interesting...

[Saint Jude]

Today, Jellinek’s “Stages of the Alcoholic” is still widely used to diagnose substance abusers. But, these stages are based on a corrupt study that the author, himself, later refuted. Jellinek not only published a fraudulent study, he defrauded members of his academic community, and apparently lied about his educational background to gain acceptance.
Nonetheless, it was Jellinek’s “Stages of the Alcoholic” that led to diagnosing alcoholism as a disease and eventually to the medical acceptance of alcoholism as a disease. Astoundingly, the inception of the current disease and treatment paradigm is based on fraud.
But the misinformation and fraud did not stop with Jellinek, et al. More recently in an attempt to prove a genetic link for alcohol and drug abuse, most studies only provide roundabout evidence of a predisposition, not a cause for alcoholism.
With this said, we should point out that the predisposition can only prove a difference in bodily processes, not a difference in thinking.
'Knowing the sequence of individual genes doesn't tell you anything about the complexities of what life is,' said Dr. Brian Goodwin, a theoretical biologist at Schumacher College in Devon, England, and a member of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico.
Goodwin goes on to explain single gene mutations are not accountable for, and cannot explain, complex behaviors. Genes produce proteins they do not guide behaviors. The truth is a predisposition for substance abuse, if it does exist, has no bearing on subsequent behaviors.

Alcholics Anonymous has accomplished the unthinkable, its accomplishments have damaged the society. Although its intentions are synonymous with help, the organization’s lies and manipulations have damaged society as a whole, costing taxpayers billions of dollars and costing families the lives of their loved ones.
In 1990, the Alcoholic’s Anonymous General Services Office or AA GSO, the governing organization overseeing all “autonomous” meetings, published an internal memo for the employees of its offices.
It was an analysis of a survey period between 1977 and 1989. The results were in absolute contrast to the public perception of AA. “After just one month in the Fellowship, 81% of the new members have already dropped out. After three months, 90% have left, and a full 95% have disappeared inside one year!” (Kolenda, 2003, Golden Text Publishing Company)
That means that in under a year, 95% of the people seeking help from AA leave the program. While this only speaks for attendance, it has further implications. AA surveyors do not include dropouts in their sobriety statistics, which is a deceptive, if not outright dishonest, practice.
Using the AA GSO statistics, and including the program dropouts, the success rate of AA, as a whole “…the total averages of sobriety for the total AA membership become 3.7% for one year [of sobriety], and 2.5% over five years.” (Kolenda, 2003, Golden Text Publishing Company) It’s important to understand that 95% of all substance abuse treatment centers in the United States are 12 step based programs. Thus, the failures of AA, are also the failures of treatment.
Repeated studies have shown that the average person, who could be diagnosed with a substance abuse problem, will discontinue use on their own 20-30% of the time.
But, those who are exposed to AA and treatment, and who are taught the disease concept, have a drastically decreased chance of achieving sobriety. While treatment professionals are aware of program failure, governing organizations support and promote the adoption of 12 Step tenets into treatment programs for substance abusers.
Families pay tens of thousands of dollars to help their loved ones only to place them in programs that follow guidelines of another failing program. Any program based on a program that fails will inevitably fail. For most, 12 Step has become synonymous with failure.
In contrast, programs that teach control and choice are far more successful than programs that teach the disease concept.
While conventional treatment methods result in a 3% success rate after five years, programs that do not teach the disease concept, and instead teach choice, have success rates of 86% after five and even ten years (Baldwin Research Institute 2003).
In conclusion, after reviewing the available research from both sides of the debate, the belief in the disease of alcoholism, creates the existence of the disease.
Organizations and institutions that promote the disease concept are, in many cases, doing irreparable harm to the individual and performing a disservice to the population as a whole.
Geneticists are aware that a predisposition does not dictate subsequent behavior, and treatment professionals are aware that the programs they offer, fail.
It is an outright injustice when faced with the facts. Stripping human beings of their ability to choose is damaging, whereas giving them back the power of their own volition is essential for recovery. Alcoholism is a choice, not a disease.
------
Timothy

[hart]

interesting...

I totally agree. No one has ever put a gun to my head and forced me to drink!

[kriger]

interesting...

