Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by DamOTclese, Dec 21, 2008.

  1. DamOTclese Member

    Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

    Baldwin Research Institute - Treatment Doesn't Work - Alcohol and Drug Abuse Research Institute

    Take a look at this web site and see if this is just another Scientology fraud, one that has so far managed to escape detection. Notice that there is a lengthy, insane kook rant claiming miracle success rates for Scientology all while legitimate drug treatment regimes are bad mouthed.

    The domain registration for turns up:

    The 5188422204 telephone number shows up in Google seareches for a whole slew of web sites, all of them basically making the same unevidenced claims, all of them building up the Scientology "NarCONon" fraud, making wild, unevidebnce success claims, all of them denouncing actual treatment regimes that have success rates far greater than Scientology's 6% -- which is less than the placebo rate of doing nothing of 11%.

    This certainly looks like a Scientology scam but notice the disclaimer the alleged crooks throw in haphazardly before they start sucking L. Ron Hubbard's cock:

    Notice the insane rhetoric that is indistinguishable from the usual fraudulent Scientology rhetoric.

    Is these fucks aren't Scientology, it sure is a concidence that it looks so much like the typical Scientology "NarCONon" fraud.

    My opinions only and only my opinions, as always.
  2. TheBitch Member

    Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

    $cilons, burn it to the ground.
  3. fitch2000 Member

    Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

    Nonprofit could get tax refund

    Nonprofit could get tax refund
    Court denies town’s motion on Baldwin Institute
    Tuesday, March 25, 2008

    "The Baldwin Research Institute rejects the idea that people who drink too much or take drugs excessively are sick, and the company doesn’t employ doctors.

    The Baldwin Research Institute company has been the focus of controversy in the past because it advertises its work with the statement “Treatment Doesn’t Work,” and it contends that abusing alcohol and drugs is learned behavior that people choose to participate in."
  4. fitch2000 Member

    Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

    Drug Rehab Information, Luxury Drug Rehabilitation Treatment Center, Exclusive Drug Rehab Alternative

    "Baldwin Research Institute, Inc., the parent company of the Saint Jude Country Retreat ™ allows an independent research company to conduct an annual survey of Jude Thaddeus Program graduates to ascertain the abstinence based success rate of the Jude Thaddeus Program. Annually program graduates are selected at random by an independent firm, (currently Clearwater Research, Inc)....."

    Download and/or view our Independentely Verified Success Rates:

    Drug Rehab Research US FIELD RESEARCH FINDINGS - November 2005 Survey

    Drug Rehab Research SOBRIETY FOLLOW UP - June 2006 Survey - Clear Water Research

    Drug Rehab Research SOBRIETY FOLLOW UP - May 2008 Survey - Clear Water Research
    PDF Icon

    Oh lolololol, the success rates are obviously true cuz they are verified by someone that "clearwater research, inc" picks to check.
  5. _You_ Member

    Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

    Just as an FYI to anyone wondering if this thread is real... it is... lets just say I know the ins and outs and they are EXTREEMLY shady!! All they are after is the money... just because they say the are non-for-profit... when you charge several thousand dollars per bed and it comes out of the customers own pocket... in my opinion you are not non-profit. Oh yeah and the so called "statistics" is garbage too. Not only are the statistics scewed, but they are by there own people. Oh and that blacked out person that talks on their website... I'd never give away the actual name... but yeah they work for the company!!:confused::eek:
  6. YAHRLY Member

    Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

  7. shorty6981 Member

    Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

  8. _You_ Member

    Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

    /r/ dome for bumping an 11-month old Fred Rice kookfart
  9. xenubarb Member

    Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

    This is interesting. They run the Saint Jude Executive Retreat. Prolly charge big bucks for it too. But wait...looking at their "non-12 Step" program, it's something called the Jude Thaddeus Program. Saint Jude sounds somewhat RCC, patron saint of lost causes, doncha know.

    Something called Saint Jude couldn't possibly be the Scientologists, right?
    The "information" about their program is anything but. That page is nothing but peripheral distraction and the usual lectures they give instead of answering questions. It tells you what will happen throughout the program, but not how.

