Rational Header
RR Logo
MyFamiliesRecoveryismFrequently
BlogLettersWorldMonitorAbout
Flag Ribbon

Page Curl
Page Curl


Global Warming and Addictive Disease

©2007, Jack Trimpey, all rights reserved.

The moral of this story: Although you cannot fool all the people all of the time, you can certainly make a lot of money trying to do so.

I think most thoughtful people have been sanely suspicious of the politically-driven, global warming hype in the last few years. When you see massive political mobilization around a tenuous-at-best hypothesis, and then witness the rise of a new witch hunt for heretics, it seems only a matter of time until the whole idea melts down like a polar ice cap.

Here’s a good link showing how global warming hot air has blown back in the faces of greenies. It’s about time, which is not to say that some problems do not exist with regard to our planetary stewardship.

Sadly, however, the day of reckoning may never come for the massive fraud called the disease concept of addiction. If there is a point beyond which there is no return, we may have already passed it. The United States of America collectively made an error during the 20th Century — a well-intentioned act of trust, but still an error from which she may never recover. It was an error that may equal or even surpass the error of slavery, so great is the damage to the Republic.

We have chosen to turn over the great social problem of substance abuse to the fellowship of addiction, Alcoholics Anonymous, which is based upon the unique beliefs and values of addicted people, not of normal people from real families. This is like turning over the supervision of elementary schools to child molesters. We have put the inmates in charge of the asylum, and now the nation is steadily moving into the asylum.

Our physicians are foxes in the chicken coop, members themselves of Alcoholics Anonymous by mandate of their licensing boards. Essentially criminals, like AA co-founder Rober Smith, M.D., who drank while performing major surgery, today’s physicians “in recovery” have been politically rehabilitated in expensive rehabs like the Talbott Rehabilitation Center, founded by Douglas Talbott, M.D., himself a grateful, recovering alcoholic. Addiction is no longer immorality, but a disease symptom compassionately “treated” by grateful, recovering alcoholics who themselves claim to suffer from the terrible disease of addiction, which they say is just like cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. Right. Dr. Talbott is also the founder of American Society for Addiction Medicine (ASAM), which advances the disease concept of addiction within the medical profession.

The problem is, addiction treatment doesn’t work, and actually converts problem drinkers who should be required to pledge and fulfill lifetime abstinence, into chronic, relapse-prone, one-day-at-a-time sober “alcoholics” based solely upon the ghastly misuse of medical authority. Addiction treatment is truly an astronomically expensive introduction to the fellowship of addiction, Alcoholics Anonymous, a self-supporting, non-profit organization co-founded by its own great physician, Robert Smith, M.D.

Notice the non-profit organization status, here, as if irresolute substance abusers qualify for charity. It is this kind of bald deception that underlies recent legislation aimed at limitless public funding for the ever-expanding dependency of ever-growing addicted population. Such suckers, are we!

Under medical supervision, American-style recoveryism has destroyed more lives and families than addiction itself, producing a greater body count and economic cost than any of our military wars. There is simply no way that our social service system can be held accountable for such a catastrophic public health disaster as the addiction treatment industry, which includes all of the academic, social welfare, public health, and non-profit organizations that make up the 12-step syndicate. There may be a slow, cautious acknowledgement of error, such as “overdiagnosis,” or “deficiencies in treatment planning,” or other bureaucratic jive, but we will likely never see justice such as came out of the litigations for black lung, landfill pollution, breast transplant, and the asbestos and tobacco related illness. Too many bodies; too many iatrogenic casualties. Denial is so much easier.

Slavery? Really?

If you are still grating over my comment about slavery, think racism instead. The disease concept of addiction is worse than racism, in that it confers congenital inferiority upon individuals based upon thought content, without any use of laboratory data or physical traits such as in race. (Yes, the cardinal sign of addictive disease, “denial,” is purely thought content.) Racism is conspicuous compared to the disease concept of addiction parades as compassion itself. Thus, our social service system may mercifully consign you to a social ghetto for other congenital defectives like yourself based upon nothing more than the arbitrary opinion of another tentatively sober substance abuser. Addictive disease, e.g., “alcoholism,” is purely conjectural, a simple, unproven hypothesis based upon the very faulty, circular, self-serving reasoning of addicted people themselves.

If you are a substance abuser in trouble, no one, not even your family, your employer, the courts, or society at large will expect or demand that you quit drinking/using. They will think you are defective, unable to comply with such a reasonable remedy. They have you all figured out, based upon the lore of addictive disease, as set forth by the fellowship of addiction, Alcoholics Anonymous, and gobbled up by the wise producers, directors, and scriptwriters of hollywood.

The disease hypothesis starts with the arbitrary assumption, so typical of addicted people, that alcohol is an essentially harmless substance except for certain people who go crazy once exposed to it. Because those poor souls are somehow different from others, they are exempt from common standards of decency and moral conduct. The crucial difference between “real alcoholics” and those who drink more or less “successfully” is hidden deep within the human genome — so deep that no one can find it. The act of self-intoxication by problem drinkers is an innocent act, having nothing to do with moral judgment, self-restraint, and individual responsibility, nome sane?

