The people that belong to and/or support The Flat Earth Society are not absurd, nor are they stupid, simply because they have chosen to believe that the Earth is flat, not round. Members of the Flat Earth Society, to believe as they do, must ignore numerous facts that refute the most fundamental basis for their belief (e.g. time zones, the Prime Meridian and the International Date Line, airplane flights from Moscow, Russia to Seattle, Washington over the North Pole, etc.) The point is that there are many instances where people accept certain ideas as fact in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

Many Fundamentalist Christians believe that God made the world approximately 4000 years ago putting Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Before that time, they contend, there was nothing except God, Himself. In support of their beliefs, they argue that the dinosaurs are mythical creatures that never actually existed. They contend that the skeletons of these creatures which have been found on all seven continents are a world-wide hoax created by the "evil-one" to lure people away from God’s truth in the Book of Genesis. 

In the extreme (and in some not so extreme) these belief systems that fly in the face of common sense and scientific evidence are horribly destructive. Consider the belief system of Heaven's Gate.  When the Hale-Bop Comet came close to the earth most of the members of Heaven's Gate, 39 out of 41, committed suicide. I, of course, cannot know for sure whether or not the souls of the members got picked up by the comet. But what I am sure of is this: the members of Heaven's Gate must have believed that their souls would be picked up by the extraterrestrials who, according to the beliefs of Heaven's Gate, were accompanying the Hale-Bop comet. 

As for AA’s assertion that it is not allied with any denomination, the fact remains that it is a fundamentalist Christian organization according to Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith, the alleged founders of Alcoholics Anonymous. Specifically, Alcoholics Anonymous is not based on Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism. As for its claim of no political affiliation, both Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith were employees of the National Council on Alcoholism. This government subsidized organization was founded on its political agenda to promote the disease theory. And finally AA’s claim that it is not allied with any organization or institution, such a claim would have to ignore years of documented history in order for it to be true. In its earliest days one could not tell where AA left off and Works Publishing, Inc. began. Today AA has members in key positions in Federal and State governments to continue to promote itself. Point of fact, Alcoholics Anonymous is allied with a sect, a denomination, politics, organizations and institutions (and always has been.)

Furthermore and although AA claims that it “does not wish to engage in any controversy,” its actions in this regard speak much louder than its words. Alcoholics Anonymous has a long history of being involved in, and in many instances, being the instigator of major controversies. For example and despite what AA says and what you may have read or heard about Alcoholics Anonymous,  Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. (AAWS) is perpetually involved in controversies such as litigious matters; the truth is AA has a long history of litigious controversy.

Since 1985, AAWS has been actively involved in court cases as plaintiff against companies and individuals who AAWS perceive as violating certain intellectual property rights claimed by AAWS (copyright/trademark.)

Despite AA Tradition warning against owning property and having money matters diverting AA from its primary purpose, AAWS does own property and spends hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees in order to keep this property and punish those who wish to differ from the "official party line."

The current case in Germany involves an individual AA member and an AA Group that has taken it upon themselves to print and distribute at no charge, books containing the first 164 pages of the AA book. These translations are in several different languages including English, Spanish, Swedish, Russian and German. These translations are in fact; virtually identical to the original version printed in 1939. (http://alcoholism.about.com/library/blmitch20.htm) The 1939 version of the book entitled Alcoholics Anonymous was not copyrighted by AAWS. AAWS could not copyright the first version of the book because it was initially published by Works Publishing, Inc. and was fraudulently copyrighted by Bill Wilson, personally.

That, of course, is just the tip of the iceberg. There are 66,700 separate websites discussing the litigious controversies of Alcoholics Anonymous.

While AA may appear to “neither endorses nor opposes any causes,” as a practical matter and throughout its history AA has been very much an activist organization with respect to promoting its agenda and the agenda of its members. Notably, the "recovery" community's adoption of the disease concept began with an early AA member named Marty Mann. Her efforts, combined with a somewhat dubious scientist named E.M. Jellinek, began national acceptance of the disease concept. It was Jellinek's "scientific" study that opened the door for the medical community’s support. E.M. Jellinek's study was funded by the efforts of Marty Mann and R. Brinkley Smithers. And, like so many other circumstances involving Jellinek and Marty Mann, the study was bogus, if not outright fraudulent.