    How? By yelling at ash trays? Bullbaiting? Staring at each other for four hours?

    The site is all hype and no substance. I don't know a damn thing more about this program after reading their website. Lots of purty pictures, though.

    This bears watching.
  10. Asshole Member

    Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

  11. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

    This bear's applauding that bear.
  12. FUCK Member

    Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

  13. Slate Member

    Hi, my name is Steven Slate, I am a former employee of Baldwin Research, and a former client of the Saint Jude Retreat House, which they operate. I can say unequivocally, and with full confidence that the people of Baldwin Research are not Scientologists or even fans of L Ron Hubbard, nor is it a front for Narconon. Their program does not resemble Narconon at all. If you'd like to know my agenda, you can look at my blog I do not officially represent them at this point, so I'm free to get in the mud and defend them.

    The program is basically this - you spend six weeks taking two classes a day where you go through the text of a workbook, answer questions, and complete several written assignments. The coursework is all about self-improvement, goals, values, and being aware of your choices. On the weekends you do activities such as a hike or bowling. You are then sent on your way and encouraged to move on with your life. They do not recommend "aftercare" as they do not believe in spending your life "in recovery". They do not pretend to provide treatment, since they do not believe that addiction is a disease, they offer no medical treatment or advice, detoxification, saunas, or nutritional supplement nonsense. Anyone who needs detox would be asked to go to a hospital before going through the 6 week program. Also, there is a phone number listed on the website, and if you call it, they will tell you anything you'd like to know about their program.

    Now I'd like to offer a tip, because I've encountered many Narconon sites myself. The key thing to look for when trying to figure out if a program is simply Narconon under a different name, is that whole detox regimen. If they start talking about toxins, vitamins & niacin, drinking essential oils, and spending time in saunas - bingo! It's probably Narconon.

    BTW - of the 3 surveys someone listed above:
    I was only contacted for one of them. I'm still friends with these people, if they were handpicking the survey group, I would have been included each time.
  14. Anonymous Member

    Hi Slate,

    Welcome to WWP.

    It would appear since you only joined today, have only made one post to a very specific thread that you are here to do damage control. Did you find our happy home here through a Google search on Baldwin Research, or have made your way here because others have found this thread through such means and are now questioning the validity of Baldwin Research?

    Not that you aren't who you say you are or that your statements aren't true but you do understand your seemingly singular purpose being here instantly puts you under suspision as such. We have had plenty others try to do the same only to find out that their attempted damage control only made things worse for whom they were trying to protect.
  15. Slate Member

    I understand your concern - I found the thread through a search on Baldwin Research, and I was shocked to find that people are calling them scientologists. As I said, you can check out my site to learn what my agenda is. I even did a blog post a few months back exposing a Narconon front site, and offered up my own criticism of the Narconon program. I am no fan of Narconon's methods, I've heard horror stories from many people who have been there. I understand that Baldwin's views are controversial, and I understand that this may cause people to lump them in with Narconon or the people at Passages - but you could also lump Baldwin in with people like Stanton Peele, Alan Marlatt, William Miller, Sally Satel, & Gene Heyman. Being against the disease model of addiction doesn't necessarily make you a scientologist or new-age nutbag.
  16. Anonymous Member

  17. Slate Member

    I don't get it.
    Anyways, you can look at my site, and see what I'm all about. Also, you can call St Judes/Baldwin at 1.888.424.2626, and ask them whatever you want. Particularly, you can ask for Michelle Dunbar, my former colleague, and she will happily answer your questions. They welcome people to tour the facilities, and if you do visit, they'll even give you a copy of their curriculum - if you learn about what goes on at Narconon, and compare it to what goes on at St Judes, then you'll see that they are worlds apart. I commend you for fighting the fight against Narconon, but you should try not to injure innocent bystanders along the way.
  18. If St Judes/Baldwin isn't connected to Narconon/Scientology I would still stay away from St Judes/Baldwin for promoting Narconon on their websites, at the least it shows poor judgement.