Jude,
We DO have choice, don't we and as Hart says, "No one ever put a gun to my head..."

[Cinders]

interesting...

I always find this debate interesting. I really don't care whether it is a disease or not.

What amazes me is the perception that AA, since it uses the disease model, is always being accused of making the alcoholic not responsible for staying sober.

That is patently not the case. AA's stance is that while we may not be at fault for being alcoholics we are definitely responsible for not drinking.

In other words, AA is saying the same thing everyone else is saying. The alcoholic is responsible for the choices the alcoholic makes.

I would be more impressed with the non-12 Step recovery figures if they weren't published by the parent company of a non-12 Step Treatment Center. Kind of like AA's published numbers being suspect.

Love,
Cindi

[Saint Jude]

interesting...

It is speculated that the disease concept originated in the 1800's with a fellow by the name of Dr. Benjamin Rush. He believed alcoholics were diseased and used the idea to promote his prohibitionist political platform.
He also believed that dishonesty, political dissention and being of African American decent were diseases as well. The “disease concept” was used throughout the late 1800’s and early 1900’s by prohibitionists and those involved in the Temperance Movement to further a political agenda.
Prior to this time, the term alcoholic did not exist. Alcohol was freely consumed but, drunkenness was not tolerated.



Now that's a new one for me! I've never heard of being African American, as a disease! Wow! Can you imagine living in this time period?

[Cinders]

interesting...

Pro/Con Article

The Disease model of addiction is probably the most controversial and debated topic in the entire field of substance abuse/addiction. One would have to be well informed on the subject to even attempt to understand the controversy intelligently. This site will not claim to know for sure one way or the other (disease/not disease) but will present a little of both sides of the on going debate with in the professional circles. First, we must accurately define Disease, since when the word disease is mentioned most think of something like cancer, aids, heart, etc., something which can be isolated in part and extracted from the body and visibly viewed and observed by the eye under a microscope or other apparatus. This is not the case with the "disease of alcoholism/addiction" or at least not at this time. According to Webster's Dictionary disease is defined as follows:
"Disease: Any departure from health presenting marked symptoms; malady; illness; disorder." Then we must go on to define concept as well, which according to Webster's is: "Concept: A notion, thought, or idea."

This popular model of addiction is credited to E.M. Jellinek who presented a comprehensive disease model of alcoholism in 1960(13). The World Health Organization acknowledged alcoholism as a serious medical problem in 1951, and the American Medical Association declared alcoholism as a treatable illness in 1956. Following Jellinek's work, the American Psychiatric Association began to use the term disease to describe alcoholism in 1965, and the American Medical Association followed in 1966 (14). As with many concepts and theoretical models in the addiction field, the disease concept was originally applied to alcoholism and has been generalized to addiction to other drugs as well. The "disease of addiction" is viewed as a primary disease. That is, it exists in and of itself and is not secondary to some other condition. This is in contrast to the psychological model of Dual Diagnosis (discussed in the next section), which addictive behavior is seen as secondary to some psychological condition.

Arguments Against the Validity of the Disease Concept

As earlier stated, the disease concept is controversial and not without critics. Two well-known critics are Stanton Peele (16) and Herbert Fingarette (15), both of whom have written books, as well as articles disputing the disease concept of addiction.

Since the disease concept is attributed to Jellinek, a lot of criticism has been directed at his research, which was the basis for his conclusions about the disease concept. Jellinek's data were gathered from questionnaires that were distributed to AA members through its newsletter, "The Grapevine". Of 158 questionnaires returned, 60 were discarded because members had pooled and averaged their responses, and no questionnaires from women were used. Jellinek himself acknowledged that his data was limited. Therefore, one might wonder why Jellinek's concept of the disease of alcoholism received such widespread acceptance.
One reason is that the disease concept is consistent with the philosophy of AA, which is by far the largest organized group dedicated to help for alcoholics.
Secondly, as Peele noted: "The disease model has been so profitable and politically successful that it has spread to include problems of eating, child abuse, gambling, shopping, premenstrual tension, compulsive love affairs, and almost every other form of self-destructive behavior... From this perspective, nearly every American can be said to have a disease of addiction." (16)
Herbert Fingarette goes on to state that the alcohol industry itself contributes to forming a public perception of alcoholism as a disease, as a marketing ploy:
"By acknowledging that a small minority of the drinking population is susceptible to the disease of alcoholism, the industry can implicitly assure consumers that the vast majority of people who drink are not at risk. This compromise is far preferable to both the old temperance commitment to prohibition, which criminalized the entire liquor industry, and to newer approaches that look beyond the small group diagnosable as alcoholics to focus on the much larger group of heavy drinkers who develop serious physical, emotional, and social problems." (15)
There are many other criticisms of the disease concept, however we will not go in to them at this time. Instead we will review some of the evidence to support the disease concept.

