Evidence Based? Lol.
Mainstream addiction treatment is essentially a farce and has been all but co-opted. Addiction today is considered little more than a brain disease that requires medication (including psychotropics, of course, as all addicts are now considered to be dual-diagnosis), which means that more drugs can be sold by pharmaceutical companies and more government handouts can be procured to open and fund watered-down treatment centers where addicts can simply get re-drugged. It's a nice little loop... but doesn't help addicts in the slightest.
Any treatment center that re-drugs addicts yet peddles the program by including therapy et al is doing so in vain, as public funding and insurance models have one requirement and one requirement only: adopting the pharmaceutical model, i.e. the non-recovery model. Treatment isn’t about treatment anymore. Treatment is about selling a different brand of drugs to drug addicts and their families. I have no problem with making tons of money, and in fact, I cherish capitalism (not to be confused with crony capitalism or corporatism), economic and personal freedom, but exploiting addiction financially by lying about it is just immoral.
How has this happened?
By controlling the narrative and manipulating clinical data. Treatment must now be “evidence-based” or “science-based.”
But what approaches are we gathering evidence for? Are we leaving some approaches out altogether? And what are the parameters of evidence? How much clean time is considered to be evidence? Is evidence determined by time away from our drug of choice but no biggie if we’re nodding off on methadone 24/7? Is physical sobriety alone considered evidence? What of our quality of recovery?
Treatment centers are now rejecting Twelve Step principles and spiritual growth because they have no evidence that it works. Why? Because they actively avoid conducting any research or gathering any clinical data... because it’s not science-based. Really? What does that even mean? So if I began engaging in right action (which has brought me closer to God and restored me to sanity) and no longer suffer from any thoughts to use, that doesn’t count as evidence? Nope. There is no profit in recovery or spiritual growth. In fact, has anyone else noticed the all-out war on God?
Furthermore, the new-age, evidence-based assumption is that my recovery is by implication weaker than someone who is engaging in an “evidence-based” program, someone who is jammed on subs and remains a bubbling cauldron of mental, spiritual and moral decay. How has it become normative that my recovery is not counted as evidence but the kid on suboxone who still calls his mom a f***ing bitch is what we now define as success? It’s possible because “evidence” simply needs to meet the goal of selling drugs by medically claiming that it is the solution.
Does anyone else see the travesty that addiction treatment has become?
It is not about real recovery anymore. It is about selling drugs and procuring subsidies based on empty recovery stats and bio-chemical nonsense, which means selling out. I used to speak at a parents’ support group and was helping parents not only begin to understand addiction but take a look at embarking on their own healing journey. Then they took BSAS funding and that was that. Speakers must now tow the party line and pump substitution drugs like methadone.
But the truth is methadone and suboxone do not help addicts. The truth is both of these synthetic opiates make us worse, not better. Never once have I seen anyone on these drugs NOT relapse and relapse hard. If the addict's condition of insanity is not lifted, there is no point to anything. It is therefore insane to give an addict methadone or suboxone, as it simply perpetuates their condition of insanity. It preserves the mental obsession, and they remain subject to relapse at any time and for no reason. In fact, they already remain in relapse because both of these drugs are synthetic opiates.
So when you hear people discuss “evidence-based” approaches to addiction, they are using the term to pump pharmaceuticals while discrediting spiritual models such as the 12 Step program of action. The 12 Steps were inspired by the Christian-based Oxford group, which is perhaps why it has become all the more despised. And once again, I plead you to ask yourself, what is the definition of “evidence?” The term itself it meant to imply that the evidence-based approach works, but that is often a fabrication. Is evidence of sustained recovery someone on subs who hasn’t used heroin? What variables we are using? If a biased R&D team determines that sustained recovery is 90 days, then any subject clean 90 days passes for evidence?
You can see how this becomes a problem. Almost every addict I know has accumulated 90 days here or there and then relapsed. Hard. Moreover, if I get to stay jammed out of my skull on Methadone, then yeah, 90 days? No problem! Sign me up!
The bottom line is this: An addict is either still insane and suffers from the mental obsession and is therefore subject to relapse randomly, at any point in time and for no reason at all… or they are sane and no longer suffer from the mental obsession and can move about freely in the world as drugs and alcohol have no power over them anymore.
Is not that the recovery we and our families so crave (no pun intended)? Don’t you see that we are being fooled by the medical "addiction"crowd? Asking a non-recovered addict questions about the “disease” of addiction and effective treatment strategies is like asking a politician about how to tell the truth. It is something they simply don’t understand. So why waste your time and money when your addict is going to relapse?
A good friend of mine told me that he knows someone on methadone and he works and stuff. I asked him if the guy had a family and he said, yeah, a wife and kids. Do you really think his wife and kids are jumping for joy that he has to drive to the clinic every morning to dose himself into zombieland all day while his organs, bones, body, mind and soul continue to deteriorate?
I’m no psychic but I’d guess no. In fact, I'd presume they are probably horrified and scared shitless.
Right, let’s keep funding “evidence/science-based” approaches. Good luck with that.