# Shodan and AClockWorkMelon **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 19, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705 "2010-10-19T21:24:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/181 "2010-10-21T20:55:57Z")
I declare! Well you sure showed me with all your fancy science and all. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/182 "2010-10-21T20:56:40Z")
šŸ™‚ And they say you canā€™t change peopleā€™s minds around here. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/183 "2010-10-21T21:01:43Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Dude, is the NIH anti-science? If not, read this. > > [Link](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2220012/?tool=pmcentrez). > > Or is is anti-science because you donā€™t agree with it? > > Slee Iā€™ve read that cite. Was I referring to that cite in my post? Hint: I wasnā€™t. Was I responding to someone who posted that cite? Hint: I wasnā€™t. Was I commenting on somone vomiting up another in a long stream of meaningless anecdotes? Hint: I was. I like people who post cites, especially relevant ones. However, I will note that that is at least the fourth time someone has posted that cite in this thread, so you probably didnā€™t need to post it again. I will also note that I responded to it the last time you posted it in this thread. Maybe you and Chefguy can go read the thread to each other so you both get caught up? ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/184 "2010-10-21T21:15:31Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > I declare! Well you sure showed me with all your fancy science and all. Aunt Bee? Is that you? Leave the nice boy alone and come along home now, yā€™hear? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/185 "2010-10-21T21:25:12Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > That AA Trustee is [Dr George Vaillant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Eman_Vaillant). ā€œDr. Vaillant has received the Foundations Fund Prize for Research in Psychiatry from the American Psychiatric Association, the Strecker Award from The Pennsylvania Hospital, the Burlingame Award from The Institute for Living, and the Jellinek Award for research in alcoholism. Most recently he received the research prize of the International Psychogeriatric Society.ā€ Heā€™s not just some guy. Heā€™s an MD specializing in alcoholism and an advocate of AA and one of its Trustees. And even his work shows incredible evidence that AA doesnā€™t work more than no treatment at all. CBT Recovery and Science Based Medicine both reference a study involving 42,000 Americans and 4,500 alcoholics that conclude that people who had no treatment of any kind did better than those in AA. One of the quoted studies from either this thread or the other only involves 654 northern Californians. The point is that I can find a dozen more cites for you if youā€™d like. The majority of the evidence seems to indicate that AA doesnā€™t help. And frankly, this isnā€™t surprising given AAā€™s unscientific approach to the problem. Whether of not AAā€™s approach is ā€œscientificā€ makes little difference, given the _mechanism_ that AA likely uses to ā€œworkā€ (assuming it does) - namely, social conditioning. By way of comparison, cults arenā€™t ā€œscientificā€ at all, almost by definition, and they "workā€™ just fine in modifying the behaviour of their adherents and getting them to do what they want. As noted upthread, there are studies which came to different results. I have also looked at the ā€œScience Based Medicineā€ site you posted. While I do not have time to fully analyze it, it contains glaring and obvious errors in the first place I looked, which really undermine its worth. For example, it makes the following claim right up front: > [@](#): > > We hear about a few success stories, but not about the many failures. AAā€™s own statistics show that after 6 months, 93% of new attendees have left the program. The research on AA is handily summarized in a Wikipedia article. \*\* A recent Cochrane systematic review found no evidence that AA or other 12 step programs are effective. \*\* [Emphasis added] However, this somewhat distorts the actual findings of the Cochrane meta-analysis. > **[Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programmes for alcohol dependence -...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16856072/?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RV)** > > No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems. One large study focused on the prognostic factors associated with interventions that were assumed to be... DocSum The purpose of the study was not to measure the effectiveness of AA per se, but to measure its effectiveness (as well as other ā€˜12 stepā€™ approaches) against other treatments. > [@](#): > > To assess the effectiveness of AA or TSF programmes **compared to other psychosocial interventions** in reducing alcohol intake, achieving abstinence, maintaining abstinence, improving the quality of life of affected people and their families, and reducing alcohol associated accidents and health problems [Emphasis] The results: AA was no different in effectiveness, compared