Alcoholics Anonymous, who strangely claims to have no official position on the disease theory of addiction, has been instrumental in promoting the theory that alcoholics have an allergy to alcohol which makes them drink. Since their “Big Book” was first published it contained a section titled “The Doctor’s Opinion” in which Dr. William Silkworth M.D. introduces this theory. It has been expanded upon and widely promoted over the years and much effort has been put into proving it scientifically to no avail. The theory now says that alcoholics have an allergic reaction to alcohol in which their body creates toxins which decrease inhibition and cause irresistible cravings for alcohol. This theory is the basis for the claim that moderation is impossible, and it has been applied to drugs other than alcohol as well. But as you’ll see, it falls apart when psychological studies show that alcoholics who supposedly have this allergy which leads to loss of control over drinking don’t lose control of their drinking when they don’t know they’re drinking alcohol!
In 1973 Alan Marlatt of the University of Washington’s Addictive Behaviors Research Center asked an important question.(XIX) He wondered if expectancy is a more influential factor in excessive drinking than the actual physical properties of alcohol. His team formulated an experiment in which both alcoholics and social drinkers were subjected to four different conditions. One group was told they’d be drinking alcohol and indeed were given alcohol. The next group was told they’d be drinking nonalcoholic beverages and that’s exactly what they were given. Another group was told they’d be drinking alcohol but were instead given nonalcoholic drinks. And the final group was told they’d be drinking nonalcoholic beverages but were given alcohol. Important to the study was the fact that the alcoholic drinks the researchers gave out were a mixture of vodka and tonic in which the alcohol was undetectable by taste. Here’s what Marlatt wrote summing up his study:
“The results showed that for both alcoholics and social drinkers, subjects who expected to sample a drink containing alcohol drank almost twice as much beverage as those who expected to receive only tonic, regardless of the actual presence or absence of vodka in the drink. The findings provided a challenge to the disease model theory of loss of control.”
If alcoholics really had the allergy to alcohol that disease proponents claim then it wouldn’t matter what they thought that they were drinking, they would drink uncontrollably once they had alcohol in their system- but they didn’t. This study shows that people don’t drink more because they’re under the control of alcohol, they drink more because they’re expecting the intoxicating effects of alcohol, therefore the allergy model of addiction is null and void. People drink more because they consciously want the effect of alcohol, not because some biological mechanism or supposed allergy is forcing them to do so.
This allergy model of addiction is yet another blatant abuse and bastardization of a medical term by the treatment and recovery world. An allergy is hypersensitivity to a specific substance such as pollen or a particular food, and one could quite possibly have an allergic reaction to alcohol, but the results would be far different than they’re portrayed within the recovery movement. According to the authorities on alcoholism, alcoholics have an allergy to alcohol which causes them to keep drinking uncontrollably after they’ve had one drink. This is apparently the only allergy that has purely behavioral symptoms, but unfortunately there is no reliable body of evidence to support these claims. An allergic reaction is an automatic physiological reaction, common allergic reactions include difficulty breathing, irritation of the eyes, swelling, skin rashes, et-cetera – all involuntary physiological responses. There are however documented cases of people who have severe anaphylaxis after consuming alcohol. The symptoms of this very real all encompassing allergic reaction include nausea, vomiting, headaches, cramps, sneezing, coughing, diarrhea, swelling, itching, breathing difficulties, a drop in blood pressure, and possibly fatal shock. If you had this reaction you might decide to get yourself to the emergency room pretty quickly, you probably wouldn’t choose to drink more alcohol. Allergies elicit automatic physiological responses, not behavioral ones.
If someone presents you with the allergy theory of addiction then you should ask them for scientific evidence of this theory, they will have none, because there is none. But they may spout out some random results from unreliable studies, or they’ll throw around some impressive medical jargon which is often the case with proponents of the disease theory. They may talk about neurotransmitters, THIQ’s, Alcohol Dehydrogenase, or other biological elements involved in the processing of alcohol, but all of this is meaningless when faced with the truths evidenced by studies such as Alan Marlatt’s (listed above). The facts are that people drink because they desire the effects of alcohol, not because a taste or whiff of alcohol sent their body into some auto-pilot mode in which they have no control over their behavior.
Citation:
G. Alan Marlatt, Current Contents. Number 18, May 16, 1985 P18. The study was originally published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 81:233-41.1973.
There’s Much More Evidence (added 9/11/2013)
To those of you who have thought or commented that “this is only one experiment”, I offer you a review of 9 similar priming dose experiments. Again and again, it has been shown that alcohol does not trigger an automatic response of “uncontrolled” drinking. See this page for more info and full citations: Do Alcoholics Lose Control? The Results of Priming Dose Experiments Say NO
I disagree. Alcohol does not make an alcoholics body react differently. What it does do is intoxicate you, just like everyone else. The difference lies where a self controlled person does not allow pure selfishness to interfere with their decision making. Alcohol is not making your choices. It does not take your choices away. You are in complete control of your life at all times. You selfishly choose to continue drinking rather than face your problems. You drink to feel good. You are selfish and not caring about anyone else’s pain. It is not an allergy. It is not a disease. It called being a selfish a-hole. I smoked crack for 15 years. One day I put the pipe down, decided I didnt want to hurt people anymore. Made a decision to fix my problems no matter how hard it would be. Ive never picked up crack again. Im an atheist. God didnt do it for me. I decided not to be selfish anymore. Its that simple. AA & NA are crutches allowing people to lean on a group of peers who convince them that its not their fault. They have an allergy or a disease. That they cant fix it alone. They need gods help. That is bs. People need to take responsibility for their actions, man up, & quit being selfish. Take back your power & control your own life!!
Jeebus. Really? I’ve been in the program for years, and this is mumbo jumbo. I am allergic to shellfish – I don’t crave it and I won’t eat it. Why would I crave another substance I’m “allergic to”? Addiction is not an allergy- it is something that is triggered in our brains. Let’s move beyond the allergy crap, please.
BT,
Having been in the program for years, you must therefore know that the “craving” is exactly the allergic reaction. In the book, “craving” is meant to refer to the reaction once we take the first drink, not the mental obsession that makes us drink in the first place. The definition of an allergy is merely an “abnormal reaction.” Where the normal drinker has a negative physical reaction to the poison- alcohol, the abnormal drinker wants more of the poison. That is exactly the “abnormal reaction” (i.e., the allergy).
I will grant you this. I will stop using the allergy metaphor personally, because it is easy for someone to get confused about the term itself. We think of sneezing, coughing, vomiting, and similar physical reactions. I definitely see where we can confuse the newcomer if we are not careful to explain what Dr. Silkworth meant by “allergy”.
