6 ms·

This happened back in the 1970s when some researchers tried to get follow-up information about whether alcoholics can moderately drink again. Here’s what happe

by placer 6y ago

This happened back in the 1970s when some researchers tried to get follow-up information about whether alcoholics can moderately drink again. Here’s what happened: The paper Sobell 1973 made the bold claim that alcoholics could moderately drink again if given the right kind of therapy. So, other researchers asked: What was the long-term outcome with those patients supposedly engaging on “controlled drinking”? So this research team including one Pendery asked Sobell for the list of patients so they could perform a proper follow-up. The Sobell researchers refused to provide the list. The Pendery team managed to get the list anyway. The Sobells then sued Pendary and their team to stop them from using the list. After some litigation, the Pendary team got the Sobell lawsuit dismissed and then followed up with those supposedly moderate drinking patients. Out of the 20 patients the Sobell study claimed were moderately drinking, only one arguably was still moderately drinking a decade later. Four of those “moderate drinkers” died from drinking too much. Eight were engaging in out of control drinking. Six were completely abstinent from alcohol. And one could not be found, but appeared to be “gravely disabled”. No wonder the Sobells tried to block the follow up study with lawsuits: Because it showed that those “moderate drinkers” were no longer moderately drinking. After a lot of effort, the Sobell lawsuit(s) were dismissed and the truth won. References: https://www.nytimes.com/1982/11/02/science/showdown-nears-in-feud-over-alcohol-studies.html https://www.nytimes.com/1982/11/02/science/showdown-nears-in... https://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/28/us/alcholism-study-under-new-attack.html https://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/28/us/alcholism-study-under-...

mschuster91 6y ago
> After a lot of effort, the Sobell lawsuit(s) were dismissed and the truth won. The truth? Especially in anything related to alcohol/substance abuse, there most often is no objective "truth", as there are a lot of religious / moralizing standpoints involved. Alcoholics Anonymous, for example, has been shown to be more morals than science: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/04/the-irrationality-of-alcoholics-anonymous/386255/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/04/the-irr... What does help however is "housing first": https://www.samhsa.gov/homelessness-programs-resources/hpr-resources/housing-first-supports-recovery https://www.samhsa.gov/homelessness-programs-resources/hpr-r... Kinda makes sense, given that many people on the streets basically self-medicate either existing untreated mental health problems or the (enormous) stress that comes with living on the streets.
- xg15 6y ago
  > The truth? Especially in anything related to alcohol/substance abuse, there most often is no objective "truth" I dunno, sounds pretty objective to me: > Out of the 20 patients the Sobell study claimed were moderately drinking, only one arguably was still moderately drinking a decade later. Of course, to conclude from a 20 person study that moderate drinking can never work is another thing. But simply ignoring the study can't be the solution either. > What does help however is "housing first" This is probably true, but you didn't give any empirical evidence for that either. Also, not all alcoholics are homeless.
- placer 6y ago
  That article from The Atlantic uses outdated information. The figures Glaser used for AA efficacy do not come from peer reviewed science and are inaccurate. See https://www.thecut.com/2015/03/why-alcoholics-anonymous-works.html https://www.thecut.com/2015/03/why-alcoholics-anonymous-work... for a direct rebuttal of that 2015 article. The current science shows that Alcoholics Anonymous is an incredibly effective treatment for many alcoholics. Indeed, the 2020 Cochrane Review on AA shows that Alcoholics Anonymous is more effective then other treatments in getting alcoholics abstinent. See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/upshot/alcoholics-anonymous-new-evidence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/upshot/alcoholics-anonymo... or https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2020/03/11/medical-science-alcoholic-anonymous-review https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2020/03/11/medical-science... Keep in mind that Cochrane reviews are the golden standard for high quality meta analysis of science, as pointed out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDDATE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDDATE
  - DanBC 6y ago
    It's nice that the WBUR link includes a link to the review. Here it is for people who want it directly: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD012880.pub2/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
    - placer 6y ago
      The full 2020 Cochrane review on AA is paywalled until March, so I’m linking to media summaries of the review until it becomes open access.
s1artibartfast 6y ago
>No wonder the Sobells tried to block the follow up study with lawsuits It seems like there would be a totally reasonable concern about privacy here as well. If I participated in a study with finite scope, I wouldn't want my identity and medical information transferred to another group of researchers.
- placer 6y ago
  The subjects were delighted (Edit: See below for actual quote from one of the Pendery team researchers) to be contacted by another research group, and some of them felt the treatment they got in the Sobell group was so shoddy, they ended up trying to sue the Sobell researchers. Reference: https://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/11/science/panel-finds-no-fraud-by-alcohol-researchers.html https://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/11/science/panel-finds-no-fr...
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    >The subjects were delighted to be contacted by another research group Where did you get that they were delighted from the article you linked? Were they all uniformly delighted? It seems that either way, the original agreement/contract/TOS should govern what can be done with personal medical information.
    - placer 6y ago
      The reference was for the fact some of the original patients tried to sue the Sobells. The “delighted” bit comes from Alcoholism: A Review of its Characteristics, Etiology, Treatments, and Controversies by Irvine Maltzman, which goes in to the Sobell controversy in great detail. Edit: Going back to the book, here’s the most relevant quote from the late Maltzman: “the patients contacted prior to the court injunction all expressed a willingness to cooperate and to be interviewed” Maybe “delighted” was too strong of a word.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        Thanks for clarifying.