to other treatments. > [@](#): > > MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials involving 3417 people were included. AA may help patients to accept treatment and keep patients in treatment more than alternative treatments, though the evidence for this is from one small study that combined AA with other interventions and should not be regarded as conclusive. Other studies reported similar retention rates regardless of treatment group. Three studies compared AA combined with other interventions against other treatments and found few differences in the amount of drinks and percentage of drinking days. Severity of addiction and drinking consequence did not seem to be differentially influenced by TSF versus **comparison treatment interventions** , and no conclusive differences in treatment drop out rates were reported. Included studies did **not** allow a conclusive assessment of the effect of TSF in promoting complete abstinence. [emphasis] The authorā€™s final conclusion: > [@](#): > > more efficacy studies are needed In summary, the description of this study in ā€œScience Based Medicineā€ is seriously misleading. Claiming that this study can be summarized as ā€œno evidence that AA programs are effectiveā€ simply isnā€™t correct - the study tends to show, though its authors are careful to note it is not a ā€œconclusive assessmentā€ and that ā€œmore efficacy studies are neededā€, that AA & other such programs were no better than other treatments, which is a very different matter. Given that, Iā€™m simply unwilling to take the authorā€™s word that information gleaned from a survey (note: not a ā€œstudyā€) like the ā€˜National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholismā€™s National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Surveyā€™, accurately reflects its results. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/186 "2010-10-21T21:53:32Z")
I donā€™t understand the problem. Concluding that there isnā€™t evidence of AAā€™s efficacy is [exactly what Cochrane did.](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD005032/frame.html) > [@Cochrane](#): > > No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems. Youā€™re right, it goes on to say: > [@Cochrane](#): > > ā€¦ more efficacy studies are needed. And someone cited a study on [PubMed.gov](http://PubMed.gov), well, Iā€™ve got my own [cites from there](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10540977): > [@Does Alcoholics Anonymous work? The results from a meta-analysis of controlled experiments.](#): > > Attending conventional AA meetings was worse than no treatment or alternative treatment It goes on to say that _residential_ treatments with AA programs performed no better or worse than alternatives. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/187 "2010-10-21T22:05:21Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > I donā€™t understand the problem. Concluding that there isnā€™t evidence of AAā€™s efficacy is [exactly what Cochrane did.](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD005032/frame.html) > Youā€™re right, it goes on to say: > And someone cited a study on [PubMed.gov](http://PubMed.gov), well, Iā€™ve got my own [cites from there](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10540977): > It goes on to say that _residential_ treatments with AA programs performed no better or worse than alternatives. The ā€œproblemā€ is that the meta-analysis was not designed, nor did it show, that there was no evidence that AA was effective - it was designed to test whether AA was more effective than _other treatments_. They concluded that there was problems with the available evidence, which did not allow any such conclusion to be made. The ā€œplain languageā€ summary of the paper, from the Cochraine site: > [@](#): > > As well as AA, there are also alternative interventions based on 12-step type programmes, some self-help and some professionally-led. AA and other 12-step approaches are typically based on the assumption that substance dependence is a spiritual and a medical disease. The available experimental studies did not demonstrate the effectiveness of AA or other 12-step approaches in reducing alcohol use and achieving abstinence compared with other treatments, but there were some limitations with these studies. Furthermore, many different interventions were often compared in the same study and too many hypotheses were tested at the same time to identify factors which determine treatment success. Condensing this down to a positive statement that there is no evidence that AA works is, to my mind at least, misleading. What it is saying is that the available studies are flawed and insufficient, and that so far based on these admittedly flawed and insufficient studies there is no basis for concluding that AA is _as good as or better_ than _other treatments_. That is nowhere near so bold as the Science-Based Medicine siteā€™s summary. ---
