What the heck is wrong with you people? Has this man not helped you; has he not zeroed in on a simple, powerful truth that you can use to change your life and presented it to you free of charge?

Ingrates.

God Bless,
Tom C

Thiggy,

Interesting comments about the idea that I should provide the benefits of AVRT® at my own expense, without any compensation for my efforts. That is a fundamental belief of AA, complete with the parable of the errant Bill W whose error was simply thinking about earning money by using AA. Mr. W was chastened by his inner circle so that now AA is a “self-supporting, non-profit organization,” which of course is an oxymoronic description of an impossible entity, sort of like Dr. Seuss’s push-me-pull-you.

For decades, I have received an endless stream of hate mail from 12-steppers who confer the Curse of AA upon me, i.e., that I am a greedy, money-grubber who exploits the sick, the weak, and the disabled. They insist that I should exist for the sake of serving “alcoholics” and other substance abusers, and to be grateful for the privilege of doing so. The arrogance of addiction is boundless, as seen in irresolute substance abusers’ demands for free stuff.
However, none of them notice that the essentials of AVRT-based recovery are posted free of charge in the form of programmed instruction. Nor do they care that my professional services not only lead to immediate total recovery,  but cost about 10% as much as ineffective 12-step oriented programs that amount to a very expensive introduction to life in recovery.

Charity for substance abusers is about as upside-down as an idea can get, but through the magic of steptalk, it has become a popular idea. Who could be less entitled to charity than those who pursue pleasure at the expense of their families, or who expect their own families to live under the uncertainty of one-day-at-a-time sobriety?

Jack Trimpey

I tend to lean toward your politics rather than Jack’s, and I thought you made one or two good points about the conversation with Cynthia.

However, one-quarter of the way through your post, you digress with “Some other questions and observations” and go off on a very, very long tangent that nitpicks at Jack and his way of conducting his work. Many of your charges could have been answered ahead of time by a little research. I admit I could not drag myself completely through it, but I did skim and see that you were quibbling about levels of subscription, etc.

Frankly, I miss the good old days when Jack’s forum was free; I loved reading it. Even then, however, Jack expressed concern that the forum might devolve into entertainment and a form of recovery-groupism. If charging a fee will weed out all but the serious and committed, those who need to be there, I won’t argue with that.

Furthermore, it really pisses me off when people carp at Jack for charging quite reasonable and modest prices for extra help (and not being Mother Teresa), when he does offer enough for free to help a truly open person “get it.”

Throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Jack really blunted your point and lessened your credibility.

This is not the first time I have disagreed with things Jack has said on this blog — but fundamentally, I believe deeply in his main message that we humans have free will and are not diseased. This is a life-changing and life-affirming message.

–Are alcoholism treatments effective? The Project MATCH data:
Authors Robert Cutler and David Fishbain from the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Miami.

“These are the findings of a study published in the Open Access journal, BMC Public Health, which provides a new analysis of previous data from Project MATCH, a clinical trial of three common forms of therapy used for the treatment of alcoholism. This analysis shows that the participants in the trial who attended all sessions did scarcely better than those who received no treatment. This contradicts previous analyses, which concluded that all three therapies for alcoholism were very effective.”

Here is an article about the study:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/27412.php#ratethis

Here is the abstract of the study:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/75/abstract

Here is the full text of the study (which if free to the public):

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/75

CTMS

CTMS,

Project MATCH was a massive, astronomically expensive outcome study of so-called “treatments” for addiction conducted by the feds in 1992 - 1994. It is a prime example of political science, meaning that it was conducted to prove a conclusion that had theretofore only been assumed — that addiction is a treatable condition, and that certain treatments are better than others, especially in the hands of sensitive, intelligent, well-educated, well-paid addiction treatment specialists and substance abuse counselors.

Alas, the results only showed that all treatments are equally ineffective, and, worst of all, the design purposely omitted a control group of people who received no treatment on the grounds that withholding treatment would amount to harm. Such chuzpah! Such chicanery!

The NIAAA chief, Enoch Gordis, proceeded to cover up the unintended, embarrassing outcome with lame pseuso-scientific sophistry and the fireworks continued for a number of years afterward among the academic musing societies. These very good new studies take a second link and bring out the truth, which is that addiction treatment doesn’t work, a conclusion that intelligent layperson can figure out just by hanging out around an addiction treatment center addiction talking to the people who work there or attend as “patients.”

