to consider aa a dangerous cult?

[Kirkers]

I am ready to be attacked by cult members.

I have read 'theorangepapers' online which is very well researched, and 'twelve step horror stories' (also available to read online) and they prove to me (on top of my own experience) that aa does much more harm than good. In every proper, conrolled experiment aa produces worse results than any other treatment, including doing nothing. It is unquestionably a cult(Google, 'is aa a cult'). Yet 93% (I am not sure about that figure, sorry) of treatment centres follow the same model. That would be the £10 billion treatment industry.

I hope this isn't too off topic for mumsnet. They do involved children too. It is awful.

I first came to mumsnet following the Julie/Jake Myerson thread. The detective work that went on was phenonmenal. Is there anyone out there breastfeeding or too pregnant to move who could look into the orange papers and tell me I'm not Erin bigchest Eronovich.

This is an absolutely genuine request for feedback from people who are prepared to consider the actual black and white evidence of this extraordinarily powerful organisation.

Thanks.

No problem run123 :), it was I beleive in my heart and know and experienced.

AfternoonsandCoffeespoons says "Run et al - Why does it matter so much to you? - if you don't agree with AA, for what ever reasons, then just don't go."

I beleive run123 (et al) care because it is human nature to have compassion for other people that are being dominated and hurt by the organization they are involved in. When it happens near regularity, changes SHOULD happen. The public should be aware!! What if everyone swept abuse underneath the carpet as you propose, "run" "us" "them" "et al" do? How AWFUL for you to tell us to just look the other way and just "not go". Tsk tsk (in my opinion). Changes in dominated work places, other organizations occur. The church fore example. The boy scouts also. Should "we" just not join those organizations anymore and ignore the crime? Yes, lets just let everyone else go get hurt, even though we know the truth. Shameful.

Haven't read all 24 pages, and can only speak from my experience. I have had a quick glance at the orange pages, only very quickly, and possibly that intepretation could be correct.

However, having considered it......I think that what AA and NA provide is fellowship with other people recovering or trying to recover back their life from addiction. It can be a place to share what is going on for you, what struggles you are experiencing, to speak truthfully about your feelings. And often those struggles are just really about the human experience. I have found much empathy, compassion and the intimacy of shared experience. being able to talk to others who really understand what you're going through. As far as I'm concerned this is invaluable.

I did do the steps and had a sponsor but now that I'm a few years down the line I only go to meetings occassionally, I don't do the steps and I don't have a sponsor. I did try for years to have a 'belief' in God but actually have discovered that I don't believe in God. I do actually feel a little uncomfortable with the religiousity of the language of the steps and I don't like the bit about admitting defects of character. I can't stand all that putting of themselves that people bang on about. I have read bits of the AA big book, find the language so antiquated and religious. I certainly don't hold it in high regard like some do. Actually have attended NA more than AA and prefer the literature in that organisation.
Anyway I find it's good to know that there is a space to go to if I need it. I can honestly say that if it weren't for AA and NA in the early days of my recovery I would never have got and stayed sober this long.

Jonirules- I am glad for you that you found help. But your last statement stating if it were not for AA or NA you would not of stayed sober this long. I am curious if you tried any addiction therapy or other forms of help besides AA or NA? My point is many believe 12 step is the only place to go.

Yes I did try other therapists etc. I really do think that at the beginning, having that support and empathy from other people who've been through the same does help. Of course, it's not just the other people it's a decision one personally makes to stay sober. And yes at the beginning, until I had been around for a few years, I did tend to think that AA/NA was the only way and feel a bit evangelical about it. But actually now I know there are loads of ways to get and stay sober. AA/NA was a door. There are also a couple of books that I've read about Buddhist intepretations of the 12 steps that I definately feel more comfortable with and which does away with all the fundamental judeo/christian stuff.
I think the proliferation, availability and accessiblity of meetings (especially as you only have to pay a token donation if you choose) is what is most helpful and appealing to anyone trying to recover from addiction. There is an on going support network there if you need it. It's not like going once a week to a one on one session with a therapist which you might have to pay £50 for.
I really believe in the 'take what you need and leave the rest' maxim

donewithit don't you fucking dare twist my words like that!! That was not what that post wass about and you fucking know it!! Or at least you would if you've read it properly and not just the bits that you can use to make me sound like some kind of monster. Running out of arguments, were you?
I am so done with this thread.

spoons said "if you don't agree with AA, for what ever reasons, then just don't go"

No need for me to switch words around. I read the previous comments and you said the above in response to run?s previous comments about safety (as well as others):

?AA wants you to put your trust into AA and your sponsor. If AA warned people of the dangers-that would be taking responsibility.But they do not want the bad publicity.They want people to maintain a false sense of security.?