The implications are clear, and the result is that Americans are increasingly hostile towards their origins, seeing their ancestral heritage, traditions, belief systems, family tree, and gene pool as the source of their own practical and personal problems. Recovery groupers renounce their own family names, taking “Imanalcoholic” as their “new family” name, and their stories of spiritual redemption are silly melodramas surrounding their dysfunctional families of origin.

The disease concept of addiction has become so ingrained that each news story of criminal acts is laced with a psychosocial history of the criminal. Never, is the fact revealed that practically all repeat criminals have already been in the revolving doors of 12-step recoveryism for many years, and that prison addiction treatment programs actually aggravate rather than mitigate recidivism.

If anyone tells you the sky is falling, the polar bears are drowning in melted icebergs, or that you or someone you care about is “an alcoholic,” speak out against those mass hysterias. Especially, identify habitual drunkenness as stupidity or moral weakness, but don’t allow them to attack your gene pool, your original family, or the dead ancestors who cannot speak for themselves.

Frankly, I think our heavy drinking ancestors would roll in their graves, laughing at how utterly stupid the once-greatest nation in history has become since accepting the guidance of irresolute drunks back in 1936, the founding date of Alcoholics Anonymous. But, for us, the living, it is a horror show in progress. I hope we can avoid the ugly ending, which can very definitely be staved off with AVRT®.

23 Responses to “Global Warming and Addictive Disease”


  1. Cynthia

    Jack-
    The polar ice cap IS melting. Bad, bad analogy.
    AA=The Beast
    Those who doubt global warming=Flat Earth Society.
    Not a good move. Stick to your message or count me out.

    Cynthia,

    The facts aren’t in question in either case. Addiction and global warming both exist. The analogy is about how the interpretation of those facts becomes a political juggernaut. The result is intolerance of other viewpoints and suppression of speech, as in your message to me.

    Thanks for your quick validation of my analogy!

    Jack Trimpey

  2. Cynthia

    Jack-
    With all due respect, I do not perceive that the disease concept of alcoholism is in the same league with global warming. As usual, you have put forth some hard truths regarding The Beast in your latest blog. I agree with those ideas. I have spent some time thinking about my response to your blog, and I offer the following.
    I am disappointed that someone whose ideas I respect, and indeed, someone whose ideas have radically changed my life for the better, would put forth an idea with which I so greatly disagree. I admit it, I’m a “greenie.” However, as a Buddhist, I greatly value dialogue and the concept of building bridges, not walls. I believe that the attainability of world peace itself hinges on our ability to listen to others and examine our own beliefs. I want to understand your viewpoint and certainly would never, ever want to suppress your speech!
    If I understand you correctly, you see a parallel between the political climate of deceit and manipulation regarding institutionalization of the disease concept of alcoholism, and the political climate regarding global warming. Is this correct? If, so, I would have to disagree. I understand that you have no room for compromise in setting forth your ideas regarding The Beast, but I am afraid that people may be offended and off-put by your opinions regarding global warming. (Not that you mind offending people!) I am certain that you are aware of the danger of “throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” but I wonder at your reasoning regarding the most effective method of disseminating the incredibly valuable information of Rational Recovery.
    Actually, I am somewhat familiar with your style, and your steadfast dedication to radical concepts seems to be best served by a very firm adherence to those concepts. I think the best we can hope for is a shared dedication to the concepts of Rational Recovery, and an acknowledgement of a difference in opinion.
    Cynthia

    Cynthia,

    Oh, stop it!

    In other words, you’re saying that I should keep any views you don’t agree with to myself because I might offend and drive away addicted people who might otherwise benefit from AVRT®. If you think I’m going to grovel before drunks and junkies so they won’t reject AVRT® or run away, then you’re goofy. There are penalties for that kind of silliness, chief among them is the loss of opportunities, perhaps their lives as well. Your crystal ball has me as a perpetrator driving away innocent victims, and of course, I am responsible for the resulting path of human wreckage. Give me a break.

    At best, you are presenting addicted people as pathetic nincompoops who are as intolerant of diversity as you are. However, my actual experience is that addicted people aren’t the least interested in my political or personal views on anything, any more than they would care about who their dentist or car mechanic votes for.

    I’ve been scolded thousands of times for offending addicted people and substance abusers of all kinds, which basically means my message is hitting home. However, your particular brand of patronage really gets under my skin, because you are defending your politically driven, socialist-greenie agenda by pretending to know better than I how to conduct the business of Rational Recovery®.

    There was a time when politics was a personal matter, seldom discussed in public. That was before grasping socialism got people’s tongues, and small interest groups like yours started “correcting” cherished traditions and values by turning them ass backwards and upside down.

    Your little foray here is an example of how the new wave works, zinging people in public with condescending disapproval and advice. I hope any reader here will equate “PC” with political cowardice, and start speaking out against intolerance disguised as political activism.