The term allergy was applied in the days when little was known about addiction, the book itself cannot be remotely thought of as any kind of treatment for drink dependency, it is only a guide to finding the God of the scriptures..
I once listened for 20 minutes in a step meeting to someone completely distort the definition of allergy to fit the Big Books definition… my reply at the end of his share was…” if you give alcohol to someone who is addicted to it and they carry on drinking eventually losing control – then that would be the perfectly normal reaction of an addict….. what the heck is abnormal about that?” Most of these people who sit in meetings every day are co-dependent on the religious ideology of letting God run the show for them, they sit year after year in the same seats labelling themselves negatively as alcoholics even though they have not had a drink for years and are conditioned (brainwashed is a better word) to believe every word from a book that has consistently been branded as expressly religious by supreme US law courts… AA groups are helpful in early recovery because of the support element, but any kind of long term exposure can and often does extend addiction into different areas – i lost count of the amount of born again christians trying to sell me God at the end of meetings…. For a group that purports to help people in addiction, going to any lengths is again a distortion of logic when only the big book is authorised for use and every other pioneering treatment for alcoholism during the past 85 years is discarded as irrelant….. If God indeed can heal by surrendering to his will then why on earth is it not the first thing any normal rational doctor would prescribe for any disease or mental disorder?
The personal decision to stop can happen in absolutely any treatment paradigm – but if it happens in AA people are conditioned to believe it is the power of God intervening and they must carry on spreading the ideology for the rest of their days……………… there is nothing remotely spiritual about a group that requires submission to the judeo christian God – religion is the domain of church, treatment for addiction comes from professional people qualified in that field.
It must never be forgotten that the purpose of Alcoholics Anonymous is to sober up Alcoholics. There is no religious or spiritual requirement for membership. No demands or made on anyone. An experience is offered which members may accept or reject. That is up to them.
The foundation of AA is the twelve steps. The purpose of “working the steps” in AA, according to Bill W., is to have a “spiritual awakening” as stated in the 12th step. It isn’t to stay sober although sobriety is supposed to be a bi-product of “working the steps” and the “spiritual awakening.” However, membership is determined by a “desire to stop drinking” which you find in the 3rd tradition. AA has been classified as a religion by the U.S. judiciary.
Mr. Mike:
I suggest you do some research. Bill W. believed that it took a spiritual awakening, or a spiritual “experience” in the 1st printing of the First Edition, to get sober, but I can see how you might think otherwise. That is why he took part in the research on LSD, he thought it might help alcoholics attain that spiritual awakening and consequently get sober. For example, see “LSD could help alcoholics stop drinking, AA founder believed” and others.
And you and many others misinterpret Tradition Three. The short form is misleading, but I am sure Bill W. never envisioned that it had to be stated explicitly that AA is for alcoholics and the Fifth Tradition’s “singleness of purpose’ found in the long form says it is for alcoholics only. Bill, as he did elsewhere, softened the short form to make it more palatable to newcomers and potential AA members. The reason given is that it is a matter of “inclusion” not “exclusion.” But, the long form of Tradition Three from which the short form was condensed from definitively says that AA is for alcoholics.
Frankly it hurts AA that AA members focus only on the less informative or authoritative short form and that other 12-step programs have only adopted the short form of the Traditions.
You can say that the 12 steps are the foundation of AA. But, more importantly, it is the fact that an alcoholic can best identify with another, the reason Bill and Bob got together, that makes AA work, hence the “singleness of purpose.” Perhaps it can better be likened to a keystone.
Finally, you are inaccurate. Only some of the U.S. District Court circuits have found that AA constitutes a religion for legal purposes as it has some characteristics that a recognized religion does, but not all the Circuits have so ruled nor has the U.S. Supreme Court.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify a few things.
I fail to understand what is so complicated and why sober alcoholics are so hard-headed despite the requirement that AAs need to be honest, open-minded, and willing (H.O.W.) in order to recover.
Alcoholics have no actual allergy, no bad reaction to alcohol. What is described is our increasing “tolerance” to alcohol and the necessity for an alcoholic to increase their alcohol consumption to achieve the same effect. Therefore, the concept of an “allergy” is a metaphor for tolerance, just like the idea that alcoholism is a “thinking” disease and nothing more. Which step(s) address our thinking, steps 2-12 address our emotional well-being? Step 1?
The 12&12 has an opposing metaphor: “(O)ur sponsors pointed out our increasing sensitivity to alcohol—an allergy, they called it.” Alcoholics would love it if over time we could drink less and get more drunk!! The fact that it doesn’t work in real life makes it a metaphor.
AAs frequently forget that Bill W. and Drs. Bob and Silkworth were intelligent and well educated men and that the Big Book’s target audience was similar former and present middle-class men, people Bill W. knew that AA could reach. Bill wrote to his target audience who understood metaphors and good writing which explains the big words and the use of synonyms, “a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same”, in order to not repeat the same words over and over again (e.g. character defects versus shortcomings).
Page 164 of the Big Book says: “We realize we know only a little. God will constantly disclose more to you and to us.” Bill demonstrates that AA’s collective knowledge will increase in the 12&12 where he talks about listing our “assets” with respect to steps 4 and 10.
When I came into AA 29 years ago, 1 of 2 raging debates were about alcoholism being genetic using the allergy theory as a basis. Medical science has not found this link and the success of the AA predicts it won’t. Just like Big Book page 39 predicts rehab alone would fail: “But the actual or potential alcoholic, with hardly an exception, will be absolutely unable to stop drinking on the basis of self-knowledge.”
AA is a program of personal responsibility. If alcoholism were genetic, then fixing the underlying emotional problems as AA does in steps 2-12 would not work; I could take a pill or undergo surgery or spinal alignment with my brain and be cured or at least remediated; instead I will be maligned. AA helps me align my essence to some sort of human normalcy.
So, ultimately, many alcoholics return to their old hard-headed behavior when alcohol no longer makes their lives unmanageable probably as a result of the fact that most are not the low-bottom drunks who were the founding members of AA not being willing to do whatever it takes and ignoring the warning that success means thoroughly following the founders’ path.