?Because of AA and NA's lack of taking responsibility sexual and financial abuse is rampant and is a growing problem?

"They [AA] can make choices to protect the vulnerable and investigate".

Instead of acknowledging that IF there ARE safety issues, they should be addressed, you said -well just don?t go. Maybe I made assumptions about the type of person you are. Perhaps you are decent and caring. You just didn?t show it by your own choice of words.

I still have lots a lot of opinion left.

I believe AA can help some people and that some people have been helped. People that have gotten better (got sober, pulled themselves out of the gutter, etc), than that is great. That being said, it is the people that do get hurt, have been hurt, and might get hurt in the future that might need support. They need AA corporate help. They need public to be aware so that AA makes some changes. Or some entity requires changes. If corporate really cared, they would have been addressing issues of safety since the beginning.

Donewithit-Exactly! It is the ones that have been hurt and people who could get hurt in the future that we are going to bat for.

AA and NA has only shown that they are worried about liability and protecting their image before what is in the best interest of the children,
women and the men as well.

www.nadaytona.org
www.stop13stepinaa.com
www.stinkin-thinkin.com
www.orange-papers.org

All excellent sites with resources!

Run, you need to do links with the squared bracket.

www.nadaytona.org
www.stop13stepinaa.com
www.stinkin-thinkin.com
www.orange-papers.org

I think you must remember that AA in the UK and AA in America do have significant differences, but essentially they both rely on the sexist nonsense that is the 'big book' (published in 1935; wtf?) and the self-fulfilling affirmation of powerlessness.

The child rape case happened in Pontefract, which meets on a Monday, for anyone concerned. Must be weird for AA members in Pontefract to wonder exactly who they have been sitting next to.

stinkin-thinkin.com is a great site for anyone who has a story to tell about AA.

In every comparable study ever done AA and the 12 Step 'facilitation' 'treatment' has performed worse than the control group. It is especially interesting that AA 'treatment' resulted in 5 times more binge drinking than the control, and 9 times more binge drinking than treatment with cognitive-behavioural therapy.

Do you have any links for the suicides?

Over a million people in Great Britain were admitted to hospital last year for alcohol-related ishoos so this is definitely something that should be talked about. Perhaps someone from that site should come on mumsnet for a webchat?

I don't know what the answer is (cbt?) but it sure aint AA.

Except for people who fit in well there, who seem incredibly touchy and not at all serene.

Quite an education. Is alcoholism a disease? And if so, why 'treat' it with faith-healing?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Jamboreetomorrow says: "Is alcoholism a disease? And if so, why 'treat' it with faith-healing?"

True, like if I went to the hospital for treatment of my gall bladder disease and they suggested a support group based on 12 steps I'd get furious. Why don't addicts and alcoholics get furious?

We wouldn't be able to get through the picket lines in front of the hospital if they were facilitating 12 step treatment for other diseases.

OMG. Are you'all saying that AA is not perfect? Who would have thought it? An organisation made up of human people not being perfect. Well I never!

Dionethediabolist-In case you did not read the posts -we are stating dangers in AA.Not that AA is just imperfect like many things in life. There are dangers that need to be addressed and AA so far has refused.You cant just paint this
with a broad brush and water the concerns down with a statement that it is not a perfect Organization. That is a complete cop out.

Are run123 and Kirkers the same person?

run123 - where is your evidence - statistical, peer-reviewed and endorsed evidence - that AA is harmful on a wide scale? Other than a few websites, I mean.

I am Run123.

Other than a few websites? www.stinkin-thinkin.com has so much stats on all of this if you are interested. I will post more info to back up my statements. But let me remind you that BOTH AA and NA have admitted that there are sexual and financial abuse problems. They do not deny it. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY REFUSE TO ADDRESS IT.

Most of the stats on that site seem to be unsourced, and are certainly not peer reviewed. Not credible

How do you know they refuse to address the problems?

Yes, of course the judo CLUB would need to be investigated - but not JUDO.

From what I have seen, groups are (just as AA tradition believes them to be) very effective at self-managing.

Because of anonymity and Tradition 3 (the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking) it is very hard to police AA at any level above group level.

However, this is a tangent - the fact remains that, in the one case that run123 keeps trotting out, the involvement of AA was entirely peripheral and running checks would have revealed nothing because:

1. as far as I can tell from the story, none of the men involved had "previous" so a CRB check would have shown nothing

2. any attempt to check members of AA would be very unlikely to check them for incidents involving children because AA IN THE UK DOES NOT WELCOME CHILDREN IN EVEN A VISITING CAPACITY.

What we have here - and this is absolutely the entirety of it - is that a mother brought some complete strangers home and allowed them - ALLOWED them - to have sex with her child.