    Jack Trimpey

  3. Jim Heckel

    You seem more than a little pessimistic here. After all, there was a time in which women voting was considered a radical idea, with many powerful enemies. Yet many women today are registered voters, with very few people objecting to the idea of a woman casting a ballot. Or we can take your racism analogy and run with it – Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King faced much opposition to their ideas, with the latter party being assassinated for speaking out. Yet racists who would have been mainstream 50 years ago are marginalized today. Keep “setting brushfires in people’s minds”, as Sam Adams once put it, and you will prevail. It worked well for Susan B. Anthony and Margaret Sanger – and it will work for Jack Trimpey, too. Keep the faith! ;)

  4. agrippa

    I think that people are beginning to realize that 12 step does not work; at best. it does nothing. Inertia is a problem. But, the interent is helping to end the 12 monopoly

  5. steve miller

    Thanks Jack for the informative info.I agree with you on both sides of global warming and addiction.There really is nothing new under the sun happening.Evil politics is one.Al Gore getting millions of dollars off from poor blinded souls supporting him its not about global warming in old Al Gores mind its about how fat he can make his wallet giving these speeches he gives.

    As for addiction I found out why I could not get sober and stay sober.I was brain-washed by the Alcoholics Anonymous cult.I have researched them and now I can save myself $365.00 a year and 365 hours for not attending AA meetings.I think AA hinders sobriety and if you get sober without them you are then called a dry drunk.

    I would rather be a dry drunk than a wet drunk.Being a dry drunk is ok because I dont get hangovers from being a dry drunk.It does not cost one dime to be a dry drunk.I hear some old long time sober goats in AA define a dry drunk and all I can say is that most of them are what they call the ones who get sober without the AA Garbage.

    I have not seen in the news paper where I live anyone being arrested for dry drunk driving so that tells me it just does not exist.They say knowledge wont fix the alcoholic well I do beg their sick pardon the right knowledge applied has got me sober from knowing I dont have a disease from alcoholism but a problem with my beast.AVRT.Keep stepping on the toes of them AA Evangelist Jack I am on your side and sober to.

    Key word AA Kills hummmmm!

    Steve miller.

  6. Jane

    Jack: Having arrived at this site thinking that I would really find some rational discourse about rational recovery, I’ve discovered instead your irrational rants and irrational rationalizing. Cynthia’s argument above is well reasoned and carefully laid out (an attempt at civil debate), while your responses to her are shoot-from-the-hip accusations with no evidence at all to support the claims you make. It’s ludicrous to accuse Cynthia of trying to stifle your freedom of speech, when all she did was to point out the huge holes in your global warming analogy; and it’s funny seeing how you try to hem and haw your way out of it by skirting the issue when you declare that “addiction and global warming both exist. The analogy is about how the interpretation of those facts becomes a political juggernaut.”

    You begin your blog entry by revealing your own politics about global warming, and the link you provide to shed light on why “sane” people should be skeptical of the global warming theory takes the reader to the U.S. Senate Minority Party site—“minority” meaning the Republican members of the Senate, who–like Bush–have vested interests in oil and other businesses that oppose, for reasons of pure self-interest, any measures aimed at curbing global warming. The point here, though, is that you unabashedly bring your own politics to the forefront of your blog and then moralize about a time when politics was a purely “personal” matter, a thinly disguised warning to Cynthia, whose politics do not match yours, to keep her mouth shut. Not surprisingly however, when respondent Steve Miller announces that he agrees with you about global warming and goes on to denounce Al Gore, you do not scold him for not keeping his politics private. (I would like to add here that the idea of “politics” being solely a private and personal concern flies in the face of democracy, which requires citizens to make their voices heard. It’s a good thing that our founding fathers, who openly and courageously aired their political views, did not subscribe to this notion, or we would not be our own separate nation today. This is only one example of people “speaking their politics publicly” in order to effect change.)

    You also accuse Cynthia of “zinging people in public with condescending disapproval and advice,” an ironic accusation, since nearly every entry you write drips with disapproval and condescension as you target other people and other groups who do not agree with you; and you seem to believe that the advice you dispense so freely on your blog and all over the RR website is unimpeachable. Cynthia calls for tolerance of differing opinions and invites “dialogue,” a concept that seems to enrage you. If you do not want people to respond honestly to what you write, then why have a blog at all, since blogs are forums meant to accommodate discussion? Why not just post your opinions on a separate page of your website in order to discourage dialogue?s

    Some other questions and observations:

    Yours is a for-profit organization, which is why you broke away from the original Rational Recovery group, the board of which wished to retain the organization’s non-profit status. (Now, before you get your panties all in a bunch, I am not a “socialist” who objects to free enterprise. I am wholeheartedly for it!) Therefore, it is to your immense financial benefit to denigrate all “recovery” groups and addiction therapists. In fact, RR does not seem able to stand on its own; rather its entire identity depends upon its opposition to these groups. After all, the more “customers” you can draw away from these organizations into your own, the more money you yourself will make.

    You give statistics released by AA itself, which after a prolonged self-study, determined that a majority of AA’ers do not achieve permanent sobriety. I admire AA for its frank disclosure. Now where is yours? RR has been around since the mid 80’s and your own particular branch of the organization has been in effect for at least a decade, more than adequate time to have conducted a study to determine how effective your method is as opposed to AA’s. You mention that you are collecting data for a longitudinal study, but say nothing about the methodology that will be used, the expected timeline for the study, or when results will be made public. Obviously, since AA (and NO I am not affiliated with AA. The last meeting I attended was in 1985) makes no profit off its members, it doesn’t have much to lose, in financial terms at least, by disclosing its statistics. You do. I suspect, therefore, that it will not be to your benefit to publish statistics any time soon. (My hunch, in fact is that, if your study is done objectively and the results reported honestly, your statistics will not be much better than AA’s). So far the only evidence of RR’s effectiveness is a handful of testimonials and your own statement that “a large majority [of RR graduates] remain securely abstinent.” Proof, please!

