come to believe that a Power greater than myself could restore me to sanity and making a decision to turn my will and my live over to the care of God as I understood Him.
After over 2 years I had zero reason to believe that there was any god and I got conned out of some money by my sponsor with 13 years sobriety.
After over 2 years in AA trying to honestly seek god because it was supposedly my only solution gave me the tools to now know with confidence there is no god. I tried, god failed.
I feel like a lot of people are chiming in and saying this, and I agree:
Alcoholics anonymous may work better than absolutely no treatment, but that does not mean it is an evidence-based treatment option. It is demeaning to the alcoholic and sacred in way that is completely inappropriate for a treatment option recommended to the general public. Why would we want to increase adoption of a treatment with lots of undesirable sham procedures when we could spend our time isolating the parts of AA that work and discard the rest?
This video disappointed me. It's all about randomization and crossover effect in studies. Not about AA.
.... but avoiding crossover patients also selects for the type of people who don't want treatment (who remain in controls) vs those who are motivated to seek help (who remain in AA). When the choice to change groups is free, its no longer a "random" grouping. Particularly as those who remain in AA are doing more work to do so (vs not doing anything to be in the controls).
But why differentiate the seeking vs the effect? Seems either there is an effect (bully for AA but seems pretty unmeasurable alone) or AA simply provides something for those wanting to change to actively seek out, and having something thats well-advertised with ubiquitous public awareness to seek out provides an accessible target for that motivation.
The randomization should be between AA and another common treatment, this would decrease cross over because the control is receiving at least some sort of treatment. This also doesn't account for (as mentioned) that those willing to participate in a study are not random. ~8 days a month of AA for 3 days of abstinence seems a bit pitiful as an effect. CBT is much higher more effective and gives people long term tools to stay abstinent.
+
Your title is highly misleading.
Yes it is.
Healthcare Triage has seriously declined in quality lately.
It is difficult to study the "success" of AA because first one must define "success". As a member of AA, our only measurable goal is to not pick up a drink... Today. The days stack up and turn to weeks which turn to months and years, etc. I have 10,351 days as I type this... One day at a time. We don't claim to be the only game in town when it comes to getting sober.... but for 89 years and millions of alcoholics around the globe, it works.... If you work it. "Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path."
So when you don't count the people who abandon AA, it seems to have a high success rate? Isn't this selection bias at its worst? Don't most people who stop AA do so because they don't think it's working?
I take this as none here have gone to a AA meeting before. The entire 12 step is 'suggestion '. We make no claim it is better and every thing is suggestive only. Take what you need leave what you dont. One of the difficult parts of many, many people of quitting drinking have, is that few hours of social outing. We drank in bars for social interaction.. the advantage is we are people who have a commonality, alcoholism and at the beginning we come to accept we are , we also become accepting of so many different people, racism, hatred anger, all melt away when we share our 'war stories, we listen and find the common about ourselves, the best of friendships and greatest people have come out of AA. Unlike most treatment centers. History is... AA came from one aspect of Freemasons "making good men....better" the 12 steps came from somewhat Freemasons, the process not really the dialog, just like any other addiction it takes days often months to get the serious craving out of our system. How ever you do that is ok, and AA never say it is the only, it suggests other therapy for much more chronic along with the social aspect . It works if you work it...bur you have to WORK it, not counting on AA to do it all for you..got to man /woman adult up Responsibility and Maturity are two topics we discuss often
"experimental studies have on the whole failed to demonstrate their effectiveness in reducing alcohol dependence or drinking problems when compared to other interventions." - Cochrane Review 2006
This conclusion was based on a meta-analysis of the results of eight trials involving a total of 3,417 individuals.
And, why are we really talking about AA versus nothing? I think we should be comparing AA against other tested treatments.
+
Interesting.My understand was that AA had a similar success rate then go without any support/
Social interactions or connections are proven to be helpful to people suffering from addictions. If AA provides possibility for genuine its great. I would suggest trying to compare and contrast other methodologies that compete with AA without excluding the fluidity groups or benefit of social interaction to maximize said effect.
Come on, +Healthcare Triage, we expect better
Please talk about EBC 46.
Well, no we know how we know it works, what about the explanation of how it works?
book in A.A. states 'rarely' (look it up\ clue: hailey's comet is seen 'rarely') have "we' seen a person fail (not succeed) who has thoroughly (hmmm, IDK) followed our path' followed followed followed= action,. No statistics offered or needed. Rehabs are not A.A. A.A. is not a business of rehab. They were, a very long time ago, briefly. It did not work for A.A. period. Read the books, prior to lip flapping with big erronous yet impressive wordage.
Aa is fake period. Been in aa for 20 years or so. Wasted 20 years. Make your amends aa and let me have it back. I would go on a "rant" but even in the aa big book " this program is not for everyone". If it works for you great but not for me
I'm not liking or disliking this video as I didn't understand it completely and people in comments are making it even more difficult
Why do you presume that AA works?