In AA they refer to it “as a power higher than yourself”. Never once has anyone ever tried to convert me to a specific religion in AA and I believe that is why the success rate is so high. Because people are free to bring their own beliefs to the table no matter what that is. Aa and my relationship with my personal higher power has kept me sober from drugs and alcohol for four years now so I really haven’t shared the same experience. I’m sorry you feel this way. No offense to your views or anything you believe just sharing my experience. 🙂
Right on👍
Thank you because the allergy in the big boook first chapter is confusing to me. But what I do identfy with is that alcohol is a symptom to the dis-ease. I do drink to numb feelings snnd have many times and also believe I have been a dry drunk for years my growth is very stunted because I don’t want to feel my feelings soooo yes alcohol has come into play.i have used alcohol at times when i have put anther person at risk of injury and so this is why I keep going to AA.
BT ~~Did you read any of this article disputing the allergy stance?
~~Alcoholism is a condition produced by the desire to feel better, to alleviate bad, anxious or depressed feelings about the self, others and life conditions or because of preexisting mental/emotional problems. It is not a disease that can be acquired through usual biological means. It can run in families but as yet not proven to be gene specific to alcohol addiction but to inherent predilection to various mental disorders with which it is frequently comorbid.
~~ That would make it fundamentally a choice, a drug of choice to regulate emotions. What other addiction comes with an ism? Nicotineism, opioidism? They are addictions. They are called addictions to mind-altering drugs and that is what alcohol abuse is too, an addiction. It is not, nor does it fit the criteria for a disease or an allergy. The alcoholic and his group are always looking for a way to place the cause of dependency on an addictive substance – outside of himself and onto a substance that he can claim to have had no defenses against. If he did have an exaggerated weakness to alcohol it is still an addiction and he would possibly use other drugs if they were legal and as easy to obtain. See where that is going and why and what is being legalized – something less detrimental to health than alcohol.
~~AA apparently has too much God in it and not enough personal empowerment. Making the alcoholic dependent on another person, group or organization just shifts the dependent personality onto another source of propping up. Die-hard addicts generally need professional counseling, meds and more not just another place to go discuss how they will probably relapse and that it is ok. That sounds like enabling as much as preventing. If AA works for you then you no doubt get most of the credit because you took what they had to offer and made it work for you through your own hard work and determination.
The fact is I had a massive problem with the God thing and even admitting my alcoholism, the last thing I wanted was to go to AA. However nothing else (and I tried a lot) worked. To clarify the God reference in AA and The big Book it is a God or Higher Power of your own understanding and not a Christian God made clear on p.12 ‘why don’t you choose your own conception of God?’ ….. ‘it was only a matter of being willing to believe in a power greater than myself’. This power could even be the recovered alcoholics in the AA meetings as they have a power greater than that of the active alcoholic. Alcoholism is a three fold disease; a mental obsession, physical allergy & spiritual malady. The 12 step program is a spiritual not religious program designed for a joyus happy & free living which may not be possible for the alcoholic who just quits drinking – ever heard the term ‘dry drunk’? Alcohol is the solution not the problem for alcoholic’s – take that away and we have problems that need a different solution and that is where fellowship & identification with other alcoholic’s can give the newcomer hope. More experienced members give back to the program what was so freely given to them. The experience of an alcoholic helping another alcoholic is without parellell. Treatment programs have a place for initial detox but it is not a lifelong fix not all of us can afford to go to these places or have other responsibilities at home. People share their experience strength & hope at AA meetings and are honest that relapse is a possibility if this simple program is not followed. This is a program of action the requirement to be a member of AA is a desire to stop drinking and the only ‘musts’ are honesty, open mindedness & willingness. Here people find a solution to a invisible disease that takes countless lives (often slowly & incredibly painfully) however it can be arrested on a daily basis. I don’t know what your personal experience of alcoholism is but it should be applauded that so many not only recover but go on to help others recover too.
Do you realize that you used repeatedly exact phrases that are written or spoken at the meetings. You have lost the ability to speak it in your own words. Your brain has been taken over by the fellowship and the program. The problem is that when members sit in the rooms long enough they only hear that and that becomes their truth. In years, they become hypocritical and judgemental to anything/anyone that offers any other kind of opinion especially on alcohol. The Big Book was written by a man who was only 4 1/2 years sober, that alone should make you question what you are wholeheartedly giving yourself up to. There truly is a lot of unhealthy in those rooms and I, after 15 years in the rooms, see the harm it does to people. People who are getting sicker by the minute and people telling them to go pray, open the Big Book, do another step, etc. Many say these things because they themselves have not received healing and/or the program is lacking and therefore they don’t have an answer for the individual member. AA is more harmful than people know and the success rate is terrible. Studies show that the success rate is around 5-8% that get sober but those numbers could be less because AA does not keep a reliable account of its members. For those people are still regurgitating the same old phrases, cliches, memorized words I beg you to open your mind and at least attend less meetings and get involved with something else that brings you joy.
To add to what Kate said on Feb. 4, 2018 in reference to AA as an abusive relationship.
Let’s say I’m in a relationship with someone. This person constantly tells me that I’m the problem, and that I always will be the problem. That my mind is incapable of rational thought, and that every decision I make must be reviewed by them. That I was nothing when we met, and that if I ever leave them, I will return to being nothing and will shortly die. They have me tell them everything I’ve ever done wrong, because it will free me from the past. Then when I disagree with something they say, they throw that same past up in my face to prove me wrong.
Not only would I call that an abusive relationship, but would say that the other person has some serious inferiority issues, that are manifested in the need to completely control the relationship. In a way, this is the same relationship people have with alcohol and drugs, and that’s why the program works so well with some people. They choose to give up control of their lives, either to another person, to addiction, to AA or to God.
That being said, if that is what they need to keep them sober, then maybe they should stick with it.
I can only choose my own path.
Kate you are SPOT ON! I couldn’t have said it better myself! I’ve had such an abusive relationship with AAers and the 12 steps for years until I realized they were abusing me and only causing more harm. I feel sad for those still stuck in the “program” who haven’t had that realization.
Hi, I’m coming to this late in the day. In my understanding, the Drs. Opinion was originally on page 1 and then in the second edition pushed to the forwards. I was told they did this so that AA could distance themselves from something that made sense in layman terms but couldn’t be scientifically proven. As fas as i am aware said theory was never expanded upon by Dr. Silkworth. In the book it says “Like an allergy” not “An allergy”, AA doesn’t say you have an allergy it offers a theory that is not its own. The theory that certain alcoholics (myself included) when drinking like amounts to the non-alcoholic, drink more than they need or intend to and this may be caused by a reaction that looks like an allergy and manifests as a physical craving for more alcohol. Now if that isn’t ones experience then its useless but if it is, then it might go to help the person understand there lack of control. The therapeutic benefit of the theory is that it allows the participant to offer themselves a little of forgiveness and self love as they were probably none the wiser as to why they couldn’t control their drinking once they started.