    AA and other recovery groups are at the center of your “beast” theory and you maintain that the philosophies of these groups play a major role in the addictive voice of the alcoholic/addict, and you often state that addiction is the result of “immoral” choices (a strangely religious concept for someone who purports to be rational.) AA, however, has only been around for a relatively short period of time if put within an historical framework. Prior to AA, the immorality theory of alcoholism/addiction prevailed. Doctors, ministers, and judges alike routinely lectured alcoholics about their weaknesses and lack of morals. While some alcoholics may have indeed “pulled themselves up by the bootstraps,” many others upbraided themselves for their moral shortcomings, vowed to straighten up, tried the best they could, and then sunk again. Yet none of these alcoholics had been “brainwashed” by AA philosophies, since they did not yet exist; there was no such thing as a “fellowship of addiction.” In short, they attempted to “cure” themselves based on theories remarkably similar to your own and failed. How do you explain this?

    You accuse AA of luring people into long term attendance of meetings through their advocacy of the disease concept of alcoholism and notions of relapse. As an alternative to this, you offer the AVTR course, but you do so at several levels: the internet crash course (one paragraph outlining the principles of AVRT), and explain that the concepts may be tricky and elusive (when really they are quite simplistic). In addition, you offer an advanced mini-course available to those who plop down money for it; and if that doesn’t work, you offer the real-thing AVRT four day course (or, for those in a hurry, a two day course supposedly as effective as the four day course), all costing a couple of thousand dollars, exclusive of travel, food, and lodging expenses. So if people do not achieve sobriety after “taking” the internet crash course, they are compelled to pay money to take the longer online course, and then tempted to pay even more to take the real course. And if they resort once more to drinking, ashamed that they remain “ASSes”, they will start all over again, believing (according to your philosophies) that they—not AVRT—are at fault. Or they can “subscribe” to the RR website at different levels, from one month to a year. (Am I wrong in thinking that just before subscriptions expire, subscribers receive a notice encouraging them to renew, informing them of how much they need to stay in touch with AVRT principles, or how they must help others to do so by forking over more money? Or are they merely sent a notice discouraging them from renewing so that they do not become AA-style dependent on the organization? Please provide statistics showing your rates of renewal, the number of years subscribers remain with your organization, and the percentage of people who choose to retake your classes.) There is even a “patron” level of subscription, unheard of in for-profit organizations such as yours, since “patron” indicates a supporter of not-for-profit or charitable organizations, such as those supporting symphonies, the arts, or services for the needy. Donating money as a patron to RR, which most likely already reaps a sizeable profit from your AVRT courses and the selling of your own merchandise online and elsewhere is like donating money to Wal-Mart. Where are the statistics showing how donations (subscriptions) are spent and into whose pockets they actually go? Perhaps the motto with which you begin your entry actually sums up your own business ethics and practices: “Although you cannot fool all the people all of the time, you can certainly make a lot of money trying to do so.”

    (An aside to readers of this blog and would-be RR subscribers: You are consumers of products here, not a free service. Jack is trying to sell you his products. Fair enough. He is an entrepreneur who saw an opportunity to make money and he went for it. More power to him! This means, however, that you, as customers, have a right to know where your money goes and to ask questions about his products. Jack refers to you as a “bunch of addicts and drunks” in order to make you think that, as practitioners of “immoral” behavior, you do not deserve respect, let alone solid consumer information and or disclosure of financial accountability. Don’t buy it! Jack is not your higher power. The reason he can get away with this is that he continues to make a profit through subscriptions, merchandise sales of his own material, and his classes. You can bet, however, that if the majority of you refused to hand over your hard earned bucks to him so readily (this includes buying his books and other merchandise), he would think twice before so contemptuously dismissing you. Why, for instance, can you not have at least limited access to a free trial subscription to the site, so that you would know exactly what you would be paying for before making a financial commitment, instead of depending solely upon Jack’s own vague descriptions of subscription “benefits,” such as access to a discussion forum and articles about AVRT?

    Jack, you tout independence and self-recovery for alcoholics/addicts, and say we can achieve sobriety without reliance on a group, but RR is a group. In fact, one of the “benefits” of subscribing, you say, is the opportunity to participate in a discussion forum (monitored, of course, by you yourself). Just because the forum participants are not sitting in real chairs in a church basement somewhere (a la AA) doesn’t mean that they are not a part of a group. Yours is a virtual group, but a group nonetheless, and one that adheres to particular principles and practices. Furthermore, this group seems to be totally dependent upon you. For example, you define the AVRT course as a class in which participants have one-on-one conversation with you rather than with each other; you advise “students’ in your class not to form relationships; and you monitor forum discussions. All of this discourages talk among and from members that may lead to resistance or dissent, not to mention independence. Furthermore, you position those who do express reservations as examples of the “beast,” the addictive voice, or adherents of AA. This is evident in your responses to people, who-in letters to you or comments on your blog–question the effectiveness of AVRT. These are actually not responses at all, but rather blanket indictments of those who dare to question, as in your response to Danny. Rather than responding to him directly, you refer to him in the third person as “an example of the addictive voice,” etc. You also say that if anyone regards AVTR with skepticism, it is because their addictive voices are speaking, not because they might actually have something to be skeptical about!