    Do you know who owns Clearwater Research?
  19. timthephoto Member
  20. OTBT Member

    Slate, I don't know you, and I am not familiar with Baldwin Research Institute. But I am very familiar with Narconon and other Scientology front groups.

    And I think you have some explaining to do.

    Baldwin Research Institute repeatedly compares themselves to Narconon, and Narconon's Results.

    Here is a paper allegedly copyrighted in 1998 by Baldwin Research Institute, Inc.

    In this paper, Narconon is praised, while Alcoholics Anonymous, The Roman Catholic Church, and the New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services are dismissed as evil, money grubbing, incompetent saboteurs.

    (Note, I have to break this up into 2 posts, due to character limit of 10k characters)

  21. OTBT Member


    So, unless this paper is a fake, and it was not in fact written by Baldwin Research Institute, I would tend to think that ANY organization that simultaneously praises Narconon and dismisses Alcoholics Anonymous (and the Catholic Church? WTF?) is definitely suspect.
    • Like Like x 4
  22. No, but making claims like this: "the world's most successful residential program" makes them read/sound like Scientologist/nutbags.
  23. Slate Member

    I believe there is some serious context-dropping going on here. Highlighting each mention of narconon within a paper published by Baldwin Research Institute is not a sound way to argue that they are connected to narconon. Yes, they cited narconon's study results, but does that make them scientologists? And if that logic held, wouldn't that make you a scientologist as well, since you have now cited them too? I understand your vigilance, because narconon uses deceptive tactics to get new recruits, but if you are this passionate about it, I'd hope you would try to channel that passion in a constructive way, rather than just proclaiming anyone who mentions narconon to be affiliated with them. Please try to slow down, and exercise some objectivity here.

    Let's try to hold onto context while examining the evidence in question. The paper you've quoted was part of BRI's efforts to change the treatment industry, they were trying to convince government agencies that there were other models of working with substance abusers which could be more effective than the conventional methods of treatment available at the time (and trying to defend their own existence). They state clearly that they are not endorsing Narconon, yet they cite their results, why is this? They cite them because they are looking to hold out something beside their own program as evidence that other more successful methods of "treatment" may exist.

    Some more context - at the time that this paper was written, Narconon was probably the only treatment program in operation, other than Baldwin, which specifically rejected the disease model of addiction - and attempted to research the success of their program. This would make their data very attractive to the author. Since it's beginning, BRI was opposed to telling people they had an incurable disease which would doom them to a life of relapse and constant struggle with addiction. The author of the paper in question got sober in AA, he was taught by oldtimers that he could "recover" rather than be in a constant process of "recovery", and it worked for him. As the years went on, he noticed many young people at AA being taught to believe in the disease model of addiction, and he saw them failing at an alarming rate. He was a researcher by trade, so he started doing his own informal research at meetings, keeping notes on how many AA members were succeeding or failing at staying sober within a circle of meetings. He found that AA's success rate was extremely low. So then he launched a program where he taught a group of new AA members to embrace the steps, but reject the talk of being "in recovery" or having a disease - and he found a much higher rate of success with that than with AA as is. Moving forward, I am sure that as he tried to put his evidence together, and he did it with good intentions to warn OASAS of the problems inherent in the recovery culture of the time, one of the only organizations running a specifically anti-disease program that broke the mold of 12-step oriented treatment, would have been Narconon. The wisdom of citing Narconon in such an argument is surely debatable today (2011), but that is not my concern here. My concern is to highlight the context - not only of his citations, and the purpose they serve within said paper, but also the context of professionally working with addicts while rejecting the disease model of addiction in the 90's. Today, a bunch of other non-disease non-12-step programs have popped up - but back then only BRI or Narconon really fit into this category. Much more work has been done and published on alternative methods over the past decade (still not enough though) and in the same time, scientology has become much more visible and controversial, so it wouldn't make sense to cite narconon's research in a similar paper written today - but from the perspective of someone writing a paper on non-12-step/non-minnesota model treatment for addiction in the mid to late 90's, it makes perfect sense to cite narconon's research.