One other thing, in the basic text of AA it doesn’t say we have a disease. I will admit that pretty everyone has this cemented in their minds and they are in some ways a slave to that idea. the book says that all forms of spiritual disease stem from resentment and it doesn’t say that only alcoholics suffer from resentment. It talk about people including alcoholics being spiritually sick and that when this spiritual/psychological problem/malady is overcome/solved we straighten out mentally and physically. 12 step program for me enables a person to figure out who they are, where they went wrong in their thinking about their lives and how to correct that in the future through honest and positive thinking. Help for that may come from other individuals or from a relationship with something other than human (in form) which the basic text says is in you.
My hat’s off to you on getting over your crack abuse. Some people who abuse alcohol can put the plug in the jug. This alcoholic tried. My will, naltrexone, addictive voice recognition therapy, acupuncture… I tried may methods. None of it worked. AA worked. You can criticize AA all you want, but you cannot deny me my experience.
As far as the allergy model goes, it may not have stood the test of time in the science of alcohol addiction. Nevertheless it serves me well as analogy and metaphor. Similar to alcohol, I acquired a deadly allergy to aspirin as an adult after using aspirin with impunity as a child and young adult. The allergy metaphor served Dr. Silkworth pretty well, too. He treated tens of thousands of alcoholics; I think his experience can still serve sufferers today to help them understand what happened to them physically – how this substance which served them so well for so long one day became their master.
That’s why you’ll burn in hell for your selfish views about human beings who were created different than other people who can drink.
One drink and I know I’d lose control. You are just too ignorant to understand. Stop blaming and shaming what you can’t comprehend! God….is real!
Clearly with your ignorant comments and referances to “you” that you don’t suffer from the disease so shut the f up ok? God forbid yout ever encounter an addiction yourself or love someone who does. As an alcoholic I don’t see it as an allergy at all. It’s clearly for me a lack of knowing or ever been taught any sort of healthy normal coping methods. Not blaming. Because my parents taught me what they were taught. Just a realization and the more coping methods I learn the more choices I have when disappointments in life happen. Hope this changes your thoughts a bit.
Actually, Dr. Bob never said alcoholics are allergic to alcohol. If you read the book, which is obvious you didn’t, he says that alcoholics have an “allergic reaction” when they drink alcohol. In this case, alcohol is the allergen, and the obsession of the mind and excessive drinking are the allergic reactions. I know, it’s hard to wrap my head around this. But, there is some scientific data that suggests Dr. Bob was on to something. Studies have shown that the liver and pancreas don’t function correctly and don’t produce in sufficient quality, or quantity, enzymes that are required for the chemical decomposition ethanol. Maybe some of these “scientists” that try and debunk AA and/or the Big Book, should actually read it.
Yes, this is true at the time of publication of the Big Book Dr Bob asked that his letter be titled under ‘The Doctors Opinion’ and originally his name was not published either however this was added in later editions due to the overwhelming support of the medical profession and because his theory was PROVED;
It has been discovered that the metabolism of an alcoholic differs from that of a normal person. Ethanol alcohol is broken down in the body by the following process:
ETHANOL
enzymes convert the ethanol into
ACETALDEHYDE
enzymes convert acetaldehyde into
DIACETIC ACID
enzymes convert diacetic acid into
AN ACETATE
more enzymes convert the acetate into
WATER & CARBON DIOXIDE & SUGAR
The water is expelled from the body through the urinary tract, the carbon dioxide through the respiratory system and the sugar is burned up through physical exercise (or turned into fat).
If a person is not an alcoholic, they can normally successfully drink approximately one ounce of alcohol per hour without getting drunk. Not so with the alcoholic. The chemical decomposition of the ethanol through the alcoholic’s body follows the same process until it reaches the acetate compound and then the liver and pancreas fail to produce sufficient enzymes to complete the decomposition process. The acetate produces the craving that deprives the alcoholic of the ability to control the amount they drink. The craving exceeds the alcoholic’s will power to stop once they have commenced to drink.
Did anyone really read this book? The Doctor’s Opinion is about Dr. Silkworth, not Dr. Bob. This isn’t about a Christian God…and crack isn’t deadly to withdrawal from. So, all you geniuses out there need to do your research. For me, living a spiritual (not religious) life is the only way to have a happy life. Whether or not you are atheist or Catholic, if you are trying your best to live a good life and be good to other people, you are living a spiritual life. As for the allergy thing…who cares how you take the analogy. If you’re freed from drug and alcohol addiction…GOOD FOR FUCKING YOU! This is a life and death battle…so, why do we need to battle each other over words?
Well said!
The Doctor’s Opinion is Dr. Silkworth’s opinion – not Dr. Bobs. His allergy theory a just that – a theory. It was NOT embraced by the co-authors of Alcoholics Anonymous – though they did find it interesting. CRAVING was certainly acknowledged – but that it is attributable to an allergy was not. As in fact has proven not to be the case, all these years later. If it were an “allergy” we’d know. We have the technology. The phenomenon of craving is something else – much more akin to what happens when a diabetic consumes sugar. Alcohol is after all, like sugar, just a carbohydrate food product.
Some people’s brains react differently to alcohol than others. Those people do not have the ability to make good decisions while drinking and will inevitably drink too much after only one drink. They black out more easily and their cognitive functions are more deeply impaired. Telling someone like this they have a choice is dangerous. I am one of those people. I blacked out every time I drank. One beer was all it took to impair my brain. I never had withdrawal problems, like the shakes, or a compulsion to drink. But the social aspect kept me trying to make it work for a year or so. Thankfully God intervened in my life and I followed His promptings. He showed me what my life could be if I stopped and He showed me what it would be if I continued. I listened and never drank again. My life is beautiful now and I pray that anyone reading will follow God’s promptings in their own lives and listen to your own inner knowing. Science takes time to prove what already exist, but the latest research is starting to pinpoint what so many already know. The study below is one example.
“researchers studied 24 college students who routinely have two or three nights out with about five drinks per night, an amount considered binge drinking in science circles. They separated them into two groups: those who have a history of blackouts and those who don’t (though they were matched up in pairs based on their level of drinking experience), and scanned their brains while they were performing a memory task, either sober or after a few drinks.
When sober, these two groups showed very similar brain patterns. After even slight amounts of drinking, to the legal limit of 0.08, or two beers or glasses of wine (depending on your size), the researchers saw big differences in brain activity during the games.