    Finally, just who are the people who comprise Rational Recovery Systems? Is this really an organization of people other than just you and your wife? I would assume so, since you mention the offices of RR in which classes take place, but nothing on your website mentions other officers or staff, and an internet search provided no information other than that you were the president of the organization. And who are these mysterious “patrons,” who—by contributing a hefty sum to RR—are allowed, as you say, to help shape RR’s policies? Shouldn’t consumers who pay for your products have access to this information?

    Jane

  7. Alvin Lister

    Who really wants to know Jane and who could care less! I hope to be a patron subscriber some day. I hope you fix your cadillac with it Jack. I was helped by you.

  8. Danny

    Great essay. What I particularly “love” about Al Gore and the rest of the global warming harpies is the way they’ve been acting lately — dismissing anyone who questions their asinine views as “deniers.” Hmmm, why does that sound familiar to me? ;)

  9. CTMS

    Jack–I had a couple of significant typos in my first reply. Could I substitute this one?

    In response to Jane above:

    This was my experience with Rational Recovery:
    More than a year ago, I subscribed to the Rational Recovery online resources, first for one month and then, because I was learning so much, I renewed it for an additional 6 months. There was no need to renew after the 6 months, since I had learned what I needed to quit my addiction.

    There was no notice whatsoever informing me that my subscription was about to expire or to urge me to renew (as Jane suggested above). I was always impressed that when folks on the message board posted a note to say farewell, thanks for the straight answers and for all they had learned, everyone (Jack Trimpey included) would wish them a great life. Why hope for someone to return to the subscription service, since a need to return would mean they are drinking or using again? I was clear that Rational Recovery was about folks quitting for good and never coming back.

    The free internet crash course is quite comprehensive. It is much more than one paragraph, so you should take another look at what is free on the website. I chose to briefly subscribe, and benefited from the subscription, yet all the information is available on the free internet crash course. Regarding the forum–The forum has much more conversation among participants than with Jack, but Jack does post fairly regularly.

    Why should prepared educational material be free? It was not in AA. I spent more than $1000 on 12 step books, CD’s, and materials while attending that free program. I did not expect AA to give me their educational materials for free. I spent only about $150 to learn about RR from the subscription—which was optional –but I sure learned a lot. The free Mini Crash Course really covers it all. I checked out the RR book from my public library for free.

    Jane made no reference to money that is made in the addiction treatment industry which is almost exclusively 12 step based.

    CTMS

  10. jane

    Thank you, CTMS, for your thoughtful response. I did indeed go back to the mini-course site, and found that there was much more than I had first thought, much of which I found helpful.

    I need to stress here again that I am not a 12 step proponent, only someone who wishes to find a program that is in truth “rational” and not grounded in certain (right wing) political views nor operating in opposition to other groups–something that is sound and that can stand on its own (Jack and others will no doubt claim that RR is not a “program,” but it is: 12 steps or 28 flashcards, both of them are programmatic and there is nothing wrong with that.)

    I appreciate CTMS’s telling about her subscription experiences. This shed some light on RR. I would, though, also appreciate Jack’s own view on this process, as there must be some sort of organizational approach to subscriptions and whether or not folks are encouraged to renew. I suppose (although I don’t know) that this information may be available to those who subscribe; I am not a subscriber, though, so do not know. I will reiterate again, though, that I find it strange that an organization that calls for individual recovery and responsibility seeks Patron subscriptions to support a for-profit organization (and spreading its word), when the stated emphasis of RR is on individual choice and decisions as opposed to control by a group.

    CTMS took the time to address particular issues I raised, and I appreciate that. I agree with her that the “addition industry” does profit from its advocacy of 12 step programs, although it is clear to me and from the statistics that many (if not a majority) are greatly helped from such programs. Again, I am not opposed to free enterprise and Jack’s profiting from his program and website. I just think it behooves an organization based on “rational” recovery and thinking to be clear about their recovery statistics (how do theirs differ from AA’s?) and the precise nature of the organization itself (who comrpises it; who, in specific financial terms, benefits from it?).

  11. Conor

    Look Jack,
    A lot of what you say is the truth but…
    I got sober for 4 months by going to AA, and as you know, it exhibits a lot of cult behaviour.

    I fell out with them yet again, and I ‘shared’ about how much i hated their cult religion ways, but I drank again anyway.

    However. You are NOT the ultimate authority on recovery. You are even more bitter than me. And, I’ve come to the conclusion that ANYONE who claims they sre the ultimate authority on ANYTHING are wrong.

    And you claim to be the ultimate authority on addiction.

    You are not.

    Full stop.

    Why won’t you admit you aren’t perfect?

    Conor,

    I am not the issue in question; AVRT® is the matter under consideration. I have simply discovered AVRT®, which is a working model of the human moral conscience.