Arguments Endorsing the Disease Concept

Since the introduction of the disease concept research studies have examined a possible genetic link in alcoholism/addiction. One such study demonstrates that the offspring of alcoholics are approximately three to five times more likely to develop alcoholism than offspring of non-alcoholics (18). However, the genetic influence on other drug addiction has received less research attention. Also, in 1983, there was a popular theory of alcohol addiction expressed by D.L. Ohlms in his book "The Disease Concept of Alcoholism"(17) that proposed that alcoholics produced a highly addictive substance called THIQ during the metabolism of alcohol.

THIQ is normally produced when the body metabolizes heroin and is supposedly not metabolized by non-alcoholics when they drink. According to Ohlms, animal studies have shown that a small amount of THIQ injected into the brains of rats will produce alcoholic rats and that THIQ remains in the brain long after an animal has been injected. Therefore, the theory is that alcoholics are genetically predisposed to produce THIQ in response to alcohol, that the THIQ creates a craving for alcohol, and that the THIQ remains in the brain of the alcoholic long after the use of alcohol is discontinued. This would provide a physiological explanation for the fact that recovering alcoholics who relapse quickly return to their previous use patterns. More recent research on genetic causes of alcoholism has focused on some abnormality in a dopamine receptor gene and deficiencies in the neurotransmitter serotonin or in serotonin receptors (19).

As you can see from the above information there is still room for debate and I assure you that the controversy continues.
Like I stated before, I really don't care whether it is a disease or not. I do know I suffer cravings when I abstain and have experienced progessively worse drinking episodes over time.

I also know it is entirely up to me to quit, no matter how I look at it.

Cindi

[Saint Jude]

interesting...

More interesting stuff...

I just found it hilarious that Dr Rush actually concidered being African American a disease.

[Saint Jude]

interesting...

Kind of sad, that in this day & age, the court system mandates 12 step programs to alcohol related offenders.

The 12 step programs are based on something written so long ago,
I'm a firm believer in honesty, friendship and support...

But in my experience, the 13 steppers have been a real turn off. Also living in a real small town, anonimity is a joke.

One thing about it though, "In a small town, even if you don't know what you're doing.... everybody else does!"

[trixietrack]

interesting...

Well to me the whole thing with heavy drinking being a disease, or labeled a disease is it makes the people who believe this crap victims.

When you are a victim, you are easier to control . and less able to help yourself and always require assistance.

[SuperBernie]

interesting...

has anyone heard of NIFAR? just wondering. they believe in behavior modification and pretty much "resetting" neurons that have been transmitting dopamine. or something like that.

[CS04]

interesting...

Super Bernie,
Good to see your post -- I have thought about you and have wondered how you're doing.

[gyco]

interesting...

hey jude,dam i love that song,like you ive done a lot of research,of late,i find it really frustrating tho,there is so much research to beleive,my point is,you use what ever method works,in are justice society in Canada,if you killed someone,back in the early years,,as to my knowledge,up to the year 1953,you were hung,for a murder,stealing,rape and so on,now it cost millions of dollars to go thro the judicial system,then we spend millions of dollars to ,house them in jails,then when they go to jail,they still think they got rites, daaaah.i dont get it,my point,whether 3 percent or 100 percent,it makes a difference,why knock AA,it is a proven fact,if someone in my family b4 me drank or drugged,rapist ,murderer and so on,theres a chance it will fall on me,yes it is choice,is that not why were here,WE ,dont understand choice,as far as i no,the other part of the world,says follow us,are way is the rite way,my thought for the day,gyco