**Author:** ![Nzinga\_Seated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5ac83/32.png) [@Nzinga\_Seated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nzinga_Seated)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/188 "2010-10-21T22:31:22Z")
> [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](#): > > Aunt Bee? Is that you? Leave the nice boy alone and come along home now, yā€™hear? No. Chefguy shut everything down with his own Mayberry drawl back on page 2. [QUOTE=Chefguy] My, arenā€™t those crickets noisy this eveninā€™? And is that a lone dog I heah barkinā€™ in the distance? I declare. [/QUOTE] Hahaa! Funny! ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/189 "2010-10-21T23:52:58Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > Oops. Thanks for pointing it out. Meant to put it in the AA thread. I deleted the post in question. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/190 "2010-10-22T00:36:37Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Iā€™ve read that cite. > > Was I referring to that cite in my post? Hint: I wasnā€™t. > Was I responding to someone who posted that cite? Hint: I wasnā€™t. > Was I commenting on somone vomiting up another in a long stream of meaningless anecdotes? Hint: I was. > > I like people who post cites, especially relevant ones. However, I will note that that is at least the fourth time someone has posted that cite in this thread, so you probably didnā€™t need to post it again. I will also note that I responded to it the last time you posted it in this thread. > > Maybe you and Chefguy can go read the thread to each other so you both get caught up? Tell ya what: Iā€™ll go back and read it again if youā€™ll stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a douchebag, a moron, or whatever other sophomoric name pops into your head at the moment. One of the dictums of this board is not to be a jerk, yet you continue to be dickish while requiring others to respect your viewpoints. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/191 "2010-10-22T16:12:51Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Condensing this down to a positive statement that there is no evidence that AA works is, to my mind at least, misleading. Really? So if I get the same number of coins landing heads-up with a magic rock in my pocket as I do without it, youā€™re not going to try to claim that there is no evidence that my magic rock makes coins land heads-up? Would you buy my magic rock, then? After all, you canā€™t claim thereā€™s no evidence that it works! > [@Chefguy](#): > > One of the dictums of this board is not to be a jerk, yet you continue to be dickish while requiring others to respect your viewpoints. Weā€™re in the Pit, you fucking retard. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/192 "2010-10-22T16:15:30Z")
If **Shot From Guns** got laid once in a while she probably wouldnā€™t be so bitchy. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/193 "2010-10-22T16:21:04Z")
> [@bup](#): > > If **Shot From Guns** got laid once in a while she probably wouldnā€™t be so bitchy. Not the suavest come-on line Iā€™ve heard, but weā€™ll see if she bitesā€¦ ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/194 "2010-10-22T16:24:13Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Really? So if I get the same number of coins landing heads-up with a magic rock in my pocket as I do without it, youā€™re not going to try to claim that there is no evidence that my magic rock makes coins land heads-up? > > Would you buy my magic rock, then? After all, you canā€™t claim thereā€™s no evidence that it works! I dunno what point you are trying to make. Iā€™m not one claiming that anecdote trumps studies, which I believe was the point of the ā€œmagic rockā€ comparison. Iā€™m commenting on the meta-analysis of studies, and how it is reported on a specific website. The Cochraine study simply doesnā€™t say what that website claims it says; the websiteā€™s account is, at best, misleading. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/195 "2010-10-22T18:42:15Z")
> [@bup](#): > > If **Shot From Guns** got laid once in a while she probably wouldnā€™t be so bitchy. Iā€™ll concede that itā€™s annoying as hell to have a boyfriend I only see every couple of weeks, but itā€™s never made a difference before. Plus, we tend to make up for lost time pretty well. > [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Not the suavest come-on line Iā€™ve heard, but weā€™ll see if she bitesā€¦ That costs extra, and I doubt \*\*bup \*\*could even afford the base price. > [@Malthus](#): > > I dunno what point you are trying to make. Iā€™m not one claiming that anecdote trumps studies, which I believe was the point of the ā€œmagic rockā€ comparison. The\* most encouraging \*studies are showing that AA is no better or no worse than any other method, or no method at all. My magic rock is no better or no worse than any other magic device for making coins land face-up, or no magic device at all. Get it now? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/196 "2010-10-22T19:16:18Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > The\* most encouraging \*studies are showing that AA is no better or no worse than any other method, or no method at all. That isnā€™t factually true, though. The most encouraging studies (several of which are posted, by me and others in this thread - I can re-post them if you care) show AA having clear benefits. The Cochraine meta-analysis takes issue with some of these, pointing out methodogical flaws. The same meta-analysis takes issue with the _least_ encouraging studies, as well. What the analysis states is that the _available studies_ are not _sufficient_ to demonstrate that AA is as good or better than _other available treatments_. However, these studies are _flawed_ in that they are not well designed. It goes on to recommend further efficacy studies. Get it now? ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/197 "2010-10-22T19:51:23Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > That isnā€™t factually true, though. I thought about clarifying what I meant, but I figured you couldnā€™t possibly be this pedantic. Jokeā€™s on me! What I should have said was, **THE STUDY _YOU CITED_**. ---
**Author:** ![gravitycrash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@gravitycrash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gravitycrash)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/198 "2010-10-22T20:09:46Z")
I have no idea why some of you asshats have such a hard-on against AA. What the fuck is pissing you off about it exactly? It has no basis in science? Whoopdi-fucking-do. Show me fucking hard scientific evidence that love exists. Or even better show me scientific proof of a liberal who isnā€™t an enormous hypocrite. It works for some people partially because itā€™s comforting to know that there are plenty of other people with the same awful problem. Alcoholism=loneliness for many, so it helps just to talk about it. Bullshit on AA possibly being harmful. People who go to AA are near bottom anyway and are desperate for any help before the inevitable crash happens. How the fuck can that be harmful? If the Higher power thing gets your panties in a twist, oh well. Iā€™m agnostic and AA helped me so shove my anecdote up your tight ass. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/199 "2010-10-22T20:10:05Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I thought about clarifying what I meant, but I figured you couldnā€™t possibly be this pedantic. Jokeā€™s on me! > > What I should have said was, **THE STUDY _YOU CITED_**. You are still wrong. The Study I cited is a meta-analysis. It includes reference to a study showing AA has clear benefits - albeit that the study is considered flawed and not conclusive (as indeed are _all the others_ cited) . From the Cochraine analysis: > [@](#): > > AA may help patients to accept treatment and keep patients in treatment more than alternative treatments, though the evidence for this is from one small study that combined AA with other interventions and should not be regarded as conclusive. This is _probably_ a reference to this study, cited by me (and others) upthread: > **[Rates and predictors of relapse after natural and treated remission from...](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1976118/?tool=pmcentrez)** > > This study examined the rates and predictors of 3-year remission, and subsequent 16-year relapse, among initially untreated individuals with alcohol use disorders who did not obtain help or who participated in treatment and/or Alcoholics Anonymous... > [@](#): > > This study examined the rates and predictors of 3-year remission, and subsequent 16-year relapse, among initially untreated individuals with alcohol use disorders who did not obtain help or who participated in treatment and/or Alcoholics Anonymous in the first year after recognizing their need for help. > ā€¦ > > Natural remission may be followed by a high likelihood of relapse; thus, preventive interventions may be indicated to forestall future alcohol problems among individuals who cut down temporarily on drinking on their own. Without access to the full Cochrane report (costing $$) it isnā€™t possible to be certain, but in any event it doesnā€™t matter: your statement is simply, factually, provably incorrect, no matter how you slice it. The specific study I cited shows that there are studies demonstrating benefits; so do many apparantly not referenced in the Cochraine meta-analysis. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705/200 "2010-10-22T20:48:22Z")
> [@gravitycrash](#): > > I have no idea why some of you asshats have such a hard-on against AA. What the fuck is pissing you off about it exactly? It has no basis in science? Whoopdi-fucking-do. > Show me fucking hard scientific evidence that love exists. Or even better show me scientific proof of a liberal who isnā€™t an enormous hypocrite. > > It works for some people partially because itā€™s comforting to know that there are plenty of other people with the same awful problem. Alcoholism=loneliness for many, so it helps just to talk about it. > Bullshit on AA possibly being harmful. People who go to AA are near bottom anyway and are desperate for any help before the inevitable crash happens. How the fuck can that be harmful? > > If the Higher power thing gets your panties in a twist, oh well. Iā€™m agnostic and AA helped me so shove my anecdote up your tight ass. You need a drink. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shodan-and-aclockworkmelon/557705.md?page=11)