Addiction treatment is an iatrogenic nightmare destroying more lives than addiction itself. It is also an ethical nightmare, permanently staining the reputation and history of health care in Western Civilization. The services require systematic suppression of informed consent, and are delivered by people in an intolerable professional conflict of interest, about 80% of them “in recovery” themselves, the rest never-addicted in the first place.

The problem is partly because nobody really cares if addiction treatment works or not; it’s the melodramatic process that salves the feelings of families, addicts, and taxpayers alike, making for good politics supporting the addiction treatment industry.

Jack Trimpey  

I fell out with them yet again, and I ’shared’ about how much i hated their cult religion ways, but I drank again anyway.

However. You are NOT the ultimate authority on recovery. You are even more bitter than me. And, I’ve come to the conclusion that ANYONE who claims they sre the ultimate authority on ANYTHING are wrong.

And you claim to be the ultimate authority on addiction.

You are not.

Full stop.

Why won’t you admit you aren’t perfect?

Conor,

I am not the issue in question; AVRT® is the matter under consideration. I have simply discovered AVRT®, which is a working model of the human moral conscience.

AVRT® is perfect. If you or anyone else can prove otherwise, I’d like to hear it.

Jack Trimpey

I need to stress here again that I am not a 12 step proponent, only someone who wishes to find a program that is in truth “rational” and not grounded in certain (right wing) political views nor operating in opposition to other groups–something that is sound and that can stand on its own (Jack and others will no doubt claim that RR is not a “program,” but it is: 12 steps or 28 flashcards, both of them are programmatic and there is nothing wrong with that.)

I appreciate CTMS’s telling about her subscription experiences. This shed some light on RR. I would, though, also appreciate Jack’s own view on this process, as there must be some sort of organizational approach to subscriptions and whether or not folks are encouraged to renew. I suppose (although I don’t know) that this information may be available to those who subscribe; I am not a subscriber, though, so do not know. I will reiterate again, though, that I find it strange that an organization that calls for individual recovery and responsibility seeks Patron subscriptions to support a for-profit organization (and spreading its word), when the stated emphasis of RR is on individual choice and decisions as opposed to control by a group.

CTMS took the time to address particular issues I raised, and I appreciate that. I agree with her that the “addition industry” does profit from its advocacy of 12 step programs, although it is clear to me and from the statistics that many (if not a majority) are greatly helped from such programs. Again, I am not opposed to free enterprise and Jack’s profiting from his program and website. I just think it behooves an organization based on “rational” recovery and thinking to be clear about their recovery statistics (how do theirs differ from AA’s?) and the precise nature of the organization itself (who comrpises it; who, in specific financial terms, benefits from it?).

In response to Jane above:

This was my experience with Rational Recovery:
More than a year ago, I subscribed to the Rational Recovery online resources, first for one month and then, because I was learning so much, I renewed it for an additional 6 months. There was no need to renew after the 6 months, since I had learned what I needed to quit my addiction.

There was no notice whatsoever informing me that my subscription was about to expire or to urge me to renew (as Jane suggested above). I was always impressed that when folks on the message board posted a note to say farewell, thanks for the straight answers and for all they had learned, everyone (Jack Trimpey included) would wish them a great life. Why hope for someone to return to the subscription service, since a need to return would mean they are drinking or using again? I was clear that Rational Recovery was about folks quitting for good and never coming back.

The free internet crash course is quite comprehensive. It is much more than one paragraph, so you should take another look at what is free on the website. I chose to briefly subscribe, and benefited from the subscription, yet all the information is available on the free internet crash course. Regarding the forum–The forum has much more conversation among participants than with Jack, but Jack does post fairly regularly.

Why should prepared educational material be free? It was not in AA. I spent more than $1000 on 12 step books, CD’s, and materials while attending that free program. I did not expect AA to give me their educational materials for free. I spent only about $150 to learn about RR from the subscription—which was optional –but I sure learned a lot. The free Mini Crash Course really covers it all. I checked out the RR book from my public library for free.

Jane made no reference to money that is made in the addiction treatment industry which is almost exclusively 12 step based.

CTMS