The surveys Jellinek based his conclusions on were from hand picked members of Alcoholics Anonymous. The data for the research was collected by AA's Grapevine. "In 1942, Grapevine periodical published a survey to examine the stages in drinking history of alcoholics. The survey, published on the first page of the magazine was sent only to members of Alcoholics Anonymous. At the time of the survey's publication, Grapevine was circulating approximately 1600 copies [and a few years later became the official periodical of AA.]  The analysis of the Grapevine survey was compiled and analyzed by Dr. E.M. Jellinek, Sc.D. at Yale University's Section of Studies on Alcohol under the umbrella of the School of Physiology, and published in the Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol." (Christine Malino, Doctoral Candidate, Yale University, Research Paper funded by Baldwin Research Institute, Inc.)  

There were 158 (less than 10%) questionnaires returned, 60 of which mysteriously disappeared and were not included in the study. Jellinek’s conclusion was based on less than 100 hand picked alcoholics chosen by Marty Mann. The fact that both Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith (the alleged founders of AA) were employees of Marty Mann’s National Council on Alcoholism in its earliest days not only provided AA’s endorsement to the controversial “disease theory,” but clearly was an alliance with a highly political organization.
Further, AA’s affirmation that “Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety” is AA’s public shield to conceal it real purpose. As it is with all cults, AA primary purpose is its own survival. For those who have carefully studied AA’s history and activities, it doesn’t really matter much how they disguise their cult building activities, “a rose by any other name…”  “To stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety” the AA way is to sell the AA program to others thereby increasing meeting attendance and ultimately increasing the size and strength of the cult.  There is an entire chapter in the book entitled Alcoholics Anonymous describing exactly how to recruit others into the cult.

Does Alcoholics Anonymous Work?

In its opening sentence of its preamble Alcoholics Anonymous’ claims that it “is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.” While this may be a good marketing strategy does it really help people?  How effective is “sharing experience, strength and hope” in helping someone else and if it really is effective, where is the empirical data that proves the method? First, can sharing anecdotal information with someone else with similar problems be helpful?  Please keep in mind that the entire program of Alcoholics Anonymous is based on anecdotal data, while the Jude Thaddeus Home Program is based entirely on 20 years of research.  With that in mind consider the following:

While anecdotal accounts of individuals’ successes and failures make for interesting reading, such reports can actually provide those attempting to change their lives with excuses for failure. These excuses come into play by way of a whole variety of thought processes (albeit unsound), however all the excuses emanate from a common source: comparisons. Stories about other substance abusers, unintentionally but inevitably, challenge the still using drug abuser to rationalize why he or she is not like the person in the story. Thus, if the Jude Thaddeus Home Program did rely on anecdotal reports, the substance abuser could firmly put in place the argument that the Jude Thaddeus Home Program may have worked for the person in the story, but I (the still using substance abuser) am different so there is no reason to believe that the program would work for me. 

These rationalizations abound: I’m older; I’m younger. I’m male; I’m female. I’m white; I’m black. I’m from the city; I live in the country. I’m Irish; I’m German; I’m Russian; I’m Japanese; I drank a quart a day; I drink a pint a day; I drank at home; I am a bar drinker. I am a periodic; I drink daily. I’m a plumber; I am an engineer; I am a physician, I’m a truck driver. I am rich; I am poor. I had a good childhood; I had a horrible childhood, and so on, and so on. As you can imagine the number of permutations approaches infinity. Alternatively, substance abusers that are still using readily accept general information so long as the information is not personalized. This, then, is the methodology used in the Jude Thaddeus Home Program. The participant is presented with certain facts which allow him (her) to discover for themselves the nature and extent of their problem(s). The process of discovery is non-comparing and non-confronting. 

In addition to the comparison problem, there exists a body of knowledge that definitively demonstrates the lack of success of anecdotal accounts as a method of helping substance abusers eliminate their substance abuse problem. Alcoholics Anonymous, for example, is a program based on its members’ personal stories. The book entitled Alcoholics Anonymous is, on the whole, a regurgitation of AA members’ stories. Actually, personal stories, autobiographical anecdotes, comprise 71% of the book. Twenty-nine percent of the book is claimed to provide a description of the “program of recovery.” However, 54 of the 164 pages that claim to be the description of the program are, in fact, anecdotes (personal stories) to convince the reader of the effectiveness of the program. To wit, 33% of the program description is actually an anecdotal sales effort to get the reader to buy into the program.  Thus and in aggregate, 80% of the book is anecdotal reports to convince the reader that the program works (or to sell books, which is not the same thing.) 