    AVRT® is perfect. If you or anyone else can prove otherwise, I’d like to hear it.

    Jack Trimpey

  12. Mardy

    Sorry to take a brief topic detour, but one of my favorite quotes came to mind about Greenhouse effects and climate.
    Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, spoke with a cool calm dignity about the global warming scare: “The current alarm rests on the false assumption that…our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman’s forecast for next week.”

  13. CTMS

    Below is an interesting study published in 2005.

    –Are alcoholism treatments effective? The Project MATCH data:
    Authors Robert Cutler and David Fishbain from the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Miami.

    “These are the findings of a study published in the Open Access journal, BMC Public Health, which provides a new analysis of previous data from Project MATCH, a clinical trial of three common forms of therapy used for the treatment of alcoholism. This analysis shows that the participants in the trial who attended all sessions did scarcely better than those who received no treatment. This contradicts previous analyses, which concluded that all three therapies for alcoholism were very effective.”

    Here is an article about the study:

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/27412.php#ratethis

    Here is the abstract of the study:

    http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/75/abstract

    Here is the full text of the study (which if free to the public):

    http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/75

    CTMS

    CTMS,

    Project MATCH was a massive, astronomically expensive outcome study of so-called “treatments” for addiction conducted by the feds in 1992 – 1994. It is a prime example of political science, meaning that it was conducted to prove a conclusion that had theretofore only been assumed — that addiction is a treatable condition, and that certain treatments are better than others, especially in the hands of sensitive, intelligent, well-educated, well-paid addiction treatment specialists and substance abuse counselors.

    Alas, the results only showed that all treatments are equally ineffective, and, worst of all, the design purposely omitted a control group of people who received no treatment on the grounds that withholding treatment would amount to harm. Such chuzpah! Such chicanery!

    The NIAAA chief, Enoch Gordis, proceeded to cover up the unintended, embarrassing outcome with lame pseuso-scientific sophistry and the fireworks continued for a number of years afterward among the academic musing societies. These very good new studies take a second link and bring out the truth, which is that addiction treatment doesn’t work, a conclusion that intelligent layperson can figure out just by hanging out around an addiction treatment center addiction talking to the people who work there or attend as “patients.”

    Addiction treatment is an iatrogenic nightmare destroying more lives than addiction itself. It is also an ethical nightmare, permanently staining the reputation and history of health care in Western Civilization. The services require systematic suppression of informed consent, and are delivered by people in an intolerable professional conflict of interest, about 80% of them “in recovery” themselves, the rest never-addicted in the first place.

    The problem is partly because nobody really cares if addiction treatment works or not; it’s the melodramatic process that salves the feelings of families, addicts, and taxpayers alike, making for good politics supporting the addiction treatment industry.

    Jack Trimpey

  14. Rosemary

    Jane, you almost had me.

    I tend to lean toward your politics rather than Jack’s, and I thought you made one or two good points about the conversation with Cynthia.

    However, one-quarter of the way through your post, you digress with “Some other questions and observations” and go off on a very, very long tangent that nitpicks at Jack and his way of conducting his work. Many of your charges could have been answered ahead of time by a little research. I admit I could not drag myself completely through it, but I did skim and see that you were quibbling about levels of subscription, etc.

    Frankly, I miss the good old days when Jack’s forum was free; I loved reading it. Even then, however, Jack expressed concern that the forum might devolve into entertainment and a form of recovery-groupism. If charging a fee will weed out all but the serious and committed, those who need to be there, I won’t argue with that.

    Furthermore, it really pisses me off when people carp at Jack for charging quite reasonable and modest prices for extra help (and not being Mother Teresa), when he does offer enough for free to help a truly open person “get it.”

    Throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Jack really blunted your point and lessened your credibility.

    This is not the first time I have disagreed with things Jack has said on this blog — but fundamentally, I believe deeply in his main message that we humans have free will and are not diseased. This is a life-changing and life-affirming message.

  15. Matthew

    I am not replying to your intellectual argument you folks are having. But am finding that it is very interesting. I would like to first state that I had a serious problem for years with many drugs. As I can tell from what you all have written I may have beaten my addiction in a similar way to Jack system, program or whatever you may call it. I am actually looking into this for my wife whom I love and care about deeply. She currenty has problems not only with drugs but alcohol as well. She has a very fragile personallity. Most of her family has gotton clean thru AA or NA. She recently had about 5 months clean went to rehab for five days, after attending rehab she immediately came out and began using. I do not want to destroy what she has done in the past and her beliefs about AA/NA but want to find a solution. One of the major problems as she states is that she finds more connections in rehab and at meatings. She finds people she is drawn to because of their use and using personallities. I will be taking the online course and reading the suggested book before presenting it to her. But would like your comments about the “system” and maybe some others comments as well. Also I would like to mention I am not wealthy and could not afford to send her to a 4 day or 2 day program. I am however able to afford to buy the literature. AA/NA seem to miss something, I believe it is personal strenth and reliance on one’s self to be accountable for their own actions more they preach to depend on others in a similar situation to draw strength from, which as you see in the future will be a downfall in todays society. It is untaught in our society to be accountable for yor own actions anymore but to put blame on others.