REDO YOUR CIRCUMCISION VIDEO. NO BIAS. NO BS.
Studies are great, but we cannot forget our morality. Every human, male or female, has the right to bodily integrity. If parents cannot legally circumcise their girls in the name of religion, why do we do this to boys?
+
While I agree with your sentiment, I don't see what it has to do at all with AA or the topic of this video. Nor do I think it likely Aaron will take heed to this comment.
o_o' Female circumcision is just another word for taking a knife and stabbing wildly.
So... no word on wether AA is good at what they are trying compared to other organizations with the same goal. No mentioning about all the problems with AA, like their 12-points program having no scientific basis and them declaring nearly every relapse to be a failing exclusevly of the patient.
+
I was going to leave a comment like the other ones until I realized you were only referring to selection. the way AA obfuscates what they consider to be success and other shenanigans about recidivism and not counting failures at all is really, really bad. the title of this video is offensive and detracts from the actual content. you could restate it as is to 'why does stopping drinking work' and only consider people that just decide to stop drinking. I respect the content of this channel and Aaron Carroll very much, and I think this video does not live up to what I've come to respect them for, it is a detour to non-science land to uncritically talk about AA and 'addiction' 'treatment' of the kind they 'practice'. suggest changing title to say something about self selection and maybe follow-up video that deals with the effect without directly making a reference to an organization that can really muddle the point you are trying to make
also I really hope this wasn't an overt attempt to be provocative
+
Why not create a control group where the sessions are bogus like doing sudoku?
That way, the patients who stick with the bogus treatment are equally as motivated as the ones attending AA meetings.
What about court mandated AA meetings?
AA is what you make it and it's made by the people in it. I see a lot of comments saying AA is Christian but my local AA group has few Christians (they're more likely to get help from local prayer groups) so the people left who seek AA tend to be non-Christian, non-religious or overwhelmingly (in my area) kind of a pagan-hippie-thing.
genericusername1 unfortunately 12 step groups make the group itself "god"
The program of Alcoholics Anonymous 12 Steps are within the first 164 pages. Meeting's had not much to do with one's own recovery. The miracle of recovery happens "when one dose as they did" and " they get what they got". Most today don't or haven't even finished the 12 Steps required for the recovery miracle they talked about in the book.
If your not solber and wonder why, maybe one should go back and review the first 164 pages. Recovery Centers and or AA Meetings don't do the steps for you. The steps are something the alcoholic needs to do, no-one can do it for the individual.
This video hasn't a clue on how it works in a 12 Step program. But it a good topic!
Review 1930's nazi occult propaganda. FU CULTISTS
Alcoholics anonymous may offer some marginal benefit to alcoholics, but does it help alcoholics achieve long term sobriety? Based on these studies, that does not appear to be the case. There are certainly other treatment options more common in other countries that are proven to be more effective.
Do one on chiropractic care please!
Lol ya ok
Healthcare Triage is slipping lately.
+
+
To jump on the plus bandwagon, lol.
I would respect AA a lot more if A) they didn't rabidly enforce Christian values (they say 'a power greater than yourself', and *say* it can be whatever you choose, then proceed to exclusively lead prayer in Christian manner), and B) they didn't force people who are NOT alcoholics to join. I encountered the latter when I was homeless for about a year in the mid-00s, and about a third of the AA group I was assigned to were either completely dry prior to attending, or merely occasional drinkers (at social events and rarely to excess, for example). My experience is anecdotal, and may be atypical, but I question any system which requires people -not- affected by the condition to attend the treatment.
Its funny i was forced to do AA(dui) but i hated it so much where id want to drink more after. Although i wasnt a everyday drinker more like a once a week drown out drinker. AA personally did not help me, but the way out is to find within yourself. I get it easier said than done but guess what.. find a reason, a purpose, a goal, your family, your friends(who may also be be hurting), your future .........whos wants to remembered you when you die as..." *insert name here* the drunk and the example of what not to be"
And a cult member for wannabe bar flies!
WAIT! Had to stop the video one second in... NO. My answer is, no. Proceed.
+
it never worked for me
AA program is created by Alistair Crowley the anti christ. The first three steps are a soul trap. Bill Wilson who wrote the big book is known for witchcraft using Ouija boards. The AA symbols come from a cult called thelematic cult. The triangle in a circle is for conjuring demons
In my experience it was a competition like atmosphere where the people there were on some kind of high school trip where if you fit in there click and you were OK I had nothing to do with Sobriety success rate Is too low tradition is the opposite of evolution and things should Evolve with time But they are threatened by change they say it works it works for some people there is no way but the way and if I tell you I know the way I do not not everybody reacts the same way to the same thing that’s why the success rate is so low
Who said it did work?
Hey people deriding AA, how about listen to honest opinions by participants in AA programs? Would love to hear their experience rather than people throwing random generic insults ("NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE BLABLA) at a study trying help these people when laboratory experiments are not feasible.