If this was any other thread the condemnation would be for the men and the mother, in any order you choose, as individuals.

But somehow a particularly twisted logic is blaming the circumstances in which they met. Sex offenders meet de facto anonymously every day, in pubs, in clubs, in chatrooms and in lay-bys. No one suggests banning pubs, clubs, chatrooms or laybys - instead, significantly, the victims or the public ask that police (a formally responsible third party) investigate that particular pub, club, chatroom or layby. Even then, in the vast majority of cases, the pub, club, chatroom or layby is absolved because we quite reasonably accept that those responsible for a meeting place cannot monitor all of the activity that goes on there without infringing various other laws.

This thread is mad shit and I am amazed that so many apparently sane people are getting caught up in it.

"Someone should be in charge and it should be "run" by an authortitative figure so that criminals don't walk in pretending to be spiritual, moral (sober) and take advantage of others."

Why should they? I mean, thanks for the pointers in running a society that we organise for our own benefit and which you do not attend but, just for today, we'll pass, thanks.

If you want to set up an organisation to help drunks on those terms, go for it. I wish you every success.

FWIW I have met lots of criminals in AA and they are all very open about the fact that they are criminals. Are you suggesting that criminals with a drink problem are not worthy of help? Even when their criminal record is often explicitly linked to their drink problem?

Another issue is the money going into the treatment industry and whether AA "works".

People regualrly trot out the statistic that AA "only" works for 5% of people and I have no doubt that this is true.

What that stats overlook, though, is that AA is a last resort for most of its members. The ycome to AA having already tried - and failed - at every other solution they are willing or able to try. So the 5% that AA helps would NOT be helped by the methods tried in the control group because those methods have already been tried and failed.

The vast experience of many alcoholics, dating back well before AA, appears to be that:

1. abstinence is essential
2. a mental tic makes alcoholics "forgetful" - the longer they are away from a drink, the less they worry about what might happen if they drank again
3. the support of peers is incredibly useful in this respect, because it is too easy to rationalise the advice of non-alcoholic medical professionals because "they don't understand what it's like"
4. the experience of many of us also shows that, as we didn't come out of the womb drinking scotch, our drinking is primarily a coping mechanism for what is wrong with our life, inside and outside. It follows that, in order to stay stopped, we ought to sort our life out too

AA, for all its faults, ticks all of those boxes in a way that satisfies a lot of alcoholics. It is also, of course, FREE.

The question of treatment centres is one I am not fully qualified to address as I have never set foot in one - though, if any money is being made, it is by the treatment centres, not by AA. I walked into AA under my own steam. I know that I cost the NHS and the public purse in general a lot more when I was drunk than now I am sober - for anti-depressants, stitches, check-ups, an ambulance call out on one occasion, police assisting at a drink-driving incident; so in my case, my membership of AA has saved the government quite a bit.

I personally think that 12-step treatment centres get far too much money from the public purse and that AA is very wise to formally distance itself from such places and the money they take in; but I think they get that money because, in spite of all the stats and the 5% and so on, no one in authority has a better idea than AA or something like it, especially for those who have already thrown their antabuse down the toilet, turned up to their CBT sessions drunk (or simply failed to show because they passed a pub en route), ripped out their drip feeds to get to the off-licence, fail to complete their drink diaries because they don't like writing down the truth, drunk after a liver transplant ...

I'm interested to know why the people here who are very anti-AA or against AA have come to be so anti? Usually in the 'normal' walk of life unless you are an alchoholic or attend al-anon or some other such 12 step programme you wouldn't come across 12 step organisations.

I have been thinking about the orange papers and there's no disputing that for some of the people, some of time in AA/NA that is their experience. BUt to balance out the argument it cannot be denied that these organisations have greatly helped others.

I really think, as I said, that AA/NA does provide peer support that is readily available. Also it replaces the social life of going down the pub. It provides an anchor and a place to go , if you know you can get to a meeting in an hours time or so then it really helps.

You can leave aside all the guff in the so called big book and all the god stuff if you like. And there are things I take exception to. i.e it is implied that if you don't attend meetings, do steps etc you could relapse etc etc. It instills fear. This is simply not true.

@Joni; Run linked to a site where people have written down why they are so 'anti-AA'. I have only read a few but it might answer your (very good) question.
stinkin-thinkin.com/why-i-left-aa-stinkin-thinkin-stories/

I was involved with someone who had left another cult (don't want to say which but no-one would dispute that it was a real 'live-in' cult). He was not anti- his old cult at all, and he had given them a mahoosive amount of money. He was really laid back about it when I would have expected him to be really embarassed.