by placer 6y ago

mschuster91 6y ago

> After a lot of effort, the Sobell lawsuit(s) were dismissed and the truth won. The truth? Especially in anything related to alcohol/substance abuse, there most often is no objective "truth", as there are a lot of religious / moralizing standpoints involved. Alcoholics Anonymous, for example, has been shown to be more morals than science: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/04/the-irrationality-of-alcoholics-anonymous/386255/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/04/the-irr... What does help however is "housing first": https://www.samhsa.gov/homelessness-programs-resources/hpr-resources/housing-first-supports-recovery https://www.samhsa.gov/homelessness-programs-resources/hpr-r... Kinda makes sense, given that many people on the streets basically self-medicate either existing untreated mental health problems or the (enormous) stress that comes with living on the streets.

xg15 6y ago
> The truth? Especially in anything related to alcohol/substance abuse, there most often is no objective "truth" I dunno, sounds pretty objective to me: > Out of the 20 patients the Sobell study claimed were moderately drinking, only one arguably was still moderately drinking a decade later. Of course, to conclude from a 20 person study that moderate drinking can never work is another thing. But simply ignoring the study can't be the solution either. > What does help however is "housing first" This is probably true, but you didn't give any empirical evidence for that either. Also, not all alcoholics are homeless.
placer 6y ago
That article from The Atlantic uses outdated information. The figures Glaser used for AA efficacy do not come from peer reviewed science and are inaccurate. See https://www.thecut.com/2015/03/why-alcoholics-anonymous-works.html https://www.thecut.com/2015/03/why-alcoholics-anonymous-work... for a direct rebuttal of that 2015 article. The current science shows that Alcoholics Anonymous is an incredibly effective treatment for many alcoholics. Indeed, the 2020 Cochrane Review on AA shows that Alcoholics Anonymous is more effective then other treatments in getting alcoholics abstinent. See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/upshot/alcoholics-anonymous-new-evidence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/upshot/alcoholics-anonymo... or https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2020/03/11/medical-science-alcoholic-anonymous-review https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2020/03/11/medical-science... Keep in mind that Cochrane reviews are the golden standard for high quality meta analysis of science, as pointed out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDDATE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDDATE
- DanBC 6y ago
  It's nice that the WBUR link includes a link to the review. Here it is for people who want it directly: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD012880.pub2/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
  - placer 6y ago
    The full 2020 Cochrane review on AA is paywalled until March, so I’m linking to media summaries of the review until it becomes open access.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

>No wonder the Sobells tried to block the follow up study with lawsuits It seems like there would be a totally reasonable concern about privacy here as well. If I participated in a study with finite scope, I wouldn't want my identity and medical information transferred to another group of researchers.

placer 6y ago
The subjects were delighted (Edit: See below for actual quote from one of the Pendery team researchers) to be contacted by another research group, and some of them felt the treatment they got in the Sobell group was so shoddy, they ended up trying to sue the Sobell researchers. Reference: https://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/11/science/panel-finds-no-fraud-by-alcohol-researchers.html https://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/11/science/panel-finds-no-fr...
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  >The subjects were delighted to be contacted by another research group Where did you get that they were delighted from the article you linked? Were they all uniformly delighted? It seems that either way, the original agreement/contract/TOS should govern what can be done with personal medical information.
  - placer 6y ago
    The reference was for the fact some of the original patients tried to sue the Sobells. The “delighted” bit comes from Alcoholism: A Review of its Characteristics, Etiology, Treatments, and Controversies by Irvine Maltzman, which goes in to the Sobell controversy in great detail. Edit: Going back to the book, here’s the most relevant quote from the late Maltzman: “the patients contacted prior to the court injunction all expressed a willingness to cooperate and to be interviewed” Maybe “delighted” was too strong of a word.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      Thanks for clarifying.