  16. thiggy

    I agree with CTMS. Although I did not read Janes entire post, I would like to point out that it would be unreasonable to expect Mr. Trimpey to provide the benefits of AVRT at no cost to himself. That would be an expensive undertaking. I experienced two deferred prosecutions, three treatment centers, hundreds of AA meetings and I have to say that the cost to me was much greater financially, emotionally and a waste of my time. I spent the greater part of that time rebelling and screaming “NO! THIS ISN’T RIGHT!” And I left the programs still drinking and using with the certainty that treatment centers are nothing but a racket. Years later I went to the library, having heard about RR and checked out Rational Recovery – The New Cure For Substance Addiction. (Yes, I’m plugging the book.) By the end of the second chapter I had it. For free. Other people might need more training in AVRT than I did, hence the subscriptions, etc. I do not have an opinion on global warning, nor am I informed enough to have an opinion on politics. I do know that now I do not subscribe to anything, do not belong to any groups, and I do not have to conform to the consensus that because I selfishly chose to drink and use I must spend the rest of my life perpetually caught in the quagmire of “alcoholism” with all it’s self loathing and everlasting pronouncements of such. I’m done. That which defines the different between AA and RR. No, it’s not thank God. But thank Jack, for naming and sharing the tools of AVRT and offering an alternative to the 12. I hope he’s filthy rich.

    Thiggy,

    Interesting comments about the idea that I should provide the benefits of AVRT® at my own expense, without any compensation for my efforts. That is a fundamental belief of AA, complete with the parable of the errant Bill W whose error was simply thinking about earning money by using AA. Mr. W was chastened by his inner circle so that now AA is a “self-supporting, non-profit organization,” which of course is an oxymoronic description of an impossible entity, sort of like Dr. Seuss’s push-me-pull-you.

    For decades, I have received an endless stream of hate mail from 12-steppers who confer the Curse of AA upon me, i.e., that I am a greedy, money-grubber who exploits the sick, the weak, and the disabled. They insist that I should exist for the sake of serving “alcoholics” and other substance abusers, and to be grateful for the privilege of doing so. The arrogance of addiction is boundless, as seen in irresolute substance abusers’ demands for free stuff.
    However, none of them notice that the essentials of AVRT-based recovery are posted free of charge in the form of programmed instruction. Nor do they care that my professional services not only lead to immediate total recovery, but cost about 10% as much as ineffective 12-step oriented programs that amount to a very expensive introduction to life in recovery.

    Charity for substance abusers is about as upside-down as an idea can get, but through the magic of steptalk, it has become a popular idea. Who could be less entitled to charity than those who pursue pleasure at the expense of their families, or who expect their own families to live under the uncertainty of one-day-at-a-time sobriety?

    Jack Trimpey

  17. Tim C

    What Happen Dr Phil? You seemed Like a very open minded itelligent Guy. Purhaps indiviuals that can think above the sixth grade level threated your over sized Pride and mis guided ego…
    Please except my apology.

    God Bless,
    Tom C

  18. Mary

    Tim C closes a snark-post with “God Bless”. I’m sure his God would be proud of him.

    What the heck is wrong with you people? Has this man not helped you; has he not zeroed in on a simple, powerful truth that you can use to change your life and presented it to you free of charge?

    Ingrates.

  19. Ann W.

    Please accept my gratitude for Rational Recovery/AVRT. Perhaps, as a cautiously open-minded and intelligent woman who can both think and spell above the sixth grade level, I can add something of value.

    During the 1980′s and 1990′s I was steeped in the ACOA, Alanon, and AA philosophy. I’ll share two of the many insights I’ve gained through the years. One, this philosophy/religion of AA and its spin-offs can destroy families. My first introduction to this world was through ACOA. I ended up alienated from my mother, as my sponsor said I needed to “let the dead bury the dead”. Otherwise, my “disease” would worsen and I would be caught in the role as “enabler”. My mother was left alone by all her children; she died alone. Yeah, she had several cocktails a day. She was blind and physically disabled. I’d gone to ACOA with a friend who’d asked for support. ACOA convinced me my mother was an alcoholic. Oh, and because I liked to get drunk on weekends, so was I. It’s inherited, you know.

    So, I waltzed into an AA meeting and I learned how to relapse. I decided to quit drinking altogether in 1984. That lasted until 1999, not long after my mother died. My AV, with great stealth, asked if maybe a drink would help quell that nasty grief (guilt) that was making me feel so bad. That worked out real well for the consoling beast. When I returned to AA (still had that belief system in my head), I looked around and saw a room full of victims. Victims of what? Our own choices. Our own immorality.

    They called this a disease. I gave into the relapse myth and spent several years on that merry-go-round of a couple days sober, several days not. Why not? I liked the way booze made me feel. Although, I didn’t like it so much the next day.