    Again, if you don't find my explanations satisfactory, you are welcome to call BRI, visit them, read their program, and judge for yourself. It would be a shame if you kept calling them scientologists without doing this though. It's fallacious reasoning to call BRI scientologists because they cited narconon's research and used them as an example of using an educational method to deal with substance use problems. I have now found many people around the web referring back to this thread as proof that they are scientologists/narconon - you should know that your claims are influential, and exercise some personal responsibility by rationally considering the facts rather than jumping to conclusions.
  24. OTBT Member

    Slate, I tentatively accept some of your reasoning. The BRI paper cited was from 1998. And while many scientologist regulary use the phrase "I'm not a Scientologist but..." you don't seem to be using this fallacious argument. Your open request to call and visit BRI and judge for ourselves is definitely a good sign.

    Your reasonings posted above appear to be consistent and logical, as far as state of mind of BRI in 1998.

    However, I also think BRI brought this linking to Scientology and Narconon upon themselves, by repeatedly citing Narconon.

    < pause, browsing BRI web site >

    Ok, after spending a bit of time browsing around BRI website, I see stuff that tends to make me think the BRI is not connected in any way to Scientology. BRI foolishly (in my opinion) cites Narconon old studies.

    But I am put off by BRI claims about success rates. I am not impressed with the claims of 65%

    So, my current opinions about BRI, revised after reading through this thread again, and reading your rebuttal, and browsing around the BRI web site, are:
    • Balwin Research Institute does not seem to be connected to Scientology or Narconon. However, BRI unwisely chose to use Narconon's claimed results to back up BRI's claimed results. BRI linked itself to Scientology and Narconon "research", but BRI itself does not seem to be a Scientology front group.
    • Baldwin Research Group makes claims of 65% success rate, says addiction is not a disease, and promotes other ideas that in my opinion are unproven. This sets off alarm bells for me.
    I will repeat my earlier statements:

    Since this thread is not about the merits or fallacies of the BRI system, I won't dwell on my opinion that BRI is suspicious and unproven.

    This thread is about whether or not BRI is scientology front group. In my current opinion, no, Baldwin Research Institute is not a Scientology front group.

    Again, to Slate, any anyone else reading this, I AM NOT AN EXPERT in drug addiction therapies, these are just my opinions. My opinion shouldn't count for much, I'm just some unnamed person who posts on the internet. Dig around and research for yourself, make up your own mind.

    Anyone who wants to post evidence, dox, facts, please do.
  25. Ann O'Nymous Member

    I disagree. "Come inside and see it for yourself" is a classical scientology answer. Does not mean that this is scientology. But it is certainly crap.
  26. OTBT Member

    If this was connected to scientology or Narconon, at some point, there would be talk about saunas, niacin, Hubbard, communication courses, etc. I don't see any of that stuff in BRI.

    And while I am suspicious of BRI methods and claims, there does not appear to be any of Hubbard's methodology in BRI program.
  27. BigBeard Member

    Considering how inflated and false NarCONon's success rates are I would be suspicious of anyone using them to slam established treatment methods. It's too easy to check their claims against reality these days.

    • Like Like x 1
  28. Squirrel King Member

    What exactly are their methods? I'm not actually seeing anything about what they are or do. Their books seem to not be available in any local or college library.

    Lit searchs bring no results.

    I think it is safe to conclude it is a scam. Any info on their board of directors?

    Well lookie here: An Anti-psychiatry book by one of the program's developers.

    The program's chief "career researcher" Mark Scheeren has no published research.

    Man the Harpoons. We have a Scilon front or a Scilon copycat.
  29. Squirrel King Member

    Oh and how about those "independent" studies folks. Baldwin Research, instead of providing Clearwater with names of all clients for its random sample, instead hand-picked and supplied the names of "chosen" clients.
  30. xenubarb Member

    I agree with the above. It's not a disease, it's a choice. Calling it a disease allows 12 steppers to distance themselves from the responsibility of choices made. However, detox IS a medical thing. Withdrawal can lead to many side effects treatable with drugs. Addiction isn't a disease, but kicking your addiction can lead to medical problems. They should employ doctors.
  31. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    First let me say welcome and thank you for your input. Please excuse my standoffish thoughts here but understand you have thread necromancy and are a bit late to this party. However, I do understand that since the Wikileaks deal is getting newbies, thread necromancy will be moar common now.