So, what then, are the results achieved by anecdotal accounts of successes and failures. For that answer we turn to Alcoholics Anonymous General Services Office (AA GSO.) In 1990, AA GSO, the governing organization overseeing all “autonomous” meetings, published an internal memo for the employees of its corporate 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 [meaning AA,] 81% of the new members had already dropped out. After three months, 90% have left, and a full 95% have disappeared inside one year!” (Kolenda, 2003, Golden Text Publishing Company)

Based on this information it is reasonable, if not compelling, to conclude that anecdotal information given to substance abusers for the purpose of helping them stop drinking and/or drugging is ineffective and most researchers have since concluded that it is actually harmful.

JTHP vs. AA

But at the core of this discussion, it seems that the question is why the Jude Thaddeus Home Program is a better choice. The answer is quite simple. The Jude Thaddeus Home Program is not based on the disease theory or any 12 step philosophies. In fact, the Jude Thaddeus Home Program rejects the disease theory and the 12 steps on the grounds that there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support such counterproductive ideas. Furthermore, the disease theory provides substance abusers with a culturally accepted excuse for not taking responsibility for their own choices. Moreover, the 12 steps indoctrinate those who accept its teachings into a life devoid of personal accountability. Hence, the Jude Thaddeus Home Program rejects the disease theory and the 12 step method as a useful process for substance abusers to stop their destructive drinking and/or drugging behavior. In this instance there is a plethora of rock solid evidence that the disease theory and the 12 step method fail 95% of the time (See previous chart) and create learned helplessness in those 5% who are considered “successful.” 

Consider that the fundamental tenets of conventional treatment and Alcoholics Anonymous (pg. 60, Alcoholics Anonymous): “…make clear three pertinent ideas: (a) that we were alcoholic and could not manage our own lives, (b) that probably no human power could have relieved our alcoholism, (c) that God could and would if He were sought.” The members of Alcoholics Anonymous and the professionals providing treatment services further reduce this propaganda for the abdication of personal responsibility to the following platitude: “I can’t; He can; I think I will let Him.” To wit, Alcoholics Anonymous and conventional treatment are based on individual powerlessness and abdication of all personal responsibility. 

In sharp contrast, the Jude Thaddeus Home Program restores individuals’ self-confidence and empowers them to take personal responsibility for their lives and their decisions. Thus, they are empowered to make new and different personal choices. The fact that their new behavior is of their own choosing provides personal resolve to continue their new life unencumbered by fear of failure or external forces. Alcoholics Anonymous and conventional treatment, contrary to popular belief, are not spiritually based; they are fear based. Over and over again the book Alcoholics Anonymous tells its reader that if the reader does not do exactly what the program of Alcoholics Anonymous (and conventional treatment) teaches then the reader is certain to die an ugly death or go insane. 

Again, in sharp contrast, over and over again the Jude Thaddeus Home Program text encourages the participant to look within themselves for strength and courage to change and to have faith in themselves and in their tomorrows. In short, Alcoholics Anonymous and conventional treatment programs are based on negative motivation and the Jude Thaddeus Home Program is based on positive motivation. So why is the Jude Thaddeus Home Program a better choice—because it is highly likely that the attendees will find some, many or all the answers for which they have been searching. 

The Jude Thaddeus Home Program is the result of 20 years of research.  First, there was Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. (BRI) and based on BRI’s research the Jude Thaddeus Home Program was developed. The sequence of conducting the research first and then developing and offering a program is truly unique in the industry. All other programs available here in the US began as a program first, and more often than not, were based on the disease theory and the 12 step model. The disease theory and 12-step model grew into an amalgamation of fundamentalist Christian beliefs and pop-psychology known as the Minnesota Model. Subsequently, self-justifying research was conducted in an effort to justify these programs. 

Minnesota Model

Certainly, the Minnesota Model was a program first followed by self-justifying research. The Minnesota Model became the industry standard in 1949, but quite without efficacy studies until the mid 1980’s. For more than 30 years the Minnesota Model did not know whether or not the program actually helped anyone. For the last 20 years the Minnesota Model claims it “has been monitoring treatment outcomes (how patients are doing after treatment) and our [meaning the Minnesota Model] data shows success.” They report that “on average, 54% of our patients maintain an alcohol- and drug-free lifestyle during the entire year after treatment. An additional 35% significantly reduce their use. Between 70 - 80% report substantial improvements in the quality of their lives, with positive changes in relationships with family and friends, job performance, and the ability to handle problems….”

The Minnesota Model success rate looks mighty familiar. Early AA statistics are reported in the book entitled Alcoholics Anonymous. In that book Page XV is the beginning of the forward to the second edition. This foreword begins with the following notation: “Figures given in this foreword describe the Fellowship as it was in 1955.” On page XX in the same forward it states, “Of alcoholics who came to A.A. and really tried, 50% got sober at once and remained that way; 25% sobered up after some relapses, and among the remainder, those who stayed on with A.A. showed improvement…”  Practically speaking the success rate statistics quoted today by the Minnesota Model are statistically about the same as the statistics reported in 1955 by Alcoholics Anonymous.

There are, of course, some fundamental flaws in both sets of statistics which are either, intentional or unintentional, but in either case mislead the reader. Alcoholics Anonymous reports: “Of alcoholics who came to A.A. and really tried, 50% got sober at once.” Significantly, Alcoholics Anonymous did not report “Of alcoholics who came to AA, 50% got sober at once.”  What Alcoholics Anonymous reported on was a subset of those who came to AA. Specifically, Alcoholics Anonymous reported only on those “who came…and really tried.” Alcoholics Anonymous failed to tell the reader what criteria was used to determined those “who really tried” as opposed to “those who did not really try.” 

Next Alcoholics Anonymous asserts that “…25% sobered up after some relapses….”  Again the reader is left without a definition for the phrase “some relapses.” Alcoholics Anonymous does not describe what is considered a relapse. The term “relapse” seems harmless enough, but what if a member relapses once a week or every few days? And, what if this behavior extends over a period of 25 years or more?1 Often the relapser is between the ages of 40 to 60 years old when he (she) decides to stop drinking (and/or drugging.) Can Alcoholics Anonymous rightly take credit for an individual’s triumph over substance abuse, when for 25 years Alcoholics Anonymous did not substantially affect the individual’s drinking (and/or drugging) behavior.

In more recent years studies have concluded that as a function of age, the probability increases for substance abusers to spontaneously stop their substance abuse, with or without the help of a program. That is to say, as substance abusers get older they are more likely to stop using alcohol and/or other drugs on their own. And finally, Alcoholics Anonymous does not identify the specifics with respect to its claim that “among the remainder, those who stayed on with A.A. showed improvement…” The question, then, is: what constituted “improvement.” Did they have better jobs? Did they manage their relationships better? Did they make more money and pay their bills on time? Did they enjoy better physical or mental health? Did they get into less trouble? Did they control their tempers better? Or was it perhaps all of these? Or, perhaps, it was none of these—perhaps it was determined that they showed improvement by the mere fact that they continued to show up at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Whatever the case, the real deception is not of an analytical nature. The real deception is:

Alcoholics Anonymous’ claimed success rate gives the reader the elusion that Alcoholic Anonymous has accounted for 100% of the population studied. This success would certainly be great news, if it were not so flagrantly fraudulent. Remember that Alcoholics Anonymous is actually reporting only on those “who came…and really tried.” While we can not know exactly what the criteria was to distinguish between those who “really tried” and those who did not, it is reasonable to assume that those who came to Alcoholics Anonymous and who left shortly thereafter would probably have been counted among those who did not “really” try. Working with that assumption, based on Alcoholics Anonymous General Service Office graph that showed that within one year, of those who came to Alcoholics Anonymous during that year, 95% left Alcoholics Anonymous before the end of that same year. Thus, it would appear that those “who really tried” consists of 5% of the total within any given year. Therefore the actual analysis is:

There can be no doubt that the authors of the book Alcoholics Anonymous intended to mislead the reader by making their statistics sound like a 75% to 100% success rate. In a study conducted in 2006, we told 41 Baldwin Research Institute, Inc.’s employees in groups of 3 and 4 per group that they were required to study the book Alcoholics Anonymous. After reading the paragraph in the forward of the second edition that gives the aforementioned statistics we ask each student what they understood the success rate of Alcoholics Anonymous to be. Of the 41 polled 35 thought the success rate, according to what they had just read, to be 75%. The other 6 had concluded that they had no idea because there was no way of knowing how big the population was that apparently did not really try. Of the 41 subjects polled, all but 1 were good readers with good to excellent comprehension. Slightly over 30% had college degrees and approximately 10% had advanced degrees. Yet more than 85% of the employees that read the paragraph accepted the statistical misinformation as fact. Accordingly there exists only two possibilities: (1) The authors of the paragraph did not know what they had done and were exceedingly “lucky” that what they had written was misunderstood to their benefit, or (2) The authors knew exactly what they were doing and intended to deceive the reader into believing that the program of Alcoholics Anonymous is 20 times more effective than it actually is.