For instance, those prone to blackouts showed decreased activity in parts of the brain responsible for turning experiences into memories and those involved with attention and cognitive functioning. ”
http://www.livescience.com/19094-alcohol-blackout-brain.html
hi Katie
The alcoholics I have known don’t eat, this alone could change the data sheet considerably. They don’t eat because it slows down the getting drunk factor, and it is by design. I believe these drinkers are trying to silence an obsessive inner dialogue, and they succeed when they pass out. I am proud of you even though you are a stranger lol, you saw a danger and you took it into your own hands and overcame it. Again, the alcoholics I have known rationalize abusing themselves by pointing the blame at everyone else. So there may be a difference in the metabolism of alcohol for some people, but there are also other factors at play to do with the mind, that we know very little about. I believe this is one of the things in life that is hard to explain and there is no quick fix for.
look at this
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/AA72/AA72.htm
The Big Book on page xxiv (The Doctor’s Opinion) says that an alcoholic has an “allergy to alcohol”. An
allergy is an abnormal reaction to any food, liquid or substance. If nine out of ten people have one reaction
and one out of ten people have a different reaction, then the reaction of the one out of ten crew is abnormal.
It also says on page xxvi that “the action of alcohol on an alcoholic is a manifestation of an allergy; that the
phenomenon of craving is LIMITED to this class and NEVER occurs in the average temperate drinker.” (A
phenomenon is something that you can see but can’t explain). “These allergic types can NEVER safely use
alcohol in ANY FORM AT ALL”. Then on page 22, “We know that while the alcoholic keeps away from
drink, as he may do for months or years, he reacts much like other men. We are equally positive that once
he takes ANY ALCOHOL WHATEVER into his system, something happens, both in the bodily and mental
sense, which makes it virtually impossible for him to stop.” This includes substances that contain alcohol
like mouthwash, cold remedies, some chocolates, food prepared with alcohol, etc.). Your body doesn’t know
if you are having a drink or taking Nyquil for a cold, it only senses alcohol and begins to process it. It also
says on page xxviii that, “all the different classifications of alcoholics have ONE symptom in common: they
CANNOT start drinking without developing the phenomenon of craving. This phenomenon may be the
manifestation of an allergy which differentiates these people, and sets them apart as a distinct entity.” Dr.
William D. Silkworth, M.D. who at that time had nine years experience specializing in the treatment of
alcoholics and drug addicts, wrote this in the late 1930’s. He called it a “phenomenon of craving” because at
that time there was no way to study metabolism. Since then, science has proven his theory as correct.
I would question the study’s alcoholics. How do they know the people they used were alcoholics? Since the only people who can diagnose alcoholism is the alcoholic themselves (nobody can tell me whether or not I have the cravings but me), I would question where they found their so called alcoholics
I have not drank for 25 years. I now admit with no doubt that I was never addicted to alcohol. Being a blackout drinker from age 10, having found a super way to deal with stuff I was totally clueless to by drinking alcohol ( Tried pot, acid, cocain, and never shot up, thank Bozo. ) I continued this lifestyle till age 36 and realized that alcohol saved me until it quit! Also, had the maturity of a 12 year old. OUCH! $# I f I even think I have a choice to drink, I am in big trouble for it is that deep inside rationalized kid barking and I have had enough of that. An alcoholic of my sort understands oh so well the effects of that first drink which has absolutely nothing to do with addiction but sure does line up to this allergy concept, also this idea is left up to the individual him or herself not those who choose not to participate in that particular 12 Step program that has now been diversified by other simular 12 Step concepts and the Treatment Industry. AA has no opinion on this, that is beautiful to say the least. Real alcoholics are not problem drinkers. Solve their problems, they stop drinking. Abstinence is key for both but the deeper issue of relating may be an issue.
It’s none of my business what others think of me for in that acceptance lies another’s perception which maybe 100% different from mine or the truth. I know myself and when I chose to have a drink the cycle was on until I was drunk 90% of the time. Sometimes I could control it yet the next day my body always went into catch up mode every single time like I was cheating myself out of not getting loaded the day before. It is most certainly a physical disease maybe it didn’t start out that way but it sure ended that way my body can’t control alcohol period it controls me. Do I have control over having the first cycle changing drink? you bet I do so it’s not a disease like cancer that being said it’s also not curable either all I can do is arrest it by abstaining, I’m thru with it and for decades it had me stunned baffled and it made me into a self medicated dog. I am most definitely a alcoholic by definition yet it has no power over me for I choose not to allow myself to be victimized by anything for I am a child of GOD and CHRIST is my savior, some will scoff at this and that’s your opinion yet my experience has taught me alcohol is a disgusting dangerous habit which destroys lives and the hell to that, satan is out of my life. alcohol was a living hell to me…
Why has AA worked for so many people ?
I used alcohol every day from the time I was a teen up to my mid forties.
It took that long before the pain it created became greater than the pain
it masked. So once that did happen I was unable to stop drinking on my
own. I had locked myself in to a dead end. AA showed me a way out. The
only thing I had to do was admit to myself that my way got me were I was
and start to follow direction. It’s been 5+ years since I wanted to get drunk
because the AA program gave me a way of looking at myself and others that
did not require being altered by the lie of drinking. AA worked when I became
willing to let it. Why it works, is mute.
With all due respect, purely on a percentage basis, it doesn’t work for that many at all. On a side note, there are approximately 2.3 million people in AA at any one time (not permanently). There are over 35 million who identify as being in recovery from addiction. The fact is that most alcoholics will never set foot in an AA meeting. Of those that do the majority won’t be there in a year, and very few will make it to 5 years. AA is one out of many ways. One. That’s it. That’s all.
As a recovering alcoholic who spent 5 years trying to quit, I can tell you a lot. The study cited reffered to sips from a drink that you can’t tell alcohol is in. Did the subjects drink the whole drink? If so, was there enough in it to cause any affect. First an alcoholics tolerance is so high, they most likely wouldn’t notice it in any shape or form. Second, if they had no physiologic, or mental affect from it, it probally wont set them off. Third, in all my relapses, i would have some control for the first 36 hours. Then the obseesion would pop up. Next day a pint, liter, gallon. I know a few recovering alcoholics who drink neerbeer no problem. It has like .05%. I’m an alcoholic and addicted to alcohol. The allergy theory absolutely holds true. Studies have shown alcohol effects the brain differently than normies, with mri, and pet scans. The actual biochemical and physiological factors of the phenomenon of craving i dont think has been identified. However, the mental obssession with all addiction has been, generally speaking identified.hundreds of times I only wanted to get buzzed. Once I ingest enough to feel any affect, it becomes paramount to drink more its at the top of my midbrains survival list. If these alcoholics were observed 24/7 for a week I think you would see them lose all controll.