Jamboree

I don't want to speak for Joni but I think she was wondering why the people HERE were so anti-AA? Run123, for example; or Kirkers; or the many other "old faithfuls" that spin these threads out of very little and yet never seem to have any personal involvement in AA.

I absolutely LOVE it, btw, that you mention "another cult" because it underlines the fallacy of describing AA as a cult. I left AA very early on - it wasn't for me (I came back because I realised I didn't have a better idea. I'm still waiting for one.)

No one stopped me leaving. No one chased me. I came back entirely under my own volition. It's hardly Jonestown, is it?

As for cults being things you give "vast amounts of money" to - I probably contribute £1-£2 at every meeting I go to and have probably averaged 2 meetings a week over the 10 years I have been in - plus I have probably averaged a £5 donation in every (annual) "Gratitude Week". In other words, I have contributed less than £2k (probably far less, actually) in 10 years. Hardly a get rich quick scheme, is it? To put that in context I used to spend about £30 a week on drink (10 years = £16k) and still spend about £12 a week on lattes (10 years = £6k).

PLEASE find us a link about the scandal of another cult that bled its members dry to the tune of £200 per year!

Wrong link; this was the one that I read
stinkin-thinkin.com/why-i-left-aa-stinkin-thinkin-stories/comment-page-1/#comments

not the last one.

Jamboree - To echo MIFLAW. I am wondering what involvement or not you or any others who are very anti-AA have with it? It's not just something that you randomly come across in the course of daily life? Maybe you prefer not to say. Whatever.

Just read the whole first page of your link, Jamboree.

Have never witnessed one of those things happening in UK AA. Not one. Perhaps it's because, as I say, AA in the UK is a last resort for its members, not (by and large) a first resort - so most people are there because they have a self-acknowledged drinking problem, not because court, or mum, or Jesus has sent them.

I think this also makes it a more tolerant and catholic (small "c") organisation.

MIFLAW

You questioned: ?Why should they?? And I already had answered that: ?so that criminals don't walk in pretending to be spiritual, moral (sober) and take advantage of others?. The reason that criminals can do this and that it does happen, is because it is not ?run? by any authoritative figure.

You said ?which you do not attend?. True, I do not attend, but that is a technicality. I do not attend anymore. I was a member for 5 years however, and I witnessed harassment firsthand and was sexually harassed as a newcomer. This is one of the reasons I won?t go anymore. I cannot go back and feel safe.

I found out after a short time in the program it was harassment/abuse is so common in the rooms there is a name for it: 13 stepping. There was also a name for the perpetrators: vultures. I also found out that there was nothing I could do about it. There was no one to issue a complaint to and no one to put this guy in place. He was allowed to come back to harass more, and come back again to harass some more.

?Are you suggesting that criminals with a drink problem are not worthy of help?? Absolutely not. But what they are not worthy of is becoming a sponsor and they are not worthy of continual attendance if they engage in unethical and illegal activities.

If 12 step faith healing had not cornered virtually every corner of the recovery market under false pretenses (5% success rate and millions helped without any data to support it), than alcoholics/addicts that need help would have a choice. Instead they are stuck with attending groups that can be dangerous. Many are also stuck with trying to work a program which often does not help them and they have to leave. Either that or they stick around to get hurt more and try to work something that doesn?t help them, often times relapsing and suffering mental anguish. This happens because everyone claims that without it they will die. And if they can?t work it, it is there fault. And that they should keep coming back and try harder. And try harder.

BTW, I?m very very happy that AA in the UK does not allow children in any capacity. Does this involve minors, meaning older teens? If it is a new rule, then that means changes are taking place and more can be made. Not all, but many newcomers are as fragile as a minor. They are broken down, scared, and vulnerable.

TheBossofMe

The other ?evidence? you asked run123 about and which has not been officially documented is being reported to groups that are anti aa and that want to help. It is now being done on an anonymous level (for those that for numerous reason can?t go to police) and reports have been sent to AA corporate but were ignored. The fact that there are such claims on a wide scale, and that they are not statistical and endorsed evidence, is exactly why an investigation needs to take place. The fact that it has gone ignored by AA for years, is heartbreaking. It shows that they simple do not care! 

donewithit

If the abuse which you say is so systematic (and I'm not convinced it is so ingrained in AA in the UK) is not reported to the proper authorities or to AA, how are they supposed to a) know about it and b) do anything about it?

As far as I am aware, no minors are allowed in AA in the UK, and haven't been for years and years and years, indeed I'm not sure if they ever were.

I'm also somewhat puzzled that all these posters who have never posted on MN before, who seem to base their experience of AA on US norms are suddenly popping up on this thread, on a forum where the vast majority of posters are in the UK, over the last 24 hours to support the OP.