View Single Post
Unread 10-07-2011, 05:06 PM   #25
Posts: 86

Originally Posted by FriendNdeed View Post
Before you use a "success rate" to beat down on AA, consider this. A medical survey was conducted. They asked physicians to report the "success rate" among patients who have a chronic, life-threatening conditions that can EASILY be treated through a few specific lifestyle changes. The conditions included asthma, hypertension, diabetes, and cigarette smoking. The docs said fewer than half were following the "program" a month later and almost none could be called success one year later. AA/NA compliance stood head and shoulders above these deadly physical diseases. So if AA is a dud, then so is the American Diabetes Association, the Heart and Lung Association, etc.

You are probably right. In 2001, the institute of medicine found that every year we killed 98,000 people in hospitals and clinics by conditions that could have been avoided. At a cost of 3 billions dollars and that does not count the wage lost to patients. Medicine itself is working on some strategies to resolve these problems.

My fear is that the same is not happening in the psychological and allied profession. There is way too much pseudoscience in psychology (look around and find out don't just believe me) and the American Psychological Association is acting complacently because they do not want to alienate the large portion of their memberships. When I found out that 72% of mental health practitioners do not read scientific journals of their field (and they probably haven't since they left college). (Butler, William & Wakefield,(1993)Obstacle to disseminating Applied Psychological Science, Journal of Applied & Prevention Psychology2, I am sorry, I am not usually an alarmist, but it alarmed me. I came to realized little by little that this clinical practitioners where actually making shit up and calling it treatment even thought there was frequently scientific evidence were they were suppose to be doing the opposite of what they were doing. An education and a license is not sufficient to make things up (and eight grader can do that) without any research data to back it up. While medicine have many objective test like blood test, diabetic, x-rays, scans, MRIs and numerous other test devices. Psychology does not have the same objective feedback, most of what is being use like patient’s statements etc. are full of biases. Like Dr. Howard Garb “Studying the Clinician <not the patient)” I know that assessment, diagnosis and treatment should be driven by rigorous scientific research. Our own human cognitions have way too many limitations, like conformational biases, hind sight biases and illusionary correlations. That is some of the reason why the world appear flat and the sun rotates around the earth, as an example

But the problem with AA is that in itself is not a treatment. It is a fellowship and should have stayed like that. It was never intended to become treatment. In the early 80s as Bill was about to died. AA members based on some of their steps and dogmas started walking into treatment facilities and ask for jobs as monitors. Some of those monitors stated getting more education and eventually some became practitioners and some even Directors of Programs. The problem is that given that it that intentionally these programs did not wanted to be tested for effectiveness. So we have such little data that it is even hard to evaluate. A program that has been around for 70 years with a pitiful amount of research, Not until recently when third party payers stated mandating Evidence Based treatment that some of AA proponents have ran around know just about nothing about science and have began to start doing studies CONFIRMING that AA works. The problem is that in any science including psychology. When a scientist does research, they do studies that refute as well and confirm the effectiveness. They change variables to see what works best. Most of the studies done by proponent may be able to fool most patients, because patients also know very little about science and the scientific process. Most of us would probably flunk high school science and that is why we are being con based on bogus numbers.

I suggest that we start looking at the difference between a Clinical Practitioners and a Scientific Clinician and begging to know why it is that way. When practitioners based their judgments and decision based on their own experience, we have found them to be a lot more fallible than we care to admit. This is not about ideology, and dogma this is about health. Our health and our treatment, and I again suggest that little by little start to learn little about science. Read a little history, a little how to, nothing heavy, but make sure that when you are reading science that you get the information from people with credibility and background in the science. I am beginning to seem treatment facilities and clinicians that are claiming them to be evidence based and talk about pseudoscience and all they are doing is using words to impress us.

What I am asking us to do is to stop making ourselves right and begging to look at what is in your best interest. You want to be treated by faith healing I do not mind, but for programs to do this as a general protocol I do not think that is fair to the patients, and there are not enough watchdogs in this area of medicine. My concern is that we are not getting what we are suppose to be getting as patients, and most of us pay good money for treatment.

Whose treatment is it anyway?

Last edited by Carlos; 10-07-2011 at 05:24 PM..
Carlos is offline   Reply With Quote