After studying the book and the clandestine society of Alcoholics Anonymous for more than 25 years, it is clear that the AA authors intentionally deceived their readers. This conclusion is based on the fact that deceptions such as this one are repeated over and over again throughout the book. The point being that once might be a fluke; the same technique used a couple dozen times is deliberate.  Moreover, it is dishonest.

This, then, brings us to the word manipulation used in the reporting of the Minnesota Model’s statistics. The Minnesota Model’s first claim is that it: “has been monitoring treatment outcomes (how patients are doing after treatment) and our [meaning the Minnesota Model] data shows success.  On average, 54% of our patients maintain an alcohol- and drug-free lifestyle during the entire year after treatment.” Parsing this statement to determine its meaning leaves the reader with several possible understandings. Consider the entire statement is qualified with the introductory phrase “On average ….” Fundamentally, there is nothing sinister about reporting statistical averages. But if averaging is used, it is incumbent on the author(s) to tell the reader what data made up the average. For example, suppose the average has been calculated with two widely divergent data, say 78 patients in one year and 30 in another year and based on a total of 100 patients each of the two years. This would, of course, yield a 54% average for the two years.  However, averaging data that falls at opposite ends of the spectrum exceeds acceptable statistical norms. Thus, reporting data qualified by “On average …” is essentially meaningless without the details of what the average is based upon. Furthermore, averaging numerous points that produce a wide first standard deviation is, of course, arithmetically possible; however such an average is of questionable value or perhaps of no value at all.

Next the Minnesota Model claims that “our [meaning the Minnesota Model’s] patients maintain an alcohol- and drug-free lifestyle…” In this case it is more important to observe what was not said.  The Minnesota Model did not report that “patients maintained abstinence!” Hence, it is up to the reader to determine what is meant by “an alcohol- and drug-free lifestyle.” Could “an alcohol- and drug-free lifestyle” mean abstinence? Certainly, but “abstinence” and “an alcohol- and drug-free lifestyle” are not necessarily synonymous. Consequently, the ambiguity of “an alcohol- and drug-free lifestyle” also allows for the possibility that abstinence was not maintained, but merely a “style” of life consistent with living alcohol- and drug-free. The choice of words, “an alcohol- and drug-free lifestyle,” used by the Minnesota Model certainly raises question as to what the Minnesota Model was measuring. It is reasonable to guess that the Minnesota Model did not have abstinence as a measure for their “successful” 54% group because the Minnesota Model did not report that the 54% achieved a year of abstinence. 

Furthermore, the Minnesota Model’s numbers do not add up. The Minnesota Model reports that “On average, 54% of our patients maintain an alcohol- and drug-free lifestyle during the entire year after treatment. An additional 35% significantly reduce their use.” That produces an 89% rate of improvement. In the very next sentence the Minnesota Model reports that “Between 70 - 80% report substantial improvements in the quality of their lives, with positive changes in relationships with family and friends, job performance, and the ability to handle problems…”  the Minnesota Model’s analysis indicates that 9% to 19% of their patients who “maintain an alcohol- and drug-free lifestyle…” and who “significantly reduce their use…” did not “report substantial improvements in the quality of their lives…” Apparently and inexplicably, 9% to 19% of those who allegedly either stopped using or moderated their use did not think that their lives had “substantially” improved according to the Minnesota Model’s report. More puzzling still is the Minnesota Model’s claim that “The Twelve Steps [meaning the 12 steps of the Alcoholics Anonymous] are a foundation and guideline for living and are fully integrated into the [meaning the Minnesota Model’s] treatment process and care plan.” It is difficult to understand how “the twelve steps” of the Alcoholics Anonymous program, which historically has produced less than a 5% success rate, can be “a foundation…” for the Minnesota Model’s “treatment process and care plan,” which according to the Minnesota Model produces on average a 54% success rate. It is impossible, then, to reconcile a 10 times differential between the two programs, Alcoholics Anonymous and the Minnesota Model, which according to the Minnesota Model are both founded on the same 12 step process. 