    Now, the second insight is this: I hate being a victim of anything or anyone. I do not believe anyone can be a victim unless he or she is a dead one. It’s not what happens to me, but how I deal with it that determines if I’ll be a victim. I knew what I was doing was wrong, wrong, wrong. Then, I began to understand I was a victim of my stealth decision to go on ahead, buy a bottle. In or out of AA, I was still a victim.
    Oddly, I felt so calm and happy when I realized I was going to go on ahead and buy a bottle. The only way I could quit being a victim was just to quit drinking! I did not trust myself though and struggled with fear of “relapsing” and doubt in my resolve. I found RR on the internet, bought the book and I am now the only statistic I’m interested in. That AV beast can bugger off and die. I’m not its victim any more. I’ll never drink again or darken the doors of any AA group or one of its bastard offspring recovery groups.

    The issue of global warming dovetails beautifully with Jack’s observations about our American society’s passivity, much influenced by the religion of AA. We are being asked to believe in something in totality with consequences we cannot predict, like government control of our every move and purchase. I was young, immature and “open-minded” when I walked into that very first ACOA meeting. I regret a lot, but not ever enough today or any day to pick up and use again. Carry on! Ann

    Ann,

    You are a living example of recovery group disorder and independent recovery through your own native beliefs and original family values. You have also documented the anti-family nature of 12-step recoveryism, and the dismissive attitude of recovery groups toward their own flesh and blood. The disease concept of addiction is an attack on one’s biological origins, and the dysfunctional family doctrines make destruction of the family tree fairly complete. That simplifies the outrageous claim of recovery groups to be “your new family,” and of course, their condescension toward religious traditions is nothing more than raw fear of moral injunction, which you finally discovered is the only antidote for substance addiction. By taking responsibility for your personal conduct, you no longer must struggle to “be good” every day for fear that you’ll lie, cheat, and steal.

    Recoveryism is worse than racism because it uses implied markers rather than what can be seen. Take pride in your family and your ancestors, and never surrender to authorities who would suggest you are genetically defective in a way affects your honor, your freedom, and your identity.

    Jack Trimpey

  20. Anon.

    I suppose anybody can use their blog for whatever they want, but what does global warming have to do with RR anyway?

  21. Willy

    Tom C. (or is it ‘Tim C.’?)

    Don’t drink and post. ;)

  22. linda

    Jack Trimpey and his method of AVRT saved my life, and I regard him as a great hero. His views on the issue of global warming are irrelevant, although I find it astounding that someone with such amazing insight into the problem of substance addiction could be so naive regarding global warming.

    Linda,

    Congratulations on defeating your addiction! AVRT-based recovery restores you to your original, better self, as you were before slipping into the swampland of addictive pleasures. You can be proud that your original family values were not dysfunctional but the foundation of your adult identity.

    You have great certainty about global warming, while others aren’t so sure about politically-inspired weather forecasts. This article, however, is about how the global warming movement exactly mimics the way the disease concept of addiction has been carried forward by the recovery group movement, using bad science, suppression of dissent, political invective, and righteous certainty. I did acknowledge some problems that exist with human stewardship of the environment, but I simply find the political intrigue and sci-fi fantasy surrounding the green movement revolting. Likewise, although substance abuse is a serious social problem, I find the bad science and bad religion surrounding the recovery group movement revolting.
    Jack Trimpey

  23. Mike Olson

    I really can’t do anything but echo the statements of other posters. Meaning, I was shocked at your notions of Global warming & the basis for liberalism, but I see great insight and wisdom in your views of addiction/alcoholism. I have no desire to engage in an ad hominem attack, but realize that not only was I pushed away from AA based on their poor use of logic, inconsistencies and intentional obfuscation, but by Bill W’s own personal hypocrisies. Knowing how the “founder” of an organization thinks or where his ideas come from does provide insight. Rational Recovery is a sound set of ideas. Your opinion on liberal politics is just that, your own opinion. I think I come from about 135 degrees around the political compass from where you do.

    Mike,

    The central point of the global warming piece is that addictive disease is also an article of faith, promoted by politically-driven science, aimed at exploitation and control of the masses. Global warming is probably the greatest scam in human history, a plot to literally extinguish the flame of human freedom in a pretend end-of-the-world panic induced by the likes of Gore, Obama, using university based political science. Already, an entire generation of youth have been brainwashed into radical, anti-social, anti-family attitudes using sentimental images of sad-eyed creatures suffering from imaginary evils. Worse, the climate scam threatens the cradle of the free world, the United States of America.

    I maintain that the addictive disease scam is the greatest public health catastrophe in history, as measured by finances and body count, not to mention human suffering and depletion of the human spirit. I hope to see truth prevail over the recoveryism syndicates which cripple addicted people and burden their families with chronic addiction.

    The Harry_Read_Me.txt files only emphasize what has been obvious for years, which is that neo-liberal politics has coalesced into the same axis of evil which threatens the free world. Both scams are sociopathic juggernauts with no respect for truth, making science their whores. We saw the same misuse of science in the Third Reich and in the Soviet Union, where science and medicine were recruited to support tyranny of medical abuse in special hospitals and camps.

    I said “neo-” liberal, above, because liberalism has a noble history in the Enlightenment, and was a major influence in the founding of the USA. The liberalism of today has nothing to do with the liberalism of America. Young Americans have become hostile toward traditional, American values, family values, or any other source of public morality. AVRT is simply a working model of a working, moral conscience, returning one to his native beliefs and original family values, which are the foundation for political discourse.

    Jack Trimpey



© Copyright, 2018, Rational Recovery Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.