It’s very humbling to go to a treatment center anywhere, with the best medical team in multiple fields. And there best solution for remaining sober is AA or other group. I love science, and it’s come along way with addiction. But they just touched the tip of the iceberg.
Imagine you have stage 4 cancer, and you see the top doctor in the country. Then he says your best chance to put this in remission is to go hangout with others that have what you have.
This priming study says otherwise and sites other similar studies. Let’s see if my response is posted.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26125586
Hi Nicole,
Thanks for passing along this study, it is interesting. My knowledge of neuroscience is not extensive enough to comment on all the ins and outs of the patterns of neural activation discussed in it. However, I will say I don’t think it’s very relevant to the point here, because although it is a study involving a priming dose, it’s of a very different nature than the priming dose studies I’m referring to in both this article, and my more extensive later piece on the issue here: Do Addicts and Alcoholics Lose Control?
The study you linked measures a neural response and self-reported craving to the taste of alcohol as opposed to the taste of water (and does so before and after a priming dose of alcohol). Marlatt’s study discussed above measures the actual behavioral response, and additionally includes conditions where the subjects are blinded to the presence or absence of alcohol. This study had no such conditions where subjects were blinded to whether or not they’d already ingested alcohol, and so it can’t separate the effects of expectancy on neural response from the effects of alcohol on neural response. The question then becomes, in plainer terms, whether their neural activity changed because they thought “welp, I’m drinking now” and activated beliefs of themselves as powerless alcoholics – or whether the change in neural activity was due to the pharmacology of alcohol alone. This is an important difference in what these experiments are capable of telling us. Different expectancies lead to different neural activity, this is an indisputable fact at this point in neuroscience, and so the question of whether alcohol or expectancy is the source of the difference in neural activation pre and post priming dose is a worthy one to address that sits at the heart of this issue. However, even if this study was redesigned to address it, it still wouldn’t tell us whether this translates into an actual loss of control over drinking, nor would it tell us that such a response necessarily signifies an “allergy.”
On the more specific issue regarding the term “allergy”, we need to be very clear about something. If the definition of allergy were made to include any change in neural activity, then “allergy” would become an all-encompassing and thus meaningless term. For example, there is no doubt that the ingestion of alcohol changes neural activity in everyone as it is a depressant (i.e. it depresses neural activity). Acting on such a definition of allergy then, we would say everyone has an allergy to alcohol; everyone has an allergy to cocaine; everyone has an allergy to Prozac, food, sex, watching television, riding rollercoasters, et cetera. Moreover, these various substances and activities no doubt result in differing patterns of neural activity in different people, at different times, in different situations, with different mindsets, and more (see The Cult of Pharmacology by Richard Degrandpre for an in depth exploration of these interactions in brain activity). These people then exhibit different behaviors and subjective emotional and motivational states following such events. Which of these are “allergic” responses or not? The categorization would leave the realm of physical problems such as hives, rashes, swelling, and shock – and enter the more subjective realm of value laden judgments about which behaviors are and are not good and bad, i.e. moral and immoral. Then we will have made the measure of allergic response a subjectively moral rather than objectively medical one.
Finally, let’s remember what this study actually does. The “taste cue task” mentioned in the study involved inserting a tube into the test subjects mouths as they lay in an MRI machine, and then giving them a tiny 1ml squirt of alcohol, then measuring neural activity and verbal report of craving. It does not, at the end of the day, establish that this translates into any different behavior. Importantly, it lacks even a comparison to non-alcoholics. Here’s what we know from the experiment: “alcoholics” neural and craving response to being teased with 1ml of alcohol in their mouth for 24 seconds is significantly different before and then 40 minutes after drinking about a glass and a half of white wine. It also differs by the extremity of their “alcoholism.” We do not know that this means they lose control over their drinking, or that exposure to alcohol causes their increased craving or increased alcohol intake. We know that there is some correlation on some level. This research, again, is of a highly different nature than the types of priming dose experiments I cite.
This is my take on the relevance of this experiment to these issues. I’m interested to hear what your take is – that is, how these results are relevant to the issues.
Best,
Steven Slate
The allergy concept has nothing to do with alcohol. The program works for all types of addictions because the substances at play are in the brain. The brain does not care if u are addicted to porn or crack, it “craves” more in either case. Because like a disease like diabetes, the mind/body reacts to certain stimuli and produces a natural response. To some people they may have a malfunction and mal-reaction because of either genetic issues or physical trauma as a result of abuse or chronic long term exposure. In the case of diabetes ii, one reacts to sugar and the body produces an allergic type response. Often allergies develope due to too much or too little exposure of certain stimuli. Sugar becomes a poison because the body has developed a tolerance to the insulin the body produces as a response to naturally balance us out. When a sex addict sees a sexy object walk by, their biological and mental responses are hijacked by a similar imbalance of the chemistry in their brains. They cant help but crave and fantasize about the object and some even begin to go on some sort of autopilot to either seek porn or worse. The allergic response is due to the tolerance created by still not completely understood circumstances. I believe it is part genetic and part conditioning over long periods. If one grows up in a dysfunctional family, they often seek out and create dysfunction in their lives because thats what makes them feel comfortable and alive- serenity causes unease and discomfort because of how they have become conditioned to dysfunction. That brain has been wired to react to life differently than a stable up bringing. As a result, they have developed a tolerance of dopamine and the receptors become less active in the brain. This condition will produce an addict with 100% certainty, because they are in essences allergic to certain stimuli that produce this chemistry malfunction to react in the brain. Craving, obsessing, depression, withdraw, ruminating, restlessness, dis-ease, discomfort, isolation, discontent… All these are the abnormal reaction that follows the allergy of dopamine. The doctor did not have it exactly right, but he also intuitively had a model which works. The only solution is one that can actually rewire the brain to act and respond appropriately to the addicts drug of choice. Because artificial stimuli like drugs and alcohol enhance the overall addiction allergy, they must be avoided at all costs to people with any mental imbalances. But if they resort to porn or gambling or codependency or cigarettes or caffeine instead of enhanced substances, then the truth is they are still chasing the drug and are not sober. They will rebuild their tolerance and eventually seek more enhanced techniques to get their dopamine. Addiction is a disease like diabetes and some eating disorders and OCD and other obsessive compulsive conditions that seemly convince the person to be self destructive despite any and all reality. The 12 step program is effective because it works on the wiring of the brain that allows that created this physical condition. It is almost seemingly an impossible feat to rewire a sick brain to health, almost as impossible as the concept of God itself. But it has been scientifically studied that clergy members who were diagnosed posthumously with Alzheimer’s, were never diagnosed or had the symptoms of this horrible brain disease while they lived long and productive lives. So one has to wonder that if maybe there is a function or place in the brain that had evolved over thousands of years that requires a person to create and believe in a God so that they may develope, survive, balance, and become healthy in life, even if just as an illusion- the illusion is the healthiest possible way to balance our mind and body (and soul). One cannot become allergic to the idea of God, unless you are an asshole i guess.