Yet another conundrum presented in the Minnesota Model’s claimed 54% success rate is the Minnesota Model’s assertion that “… mutual self-help groups provide wonderful fellowship and help people hold a steady course after treatment, particularly by building connections within their home communities. Recovery from addiction is a life-long journey and treatment is only the first step. Working the Twelve Step program and attending meetings is proven to help people maintain abstinence and grow within their recovery.” But, before taking an in-depth look at the claimed success rate, it would be negligent not to point out that all four of the Minnesota Model’s assertions (i.e. (1) “mutual self-help groups provide wonderful fellowship… ,” (2) “[mutual self-help groups] help people hold a steady course after treatment… , (3) “Recovery from addiction is a life-long journey… ,” and (4) “Working the Twelve Step program and attending meetings is proven to help people maintain abstinence…”) are simply not true. If mutual self-help groups did provide “wonderful fellowship,” how is it that 95% who attend this “wonderful fellowship” leave within the first year? And, how do mutual self-help groups “help people hold a steady course after treatment” when 95% leave within the first year? As for the Minnesota Model’s assertion that “Recovery from addiction is a life-long journey…,” there has never been, nor is there now, a credible study supporting such an absolutely absurd idea. And finally, the Minnesota Model’s assertion that “Working the Twelve Step program and attending meetings is proven to help people maintain abstinence…” is simply not true. In fact, just the opposite has been proven: Working the twelve step program and attending meetings is proven to be detrimental to those trying to achieve abstinence. The studies with respect to the detrimental affects of 12 step programs and attendance at 12 step meetings are conclusive.

Now then, directing our attention to the Minnesota Model’s claimed 54% success rate, how could the Minnesota Model possibly achieve a 54% success rate one year post treatment when the Minnesota Model’s aftercare program, Alcoholics Anonymous, proffers no better than a 5% success rate. This inconsistency begs the question, which one is lying: Alcoholics Anonymous claiming a 5% success rate or the Minnesota Model claiming a 54% success rate? As for the Minnesota Model’s claimed 54% success rate, there are, however, factors that may skew the data in the Minnesota Model’s favor. How are the subjects selected for the study and how often are the studies done: once a year, a couple times a year or once a month? Are the subjects randomly or pseudo-randomly selected or is 100% of the population included in the study. What is the size of the population studied? How is the year constructed? Is there a group that all leave treatment on the same day and then are contacted one year from that day? Or perhaps there is individual follow-up for all patients one year after discharge. Either way it is significant whether or not the Minnesota Model relies on self-reporting or third party reporting. It is a well established fact that self-reporting is unreliable. Also significant is how the Minnesota Model collects its data. If data is collected by mail-in questionnaires, this is known to produce corrupt data. Also there are several factors that skew data toward a positive outcome two of which are: First, patients who maintain sobriety after discharge are several times more likely to fill out and return a questionnaire than those who failed. Second, validity of the data is challenged by a variety of outside and unrelated pressures. For example, if the subject is on probation or parole, the subject must report abstinence without regard for who is asking because to admit in writing or in a telephone conversation to using is a violation of probation and parole. The point is that the Minnesota Model’s claimed 54% success rate is presented devoid of the information needed to assess the validity of its claim.  Moreover, the Minnesota Model is not without bias with respect to its claimed success rate. And, keep in mind that according to the Minnesota Model, it did not do any research with respect to its program during the first 37 years of operation. To wit, the Minnesota Model was not founded to conduct independent research.

Unlike the Minnesota Model and other 12 step based program websites, on our website we provide all the details of our two most recent studies. Our most recent information indicates that we are the only organization in the industry that discloses our entire study, methodology and statistical accuracy. Two things of note: (1) both studies were conducted by nationally known, independent and credentialed research organizations, organizations that had no pre-existing relationship with Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. or any of its Directors, Officers or employees, and (2) the information that has been entered onto the website is exactly the information that was delivered to us by the independent research firms. It is uncensored, without edits and without commentary.  To find these studies go to SUCCESS RATE. Click on “Success Rate” and you will find the unedited research reports in their entirety. 

The Minnesota Model’s research is reported here for no other reason than it is the model that is used in approximately 95% of the conventional treatment programs in the US. Further, it is recognized that those involved in the design of and the proliferation of the Minnesota Model have at least made an effort, regardless of their ineffectiveness. However, if one of these programs provided data that could withstand the same scrutiny imposed on the Jude Thaddeus Home Program, Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. would be the very first to applaud the honesty and praise the success.■ 

1Author’s note: Although this chronic relapse pattern over a 20 to 30 year period and all the while going in and out of Alcoholics Anonymous may appear to the casual observer as an anomaly, such behavior is actually commonplace among members of Alcoholics Anonymous.