    Some things though: I am very skeptical about high success claims, especially dealing with addiction. Whether you believe that addiction is a disease or a disorder, one thing I believe that is true is this: Addictions are difficult to beat and in some cases not possible to fully remove oneself from. There is a lot of scientific proof that some addictions rewire the brain and mess up one's biochemistry. So for somebody to come along and say "We haz over [insert an percentage over 50] success rate!" causes me to go into "Dox or STFU" mode. Now, let me make clear that isn't what you are saying Slate, but understand I don't buy into things easily when the facts speak louder.
  32. Squirrel King Member

    I will respectfully disagree, but only in part as I believe it can be both a disease and a choice. 12 steppers, like all humans, are quick to assign blame (including self-blame) and look for a quick simple solution. It sounds as though BRI requires all addicts to come to their program after being dry for 6 weeks (and this helps their stats as well). Although I cannot be certain since the materials BRI produces are not available, I have a feeling that this group teaches some sort of bootsstrap/NLP philosophy. I am also not a fan of the 12-step programs and their over-reliance on cramming "the spiritual self" down the throats of individuals. (I believe "the spiritual self" is an important need of all of us, but not the panacea of addiction recovery.)
  33. timthephoto Member

    well since the thread had decended into discussion of addictions and getting rid of them, i'll waste a minute or two to mention what i know to be true..

    1, once addicted to opiates (for instance), no matter how long a person stays clean for it takes only one session to re-ignite the rattling (withdrawal symptoms) even if thats years down the line. most addicts know this already.

    2, most addicts i've met don't *want* to be drug free, they *want* to be able to have a session and not suffer withdrawal symptoms afterwards.

    so it's down to what the patient really wants, specifically if they are sick and tired of it and want to stop totally - not 12 steps OR the crap purif /narCONon
  34. "Narconon is the ONLY successful drug rehabilitation program on the planet."

  35. I am a two-time former "guest" of the St. Jude Retreat House located in Hagaman, NY, and boy do I have a lot to say.

    As this thread pertains to suspected/alleged ties between BRI and Scientology, I'll address that up front. I can guarantee with 100% certainty that there are absolutely NO ties, or similarities for that matter (outside of the shared believe that the disease concept is bullshit), between the two entities. I have spent a total of 4-5 months in one phase of the program or another (split between 2 stints, one in '03 and another in '05), and at NO point was Hubbard, e-meters, thetons, blahblahblah mentioned, alluded to, etc. In fact, Steven Slate's (whom I know personally and was employed by BRI during my first stay) characterization of the core program was fair and accurate. So, to be clear, BRI, St. Jude, or any other entity comprised of what I'll heretofore refer to as the "St. Jude Crew" are not Scientology peddlers. Period, case closed.

    However, there are indeed many a issue with the program, and some of them—in this guy's estimation—are every bit as troubling and dubious as any alleged links to that quack pseudo-religion all you keyboard warriors seem to have a boner for.

    Ironically, I too stumbled upon this thread via a google search...that being "St. Jude fraud". This is not the first time I've done some lazy looking into the program's reputation on the interwebz, though most of my previous attempts have centered around the program's founder Jerry Brown. Unfortunately, there's another Jerry Brown who hogs most of the google traffic (a former congressman or something?), so my "research" has never yielded anything worthwhile. So, I've instead been left to kick around my increasingly hazy memories of my own direct experiences with essentially every level of the program and organization. And man.....holy fuck are they bizarre.