this experiment is extremely flawed because it does not take in to account the brains ability to control the body. the brain may very well be “deactivating” the allergy involuntarily because the receptors are “conditioned” not to respond to non-alcoholic drinks….just as pavlov’s dog’s saliva / food experiment except in opposite. pavlovs dog involuntarily produced saliva at the sound of the bell..the brain did not cause the body to react allergically because there was no perceived alcohol. this experiment needs to go further to actuall “Prove” something.
You said it best my friend, you’re an atheist, and this is a good forum to state your belief system, allowing it to make since just falls into place.(Sarcasm)
I happen to agree with you. I too believe that this “disease of addiction” isn’t a disease at all. There, so far in my reading, isn’t enough scientific evidence in my opinion to call this a disease. The moral end of addiction is of no importance in my findings on either side of the pendulum. I too was a crack smoker, and have been abandoned from it for going on 90 days. I am a Christian of the prodestant religion…my question to you who want to take God out of this and all definitions of modern science concerning disease and recovery is: Are you or I, having the same opinion concerning this topic more experienced because of our belief system? Since we agree on the fact we make a decision to stop being selfish and arrest this problem, I’ll mention that Jesus Christ led me to this particular reading on line to tell you…etc. See where I’m going with this? I’m not here to say you’re wrong. Mentioning your belief system is fine and good, but has nothing to do with this portion, or facet of addiction. It makes it neither true or false. (I’m truly stating facts and reasoning in the last portion of my thoughts…no sarcasm)
I can’t leave this forum without mentioning that I attend AA meetings approximately 5-7 times a week, and pray daily. The God of my understanding, Jesus Christ is the most important piece to my recovery from a life that was entangled by alcohol, and drugs, and to all my NA friends I’m with you…Alcohol IS a drug!
So far, not only in the last 80+ days, but in repeated intervals of efforts to keep this problem under control; I’ve only been successful for more than 24 hours by using the 12 Step programs. Even though I do not agree that addiction is a disease, I do believe that if it’s “treated” as though it were a disease, I too will be successful one day, one hour, or one moment at a time while abstaining from all mood or mind altering substances. The only requirement to be a member of all 12 step programs that I’ve ever attended is the desire to stop using. (Period)
Blessings to everyone, including myself struggling with addiction clean, or still in the grips, we are prayed for multiple times a day all over the world through these programs.
At ease is the opposite to Disease —– Allergy is to have an abnormal reaction !!! I am an addict who has an allergy cos of my obsession I used to have but a program enables ME to live life properly and not be destructive ?! Why try to be so intellectual on something that makes you frustrated let go dude and open your mind everybody needs some kind of faith or belief system to function/ whatever that maybe. Also it’s all sounding very political so gives a shit be free or die angry it’s simple really. I will sleep easy knowing that I am able to help someone who is still suffering out in this crazy fast paced world instead of judging them. Having an open mind is key not closing up and being selfish. I took from the world so it’s only right I put something back.
DISAGREE due to your inaccurate sourcing.
“the action of alcohol on these chronic alcoholics is a manifestation of an allergy;…never occurring in the average drinker. These allergic types can never safely “USE” alcohol in any form at all…”
Use indicates intention. If an alcoholic has no knowledge he is drinking alcohol, there is no intent. Intent is the key missing from your argument.
…and once having formed the habit and found they cannot break it, once having lost their self-confidence, their reliance upon things human, their problems pile up on them and become astonishingly difficult to solve.”
DO YOUR RESEARCH!
I’ve had 30 years of research but my intention was never to become an addict……. Trying to solve the problem is to accept and then live a solution. To try and intellectually say about something that someone with a phd, who has never experienced this affliction cannot advise me and others on how to become well. I could talk all day about this but I quote again that acceptance is the first step. We can then live a simple, clean and free life. Addicts are victims to, that’s something that really needs to be understood in society. With more understanding the more support and success will occur.
There are however documented cases of people who have severe anaphylaxis after consuming alcohol. The symptoms of this very real all encompassing allergic reaction include nausea, vomiting, headaches, cramps, sneezing, coughing, diarrhea, swelling, itching, breathing difficulties, a drop in blood pressure, and possibly fatal shock. If you had this reaction you might decide to get yourself to the emergency room pretty quickly, you probably wouldn’t choose to drink more alcohol. Allergies elicit automatic physiological responses, not behavioral ones.
Im an alcoholic and been a member of AA for many years, I tried a lot of things to try quit in early days and AA is only thing that has worked for me… On reading the attached above and the article, I have to say I don’t believe alcoholics suffer an allergy. We do use Dr silkworths letter and the reason for that is the founding members swore they would never change the text contained in the book. Also the definition used then was ‘an abnormal reaction’. When a new member comes to us, shaken, depressed and at point of giving up all hope, we try to communicate as simply as possible and the obsession and allergy (abnormal reaction) work well. We at AA are not stupid people, we know it is not a true allergic reaction.
Now you mentioned symptoms of a known allergic reaction to alcohol above. Let me tell you in the height of my drinking I suffered most of those symptoms on a daily basis… I did visit a hospital many times and I did continue to drink. To suggest that our drinking is a choice is offensive to all alcoholics, you are obviously not alcoholic and have no right to make that statement…. Your statement on the allergy holds true, so please stick to that… Finally, AA helps thousands of people recover from a hopeless illness that has killed countless people in history…. Let us carry the message, as we have for many years, using the definition of allergy incorrectly… It saves lives and in theory you critisizing AA could possibly put lives at risk. Research on one area of an illness is as good as it goes… Come spend time with us for a while see how tragedy and despair has been replaced with happiness and love and maybe you will forgive an incorrect definition
A member of AA
Hi – can you please tell me what messageboard this article has ended up on? How are so many of you AA members finding this lately???
