I declare! Well you sure showed me with all your fancy science and all.
And they say you can’t change people’s minds around here.
I’ve read that cite.
Was I referring to that cite in my post? Hint: I wasn’t.
Was I responding to someone who posted that cite? Hint: I wasn’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 didn’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?
Aunt Bee? Is that you? Leave the nice boy alone and come along home now, y’hear?
Whether of not AA’s approach is “scientific” makes little difference, given the mechanism that AA likely uses to “work” (assuming it does) - namely, social conditioning. By way of comparison, cults aren’t “scientific” at all, almost by definition, and they "work’ 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 “Science Based Medicine” 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:
[Emphasis added]
However, this somewhat distorts the actual findings of the Cochrane meta-analysis.
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 ‘12 step’ approaches) against other treatments.
[Emphasis]
The results: AA was no different in effectiveness, compared to other treatments.
[emphasis]
The author’s final conclusion:
In summary, the description of this study in “Science Based Medicine” is seriously misleading. Claiming that this study can be summarized as “no evidence that AA programs are effective” simply isn’t correct - the study tends to show, though its authors are careful to note it is not a “conclusive assessment” and that “more efficacy studies are needed”, that AA & other such programs were no better than other treatments, which is a very different matter.
Given that, I’m simply unwilling to take the author’s word that information gleaned from a survey (note: not a “study”) like the ‘National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism’s National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey’, accurately reflects its results.
I don’t understand the problem. Concluding that there isn’t evidence of AA’s efficacy is exactly what Cochrane did.
You’re right, it goes on to say:
And someone cited a study on PubMed.gov, well, I’ve got my own cites from there:
It goes on to say that residential treatments with AA programs performed no better or worse than alternatives.
The “problem” 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 “plain language” summary of the paper, from the Cochraine site:
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 site’s summary.
No. Chefguy shut everything down with his own Mayberry drawl back on page 2.
Hahaa! Funny!
I deleted the post in question.
Tell ya what: I’ll go back and read it again if you’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.
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, you’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 can’t claim there’s no evidence that it works!
We’re in the Pit, you fucking retard.
If Shot From Guns got laid once in a while she probably wouldn’t be so bitchy.
Not the suavest come-on line I’ve heard, but we’ll see if she bites…
I dunno what point you are trying to make. I’m not one claiming that anecdote trumps studies, which I believe was the point of the “magic rock” comparison.
I’m commenting on the meta-analysis of studies, and how it is reported on a specific website. The Cochraine study simply doesn’t say what that website claims it says; the website’s account is, at best, misleading.
I’ll concede that it’s annoying as hell to have a boyfriend I only see every couple of weeks, but it’s never made a difference before. Plus, we tend to make up for lost time pretty well.
That costs extra, and I doubt **bup **could even afford the base price.
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?
That isn’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?
I thought about clarifying what I meant, but I figured you couldn’t possibly be this pedantic. Joke’s on me!
What I should have said was, THE STUDY YOU CITED.
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 isn’t an enormous hypocrite.
It works for some people partially because it’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. I’m agnostic and AA helped me so shove my anecdote up your tight ass.
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:
This is probably a reference to this study, cited by me (and others) upthread:
Without access to the full Cochrane report (costing $$) it isn’t possible to be certain, but in any event it doesn’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.
You need a drink.