    Frankly, I don't know where to begin. I suppose that I'll throw out the general disclaimer that I think it's absolutely impossible to devise a program, method, technique, etc. to "cure" or even reliably "treat" addictions of any kind. Basically, I'm of the school of thought that some people will simply stop slowly killing themselves if they find it's no longer the most attractive option. So, in a sense, the basic ideology espoused by BRI or St. Jude is probably the best approach to addiction that is packaged and sold: "Stop being a selfish, self-destructive idiot and go have fun with your life and be good to other people while you're at it because that will also make you feel good about you". That's the program in a nutshell. Seriously. I'll grant that there are probably some people who have filtered through St. Jude who have had something approaching an epiphany or revelation about sobriety or moderation that wouldn't otherwise have done so without attending. However, I believe that they are the minority, and that most who have had "success" upon program completion would've gotten sober(ish) at almost any other facility, or on their own, or through some other form of "self-help", or because of some looming consequence, an opportunity, boredom with the lifestyle blahblah.

    While we're on success...

    It's this simple: St. Jude's success rate statistics are a fucking joke. The data collection is so flawed that it's laughable. How do they generate their numbers? Well, they call former attendees and ask "Sober or drunk"? Yup. They ask addicts to self-report use. Honestly...who the fuck on a run owns up to it? Even when there are no tangible consequences for doing so, it's just not very likely that an active alcohol and/or drug abuser is going to tell on themselves. I won't touch the psychology there, but I'd venture it has to do with not wanting to disappoint, not wanting to engage in an unpleasant interaction, or simply, good ole' fashioned self-delusion or denial. It gets better... they also ask a family member! Because no addict or alcoholic has ever hidden their use from their parents or spouse right? So that's it. They make two phone calls and they shut the book. Now, I don't feel like I need to say a whole lot more other than that I find the fact that they flaunt their numbers around like a gold medal to be at best irresponsible, and at worst, downright shamefully dishonest. Interestingly, they used to claim a much higher success rate....don't quote me, but I wanna say 85%? 90%? Some absurd number to be certain, and it was this number that landed me in Hagaman, NY to begin with.

    The testimonials found on the site? I know for certain that 2 of the 3 videotaped/posted testimonials of "former guests" are either current or former employees. Yes, they were former guests, but the thing is that ALL but what.....2 or 3 of the employees are former guests. And, I do mean all...from the "janitor/maintenance men", to the cooks, to the drivers, to the instructors, to the "directors", to the accountant, to the fucking VP executive marketing hand job giver. Also, outside of the CFO or Accountant or whatever he is, we're talking about a family business here. Now, this is actually fairly common at a lot of treatment centers (hiring former patients, clients, guests, or whatever, not the family bit) and to a degree, it makes a lot of sense. Number one, recently sober people often embrace their "newfound way of life" with true and abundant zeal. Who better to "pass it on" or relate to the newbies, than the newly sober who are also seeking to bolster their own giving back? That's all well and fine, but there's another thing that newly sober people are really good at: Getting high. In my experiences at St. Jude I knew of (as in personally used with, observed the resultant termination of, or in one case, heard about the death of) several "instructors", an "activity director" and one "house director" using drugs and/or alcohol. Again, this is not uncommon in the treatment industry and is not necessarily a St. Jude problem exclusively, but I will say that the claims about average sobriety length of the staff are a fucking joke. I found an email from a St. Jude staffer on claiming the average sobriety time to be 5-6 years. Man. These guys are reeeeeeeeeaaaaaaally sneaky with math. What that means is, three or four people (who almost never interact with clients save a Sunday "family" breakfast, and maybe a bi-monthly 45 minute power point presentation) have like 30 some odd years, and everyone else has a few months. The majority of staff that clients actually rub elbows with or, "do the work with" so to speak, are brand spanking new. Beyond that, they employ no real medical/psychiatric professionals, and rely on scarcely educated folks to do the heavy lifting....they also tend to be young adult (22-26ish) males.....more on that later. So....where the fuck does that $10,000 (was I think 5 or 6,000 back in '03) for 6 weeks go? Not to the barely post-adolescent boys instructing, that I know. Not to the food or activity budget either...