I’m delighted you all are coming here to tell me that the allergy thing is only a metaphor. But you know how you could do more good? GO TELL ALL THE NEWCOMERS THAT IT’S A DAMN METAPHOR. Because they believe you are being literal when you tell them that they will literally lose control after a single drink and be literally unable to stop themselves from consuming alcohol. Marty Mann believed it was literal when she formed the NCA to spread this idea, and Bill Wilson endorsed her efforts in The Grapevine. A whole slew of research scientists have taken it literally, as have colleges who educate people on the literal diseases of alcoholism and addiction. SO GO TELL THEM ALL IT’S ONLY A METAPHOR AND SAY IT EVERY DAMN DAY IN EVERY MEETING BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE DEFINITELY TAKING IT LITERALLY ON A MASSIVE SCALE.
Best,
Steven Slate
You are not an alcoholic and not a member of AA…. So your opinion really doesn’t count…. It’s only an opinion… We don’t and can’t answer for people’s actions or opinions…. AA is not perfect nor do we claim it to be…. We are all human and opinions will always vary… God bless and wish you happiness in your endeavours
You’re right, but it isn’t just newcomers who take things literally. Many don’t get that just making a decision is NOT what the 3rd step is about according to the 3rd step prayer, that shortcomings and character defects are synonyms meaning the same or nearly the same, and that in principle the 10th step inventory is the same as the 4th because the Big Book says so. In discussing the 4th step, the Big Book uses the term “personal” inventory instead of “moral” inventory. So in the 10th step where we “continue” to take personal inventory… And AA’s singleness of purpose found in the long form of the Fifth Tradition doesn’t apply to drug addicts who prefer AA over NA; note the sarcasm. Dr. Paul, author of “Acceptance” (“Doctor, Alcoholic, Addict” – Third Edition), said in a 1995 Grapevine article that ” I also think that if you’re not an alcoholic, being an addict doesn’t make you one.” So many, especially nonalcoholic drug addicts, take the short form of Tradition Three literally: “The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.” The instructive long form, from which the short form was condensed, says that it is for alcoholics only, people with an alcohol problem: “Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism.”
With all of this going on, if you think you can tell a closed minded knowitall alcoholic and/or drug addict that the alcohol allergy is just a metaphor, I say good luck to you!!!
I view alcoholism and AA from the perspective of sociology. More specifically, from a social psychology perspective, which I think influences a vast majority of people more strongly from birth, when their personal psychology and character is immature and developing.
Social construction of reality aka conformity explains human attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors writ large–as unprincipled conformity corrupts oh so easily.
Thus, all addictions are a “dis-ease” that starts with one’s maladaptive and/or immature/unprincipled mindset and character traits. This manifests in a lack of mature choices and judgement associated with poor impulse control and willpower.
The consensus of sociologists is that society in the last several decades is medicializing bad behaviors by socially constructing diseases, biologically and genetically.
Big Pharm exploits and capitalizes on this social construction of reality magnificently.
I chose to become physically addicted to alcohol, cigarettes, and several hard drugs for 50 years. Also, I was fat simply because of gluttony. I quit by gradually weaning till I had no cravings and now eat sensibly.
I’m amazed at how destructive we humans are, and relentlessly rationalize with minimization, denial, and blame.
I always knew I was the prime mover for my gluttony and drug/alcohol abuse. I finally took personal responsibility for my behaviors, did constant cognitive dialogues of affirmation and negation in my mind, and enabled the power of my will.
Essentially, like group therapy or talking to a counselor or good friend, AA works for many largely because of the social support, belonging, acceptance, and the “talk therapy.”
Since, I’d never join a group that would have me as a member (Groucho Marx), and I’m happily asocial with deeply held misanthropic sentiments, AA was never an option. Although, the law does wrongly force people into this dogmatic and rigid socially constructed cult of reformers and believers.
Lastly, I think a lot of alcoholics just get sick and tired of being sick and tired. I was like too many older sad sacks–I was growing old, but not really growing up.
Namaste
If we are to believe the allergy theory, how to explain someone who drank socially for years, stopping for months at a time sometimes, who became in the space of about ten years, a total alcoholic, who could not live without alcohol. If he had an allergy, why didn’t it kick in right when he started drinking?
If we are to believe the allergy theory, how to explain someone who drank socially for years, stopping for months at a time sometimes, who became in the space of about ten years, a total alcoholic, who could not live without alcohol. If he had an allergy, why didn’t it kick in right when he started drinking?
If you can manage your life, and get rid of addiction without the 12 step program, then good for you, and not only AA is not for you , you don’t belong there,
but not everyone is like you, some people no matter how much you tell them they are in control, they will rnot only elapse, but go all the way with whatever substances and behavioral processes they are into that time, again and again,
fir these people, AA and other fellowships offer a SOLUTION, these people will RECOVER if they follow the program,
and nowhere in the Big Book does it say recovered alcoholics need to attend meeting for the rest of their lives,
the book offers SUGGESTIONS, that once followed can offer exactly the opposite of powerlessness,
and there is nothing about Christianity or any other religion, the “God way of living” the book talks about is up to the spiritual core of each individual.
I honestly believe you may mean well, but I suggest you ask yourself if you are not doing more harm than good by promoting your own ego and business by attacking a program that has saved so many lives.
AA (and NA or CA) are very easy targets, because their traditions don’t allow to defend themselves from attacks like these in an official way, and the people most able to do it are busy helping others which is their priority.
I wonder what your true priority is ? You say you managed to get clean, but what makes you have this necessity to live by attacking 12 step and the fellowships ? You seem full of ressentment, and your agenda doesn’t slook like it puts helping other addicts first, let alone without self interest and self profit.
The issue you have and the manipulative and demagogic way you use the “allergy” thing, in the book it says indeed “like an allergy” is a non issue, people understand if they relate or not, that’s what matters.
I
I’m a bit lost on what exactly you are proving. If you secretly give an alcoholic alcohol, he is not going to drink more of the stuff you tell him isn’t alcohol? Wouldn’t the real experiment be to give once alcoholic alcohol and tell him and the other alcohol without telling him and then expose both to alcohol and see if they both have similar responses?
It is a theory…so what? if I unknowingly take a drink my body will pick it up and I’m off to the races again on a 6-month bender. It happened to be in 1986. I drank lemonade bitters in a glass and I said this stuff tastes good. I asked what is it and this dude told me it was lemonade bitters. I had a couple of glasses that night and I felt a glow in me and never thought anything of it. I found out later there was a small shot of vodka in it. I did not taste the vodka. I tasted the bitters in it. I kept drinking it and I got drunk and I could not stop drinking. I think what you said about alcoholics does not realize he is drinking alcohol is all bullshit mate.