You ever heard the phrase "If you know it well enough, you can explain it simply (or in simple terms)."? The only issue I see here is that you overly explain it and often repeat yourself. And when someone has to keep reaffirming their claims, its usually due to lack of basic means to lay it out simply. In debate team logic... There isnt much to go on besides its all in the data repeat. Don't get me wrong. AA is a viable source for those that actually want to seek help. And yes they may relapse but for those that actually want the help will come back or seek ways to follow through. You can lead a horse to water but you cant make them drink. And with that, its plainly put into a simple phrase of those who seek and pursue the help will eventually recieve it. But the underline process of AA is to replace one addiction with another. And that doesnt have to necessarily be a bad thing. In a way you are replacing a crutch that is destroying you with support and a new line of coping mechanisms to better yourself. And with AA, it actually can help you see the light from where you only seen darkness. It does sound religious but i am far from being the christian type. You can say its just that little boost to help see that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
Folks, I have to wonder why there's so much antagonism against AA on the basis that they use this term "higher power" as a part of the program. The thing is, any AA program worth its salt allows its members to interpret this term as they see fit. It need not be religious if that's unhelpful, and it's not really AA if they force a specifically religious interpretation.
I don't think there is any harm in giving folks that freedom to interpret-- and there is certainly a lot of benefit. People who are non-religious simply interpret it as something other than God / a deity / some other supernatural thing. It could be a sense of purpose, or the power in other members supporting them. It's whatever a person needs to resist drinking.
5% of addicts/alcoholics will achieve long-term, or permanent sobriety *with or without* AA (or other 12-step programs, like NA).
Now, I'm not "bashing" AA/NA; for all I know, maybe the 5% who stayed sober through AA, would not have otherwise stayed sober. The same goes for the 5% who do it all on their own; maybe doing it *without* a religious/spiritual program, or any kind of program, is the only way that works for them...perhaps going to meetings and hearing people talk about past drug or alcohol use, could potentially trigger some people to want to drink or use drugs, even more... simply because they hear others talking about it...even though they are likely hearing all the negatives about it, it could cause them to fantasize about the good feelings it used to give them. For some people, just finding new, constructive and healthy hobbies to take their minds off of alcohol or drugs, is the only way that works for them; similar to the "out of sight, out of mind" type of thing.
Every human being is different. There is no magic "one-size-fits-all" program that works for everyone, nor do all addicts require a "program" of any sort.
People should do what they know, in their heart, works best for them, and not do what family, friends, or anyone *says* they should do!
Very gratefull member of AA.. 9 YEARS SOBER. 12 STEPS OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS. WORKS IF YOU WORK IT... YOU GOTTA WANNT IT... WHEN YOU'VE HAD ENOUGH... 3 FOLD MALLADY.. BODY. MIND. SPIRIT. GOD BLESS YOU... SEE YOU THERE. X
Good points. I'd like to learn more about other treatment options for alcoholism, as there are many off-label medications now.
Will comments work
A.A does work.You just have to want it to.Period.Differwnt treatment plans work for others.A.A works for me.
I hate to say this, but this video has me questioning everything you've made before and thinking about unsubscribing. This analysis is very biased. 3 days of sobriety a month is nothing. That's 10%. In that time period you're barely able to get past the withdrawal symptoms. That's even drinking on days you had a meeting. Is it more effective than nothing? Yes. Does that mean it works? No. Does eating only McDonald's help me stay alive? Yes, more than eating nothing does. Just not an indicator of working. I really hope you make a follow up, I'd really hate to not have you as a reliable resource anymore.
+
+
AA blows
+
Good argument. Well said.
Alex Malinky it wasn't an argument, it was a summary.
AA saves lives. You may not be done with your alcoholism. You may still be in denial or on a dry drunk. That's your right. AA does save lives and gives a better life than any drinking possibly can.
The Laughing Hyenas I gave myself a better life by not drinking everyday anymore. AA is a cult that shames people when they fail to be perfect. Thats all they do. Did you know that the founder of AA used LSD to help himself quit drinking? But now they are a cult of sadness. Fuck AA. They have caused thousands of suicides.
This video was profoundly disappointing.
First, it never attempts to put in perspective the degree of improvement from treatment (3 days more of abstinence per month? What does that mean? How many days of abstinence is normal in the treatment group? How much improvement is there from other methods? How compare to people who merely say they want to quit and aren't provided any treatment?).
Second, it doesn't bother to consider the possibility that some of the crossover occurs not because of availability, but because people who find themselves doing poorly with abstinence may self-select out of treatment.
Third, it doesn't even consider the possibility of harms before suggesting that we should expand treatment. AA is already the default treatment program for alcoholism in the US. It doesn't need to be promoted further. What we need to do is find out how well it compares with other treatment methods to see if it makes sense to modify the system or change to a different treatment method altogether.
This whole video extremely unfairly stacked the deck in favor of AA in comparison to most of your videos, which are usually pretty balanced. Please, you can do better than this.