    For me, the greatest injustice of all is St. Jude/BRI's CONSTANT slandering of A.A. No, not because I support A.A. (it's a religious cult, with rigid dogma and rituals and little to zero efficacy), but because....well....the St. Jude Thaddeus program IS A.A. I know, weird right? Basically, the St. Jude program is identical to the 12-steps, and its crux (and a "guests" likelihood of success) rests on willingness to "serve others". In A.A. that means make coffee, give away cigs, and fuck vulnerable women. At St. Jude it means do dishes, hide candy under your roommate's pillow, and fuck vulnerable women. Essentially, instructors act as sponsors who aid in a "guest's" acceptance, surrender (formal surrender prayer said with a sponsor, shit, I mean instructor) a detailing of misdeeds and character flaws, a drafting of an ammends list, and on and on. The only difference? St. Jude insists meetings are unnecessary, it's all about choice, and that after completing the "workbook" you're cured for life!! I just can't believe how much effort they put into distancing themselves from A.A. whilst simultaneously being A.A. The funny part is that St. Jude NEEDS A.A. and Hazelden, and Betty Ford, and shitty meetings in gross church basements. Why? Because St. Jude's target market consists of people either disillusioned with "traditional recovery approaches", or horrified at the idea of having to do meetings and any kind of work to stay clean over the long haul, or both. Pretty much, St. Jude is rehab for the "grow your dick 4 inches with a pill" crowd. St. Jude needs A.A. to exist so they can sell their services based around NOT being A.A. Anyone familiar with A.A. history knows that "pre-1956 A.A." means A.A. before the word disease was thrown out there....well, that's St. Jude.

    St. Jude is like EVERY other rehab there is. Meaning: at least half those there don't want to be/don't plan on being sober, people smoke a ton of cigs or dip, people have sex with gross people they'd never fuck in the real world, a bunch of people turn into fitness/health freaks, people play spades and dominos, some people become teacher's pets and recovery superstars, people form cliques, and people tell stories about being scarface, frank lucas, or fucking keith richards blahblah.

    I guess to sum up the St. Jude Crew....they're just capitalists. They got an unlimited potential client base, a helluva angle/marketing ploy, and a web guy that can make their site pop up high on the google search. I don't think they're evil as much as successful. I might say that those two things often go together, but that's a whole other rant, no?

    God there's so much I feel like I should have made an outline. We'll stick with stream of conscious. But, that's all for now. Stay tuned for stories of bizarre sexual/parentalish relationships and gossip.
    • Like Like x 2
  36. Slate Member

    @2 x former guest.

    I'm sorry to hear that you've been disillusioned with your experience at St Judes. I hate to hear when it doesn't work out for people. I hope you've found your way in the meantime. If you haven't found a way to solve your substance use problems, and you still want a non-aa aproach I can suggest some other 12-step alternatives. Stanton Peele's book 7 Tools To Beat Addiction is fantastic, and would be worth a try. If you feel you need one of the currently available pharmaceutical treatments, you could find a doctor to treat you with that, and accompany it with Stanton's book. If you're looking for moderate drinking, William R Miller has a great book called Controlling Your Drinking (and he's got a lot of research cred, he developed the technique of Motivational Interviewing which is finally beginning to be adopted by treatment centers). If you'd like to be in a program with counsellors and psychiatrists, then the Guided Self Change program in Florida, Practical Recovery Services in California, and Stanton Peele's Life Process Program in Iowa are all outside of the normal 12-step based methods, and definitely worth looking into. Let me know if I can help or support your efforts in any way (there is a contact page on my site) - you absolutely can change and be done with addiction. And if you have already solved the problem, then I offer my congrats on a job well done!

    Thanks for testifying here on the issue of whether or not St Jude's is involved with Scientology, much appreciated.
  37. wolfyrik Member

    I think it's about time to close this thread. It's just wasting resources. To Sum up and hopefully end it;
    BRI = not scientology
    BRI = idiots who in 1998 were so desperate to prove their program that they didn't actually research other programs they went on to cite or the broader damage they may have done by legitimising groups they did not actually research.

    Case closed.
  38. thefatman Member

    You mean it's not about how to get the other Baldwin brothers to become self-sufficient?
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins