Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

DamOTclese · Dec 21, 2008

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 baldwinresearch.com turns up:

Registrant:
Baldwin Research Institute
9 Market St Ste 4
Amsterdam NY 12010
US
Domain name: BALDWINRESEARCH.COM
Administrative Contact:
hostmaster hostmaster hostmaster@baldwinresearch.com
9 Market St Ste 4
Amsterdam NY 12010
US
1.5188422204
Technical Contact:
Hostmaster Hostmaster hostmaster@logical.net
450 Duane Ave
Schenectady NY 12304
US
1.5182924500
Registration Service Provider:
Logical Net hostmaster@logical.net

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:

Fair Use Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Extract:

Notice: Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. has not presented the following information regarding Narconon to promote Narconon, Inc., Scientology, the Church of Scientology, Dianetics, or any other teaching or philosophies of L. Ron Hubbard. Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. is aware of the controversy and conflict that surrounds L. Ron Hubbard and the organizations with which he is (has been) associated. It is the position of Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. that Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. is neither pro nor con with respect to these controversies and conflicts. Our only purpose here is to observe the research that was reported not only by Narconon, but also by researchers outside Narconon and outside the influence of organizations directly or indirectly affiliated with L. Ron Hubbard.

Narconon is a public benefit, non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporation that is committed to the elimination of substance abuse. Founded in 1966, Narconon has supplied drug rehabilitation treatment and education/prevention services for 28 years. The Narconon approach is based on techniques developed by author and philosopher L. Ron Hubbard.

Each component of the Narconon program is designed to increase the abilities of the client. The initial program included courses and drills designed to increase the client's communication skills, study skills and orientation to the environment. Over the years the program has expanded to address additional needs of the substance abuser. The Narconon program now includes drug-free withdrawal, detoxification, and specific courses designed to increase the client's communication skills, study skills, orientation to the environment, understanding of moral principles, and preparation for work. Narconon was founded in Arizona State Prison and initially expanded predominately to other prison facilities. In 1972, Narconon began delivering services to the public at its first residential facility in Los Angeles. There are currently 37 Narconon facilities worldwide. The majority of these facilities provide drug rehabilitation services to the public in a residential setting.

The Narconon program addresses all aspects of addiction, with the result being that over 70% of those graduating the Narconon program are drug-free two years later. This is in contrast to the 16%-20% of more traditional programs.

Narconon was originally set up for incarcerated populations. The program has been delivered in a variety of institutional settings. Several means of monitoring the programs' effects have been used:

1) Parolees who had taken Narconon courses at the California Dept. of Corrections, The California Institute for Women, the Arizona Correctional Authority and Riker's Island Institute for Men in New York were tracked. On average, 73% of Narconon clients released from prison remained clean while on parole.

2) Youth at the Youth Training School of the California Youth Authority had the opportunity to participate in a Narconon program. The behavior of youth at the facility was monitored by the number of infractions, the number of restrictions, and the grade being achieved in trade school. Those youth who participated in the Narconon program showed positive changes in each of these measures compared to other youth at the same facility who did not participate. In fact, the number of infractions and the number of restrictions of non-participants increased while the numbers for Narconon clients decreased.

3) Narconon clients at the State Reformatory for Men in Minnesota showed improvements in the number of rule infractions they were found guilty of the days of lost privileges, and the days of segregation. These changes were evident during both program delivery and follow up time periods.

4) Parolees from the Delaware Correctional Center were tracked. 70% of the Narconon clients had no arrest during the follow up period, compared to 36% of the control population.

Narconon has been delivering services to non-incarcerated populations since 1972. In surveys of graduates from four facilities located in Connecticut, Boston, West Berlin and Sweden, employment was almost doubled, arrests were greatly reduced, and the vast majority (as much as 90%) reported that they were no longer using drugs. In a study conducted in Spain, over 75% of graduates remained free of drugs. Whereas almost 90% had been actively involved with crime before Narconon, none were involved with crime afterwards. The Narconon program is effective, both in reducing drug abuse and in improving the behavior of clients.

Several evaluations of the Narconon program have been conducted. Evaluations of Narconon programs being delivered to incarcerated populations have focused on objective measures of behavior, including the involvement of clients with the criminal justice system during and after parole. Simple tabulations of the behavior of parolees were done in several institutions in the 1970's:

A) The California Dept. of Corrections reported on 19 inmates who had participated in the Narconon program while in prison. 17 had been paroled. 12 of these were reported as clean (70%). Of the five remaining, 2 were not found, 2 had been arrested and one was suspended due to cocaine use.

B) In a study conducted in Spain, over 75% of graduates remained free of drugs. Whereas almost 90% had been actively involved with crime before Narconon, none were involved with crime afterwards.

C) The California Institute for Women reported on 25 Narconon clients. 23 had been paroled. 18 of these were clean (78%). Of the remaining, 3 were parolees at large and 2 had been arrested.

D) The Arizona Correctional Authority reported on 76 Narconon clients who had been released from prison. 32 were found. 24 of these were clean (75%).

E) The Narconon Executive Director compiled a report on Narconon clients at the Riker's Island Institute for Men in New York. Of the 81 clients who had started the voluntary course, 43 had completed the initial program. 21 of these had been paroled and 17 were contacted. 14 of these were clean (82% of those found, 67% of total parolees).

Overall, around 73% of the Narconon clients released from prison remained clean while on parole in these follow up surveys.

The effectiveness of the Narconon program in changing behavior was studied at the Youth Training School (YTS) of the California Youth Authority. This study was aimed at monitoring objective measures of behavior. Therefore, the evaluators tabulated the number of infractions, the number of restrictions, and the grade being achieved in trade school. Narconon clients were defined as those students who regularly attended meetings for one to four months. Controls had not participated in the Narconon program. 14 clients were compared to 27 randomly selected controls. On average, the youth participating in the program had been at the Youth Training School for 5 months prior to program start. They continued at the school for 4 to 8 months. Therefore, the three measures were compared for the first 5 months versus the balance of the school program for both Narconon clients and controls. This comparison was designed to assess any change in behavior following the Narconon program.

Both the number of infractions and the number of restrictions for Narconon clients decreased, on the average, after starting the program. In comparison, the number of infractions and restrictions increased for the control group of YTS wards. The average grade in trade school for both Narconon clients and the control group increased over the course of the program. The increase in grade level was more pronounced for those in the Narconon program. As Dan Fauchier, of the Youth Authority, stated: "[the survey] results should not be viewed as positive proof of Narconon effectiveness, they do seem to strongly indicate that Narconon is having a very positive and beneficial effect in increasing the socially-desirable behavior of its participants both in trade classes and on the living units."

Narconon clients at the State Reformatory for Men in Minnesota were evaluated by Posthumos and Snowden in 1978.

The authors chose to evaluate the change in behavior of Narconon clients with time, considering the pre-treatment behavior pattern as the control for this population. These authors were also interested in monitoring objective measures of behavior. The measures available, which the institute monitored as part of its standard operation, included:

(1) Institutional rule infractions that the inmates were found guilty of
(2) Days of lost privileges
(3) Days of segregation

...Fair Use cuts...flr...

70% of the Narconon clients had no arrest during the follow up period, compared to 36% of the control population. (Figure 1)

Further, the amount of training the Narconon client had completed was positively correlated with successful rehabilitation. 84% of those clients who had done one or more courses beyond the communications course had no further arrest compared to 62% for those who had completed only the communications course. (Graph 4.1) These findings support the concept that the Narconon program is effective in bringing about positive behavioral changes in the incarcerated population.

Narconon has been delivering services to non-incarcerated populations since 1972. Currently, the majority of the Narconon programs deliver drug rehabilitation services to the public in residential facilities. The main criteria tracked in surveys have been the number of clients off drugs, involvement with the criminal justice system, and employment status.

The Connecticut survey was done shortly after program completion, the West Berlin study 7 months after graduation, the Boston study shortly after program completion and the Sweden study four years after program completion. In each of these surveys, the majority of the Narconon graduates were no longer using drugs. Where monitored, their involvement with the criminal justice system had lessened and their employment improved. The Sweden study showed that 11 of the 13 earned money from crime prior to Narconon training. None earned money from crime after. The Narconon program appears beneficial in both reducing drug abuse and reducing involvement with crime.

These results align with an independent study of the Narconon facilities done in Spain in 1985. In this study, an independent sociology group called Teenicos Asociados de Investigacion y Marketing (TAIM) evaluated the Narconon program. TAIM had also done studies on drug issues for the Ministry of Health, the Social Services Department of the Town Hall of Madrid, and the National Institute of Social Services of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security of Spain.

The Spanish study showed that 78.4 percent of the people who completed the Narconon program remained off drugs. Overall, 69.2 percent of the people contacted (including those who had not graduated) were still off drugs.

The Narconon program also had a profound effect on the criminal activities of clients. Before doing the Narconon program, 62.2 percent of the participants admitted having committed robberies and 73 percent had been dealing drugs. Only 10.8 percent of the participants did not previously engage in criminal activity. The study revealed that no criminal activities were reported by any of the Narconon graduates after graduation.Regarding relationships with their families, 67.6 percent of Narconon graduates said that their family situation was now much better, 29.7 percent said that it had changed for the better and only 2.7 percent said that it was the same. No one stated that it had changed for the worse.

Narconon clients generally take from three to five months to complete the program, though some take significantly longer and a few have completed the program in two months. Each step is designed to address an area that virtually all substance abusers need to improve. The order of components is carefully laid out to utilize prior tools and prepare the student for the next step. The ideal situation is that every Narconon client completes the full program.

The percentage of program completions is therefore an important measure of the success of this program. The number of clients completing the program internationally in 1990 was 789 (39% of starts), in 1991 was 1,019(51% of starts) and in 1992 was 1,084(56% of starts). (See Graph 4.3)

Notice: The entire preceding discussion of Narconon is a Copyright (c) 1998 Narconon Chilocco. All rights reserved. Permission granted to use the information by Narconon Chilocco September 1999.

There are several reasons for such a lengthy discussion of the Narconon program and research. The proceeding graphs (Graph 4.4 and Graph 4.5) were arrived at independently. Graph 4.4 was the result of Narconon's research and shows that: "The Narconon program addresses all aspects of addiction, with the result being that over 70% of those graduating the Narconon program are drug-free two years later. This is in contrast to the 16%-20% of more traditional programs." (December 1994) Some years before Dr. Beckmann's 1994 report, Baldwin Research Institute reported in The Baldwin Research Report of 1990, which was published in 1991:

On December 31, 1990, 70% of those who came to the Baldwin Group during 1990 were sober and drug free. Of the alcoholics and drug addicts who came to the Baldwin Program 57% got sober and drug free immediately and remained that way; 13% sobered up and stopped using drugs after some relapse; 8% kept in touch with the Baldwin Group and have enjoyed some sobriety even though they continue to drink and drug today; twenty-two percent drank and/or drugged and disassociated with the Baldwin Group.

Gottheil and Associates (1982) reported that only 19% of 20 treated alcoholics remained abstinent during the first six months after treatment; 48% became relapsed drinkers during that time. Two other studies having a combined total of 499 treated alcoholics reported 18% remained abstinent during the first six months following treatment thereby confirming Gottheil and Associates' findings. The Maddux and Desmond study of 1981 reported following treatment for drug addiction, 13% remained abstinent for six months. The Baldwin Research Project reports 73% of those in the Baldwin Group remained abstinent for more than six months, a reported success rate more than 3 times that of conventional treatment programs.

Even those who did not achieve sustained sobriety or remain free of drugs showed improvement following their exposure to the Baldwin Program. All achieved a longer period of sobriety and free from drugs than they had ever achieved before. The combined success of the total group can be measured by the number of sober and drug free person-months versus the total number of person-months of the study. The total number of person-months is the sum of the number of persons in the study month by month for each month for the twelve consecutive months. The total number of person-months was 262 months. The individuals in the Baldwin Program amassed 212 sober and drug free months, which yielded an 81% success rate.

The significance of preceding excerpt and the Table 4.6 from The Baldwin Research Project of 1990* is that both Baldwin Research and Narconon employed a social structure (peer group) in their respective programs, and both Baldwin Research and Narconon employed educational techniques in their respective programs, and both programs collected specific data on the results of their respective programs, and both programs opened their programs up to outside scrutiny and verification, and both Baldwin Research and Narconon independently reported the exact same success of their respective subjects and the exact same failure rate for conventional treatment. (Note: *The Baldwin Research Project of 1990 is presented in its entirety in Appendix A.)

Research conducted by organizations that provide treatment has ranged from incompetent to absurd, to outright lies. Why, then, believe Narconon data? There are several reasons. The most compelling, however, is the simple truth that independent researches have all agreed on two facts: (1) psychological based treatment is ineffective in the treatment of alcohol and other drug problems and claims by providers of this type of treatment to the contrary are just not credible, and (2) social based and educational based programs produce significantly better results than psychological based programs (CALDATA Study and Baldwin Research). Narconon's data, in this regard, has merely reinforced that which had already been reported by independent researchers.

Another reason for viewing Narconon's reported success as credible is the fact that multiple organizations outside of Narconon conducted or participated in the studies.

The California Dept. of Corrections, Teenicos Asociados de Investigacion y Marketing, California Institute for Women, The Arizona Correctional Authority, Riker's Island Institute for Men in New York, Youth Training School (YTS) of the California Youth Authority and others all participated in or independently conducted studies of Narconon results. The point to this discussion is simply this: Programs that are producing good results, like The Hagaman Guest House Baldwin Program and Narconon, are more than happy, in fact encourage, outside organizations to study the success rate. Conversely, programs that do not produce good and lasting results are loathed to have independent outsiders scrutinize their results.

Programs that have good results to report want the results known as a matter of good marketing. As previously reported Baldwin Research, from time to time, polls treatment programs in New York State for success rates among other program characteristics. When 25 out of 25 programs polled could not or would not disclose their success rate, it is clear that the success rates must be poor. Moreover, it is probable that most or all of the treatment programs randomly polled really didn't know their success rate. Unlike programs like the Baldwin Program and other programs that have high success rates, treatment programs with poor success rates, which includes all conventional treatment programs, certainly do not spend a lot of time and other resources documenting their poor results.

Another significant agreement between the Narconon Program and the Baldwin Program is the recognition that there is a specific set of activities that must be adhered to by virtually all substances abusers if they are to recover. This concept is diametrically opposed to the conclusion of the Match Study.

Discussion on the Match Study - Revision 2.0

The Match Study was not the only flawed government study that published erroneous conclusions. The CALDATA conclusions were not only misleading but bad science. Its conclusion that "treatment worked" sounded promising for alcoholics and drug addicts but on closer examination the assertion that "treatment worked" was an economic assertion claiming to save the taxpayers of California millions of dollars. But even that assertion turned out to be based on false economies.

Discussion on the CALDATA Study - Revision 2.0

In contrast to both of the aforementioned studies Baldwin Research Institute has been, since the late 1980's, contending that conventional treatment, treatment licensed by OASAS and similar agencies in other states, does not work. Other researchers were not so blatant as to say that treatment doesn't work but reported through study after study of poor success rates.

It was never the intention for Baldwin Research to enter into the treatment business. As a matter of historical perspective Baldwin Research set up the Baldwin Program at The Hagaman Guest House as a means to study the effects of social and educational based programs on drug and alcohol problems. From the very start Baldwin Research has had its efforts sabotaged by a collusive force made up of Alcoholics Anonymous, New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services and the Roman Catholic Church.

All three organizations have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Alcoholics Anonymous has a strangle-hold on the treatment industry where a majority of those employed in the treatment industry are members of Alcoholics Anonymous. It is imperative for Alcoholics Anonymous to maintain its hold over the market in that most of its revenue is generated from the industry. The New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services employs a substantial number of members of Alcoholics Anonymous; it is impossible to know the exact number inasmuch as Alcoholics Anonymous is a clandestine organization. Furthermore, licensing or credentialing of care providers and employees of care providers is governed by The New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services. Those that receive licenses and credentials from The New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services are substantially (probably predominately) members of Alcoholics Anonymous and/or related organizations. And finally, the Roman Catholic Church is the number one provider of conventional drug and alcohol programs in the country. In New York State alone the combined activities of these organizations are estimated to cost the people of the state in excess of two billion dollars annually. Based on the previous discussion where it has been definitively demonstrated by responsible researchers that the treatment that these organizations provide are of no value, it is clear why these organizations must stop the efforts of Baldwin Research.

These organizations have mounted a concerted effort beginning in 1992 to put Baldwin Research and its division, The Hagaman Guest House out of business. The fact that both organizations, Baldwin Research and its division, The Hagaman Guest House, are not only still here but are thriving, is a testimony to truth being stronger than money and defamation. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent by these organizations and countless acts of defamation have been perpetrated by these organizations during the past nine years in their collective (collusive) attempts to discredit and destroy Baldwin Research and its division, The Hagaman Guest House.

In our efforts to fight for our very existence we initiated a twenty million dollar lawsuit against Alcoholics Anonymous World Services for defamation against our companies and our employees and an additional action against Alcoholics Anonymous World Services monopolistic practices with respect to the treatment industry. Additionally and as recent as October 1999 Baldwin Research and it division, The Hagaman Guest House, has filed a Notice of Claim against New York State's Office of Alcoholism and Substance Services for negligence and intentional tort.

Prior to this time and as far back as 1992, Baldwin Research and it division, The Hagaman Guest House, has repeatedly attempted to work with New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services for the purpose of ensuring that the people of the State of New York have drug and alcohol programs that provide "care, treatment and rehabilitation of high quality and effectiveness." Finally in November 1998 we provided New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services with the following information and research results:

5.0. Excerpts from Letter to New York State's Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services
...It must be understood that Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. has no interest in conducting rehabilitation programs; its mission is to research and develop rehabilitation programs, prevention methods, legislation and social programs that will reduce the use and abuse of alcohol and other drugs. Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. initially brought together The Hagaman Guest House and the Baldwin Program, which it developed, for the purpose of conducting research on a social based program of recovery for alcohol and drug problems...

Additionally, it must be understood that The Hagaman Guest House does not ever want to participate in alcohol and drug rehabilitation activities. Its charter is to be, in every sense of the words, a "guest house." The Hagaman Guest House does not want to serve clients, patients, alcoholics, or drug addicts-it only serves guests. This is no small distinction. The labels we put on people often set the expectations and behaviors of those labeled. For example, a "client" expects the professional to fix whatever problem for which the client has enlisted the professional's aid. The same is true for the label "patient." In both of these cases the burden of performance is the responsibility of the professional. In stark contrast a "guest" does not expect transference of his/her responsibilities. The responsibility to solve any problems guests may have remains their own. Nonetheless, "guests" do have expectations that include being treated with respect, dignity, and having an enjoyable experience. These expectations of the guests at The Hagaman Guest House are met and often exceeded.

As for OASAS's perceived liabilities, there are always liabilities when we extend ourselves into new situations. If businesses were to shrink away from new ideas and opportunities because of perceived, or real, liabilities there would be no progress. Regardless, we can only guess that the perceived liabilities that concern OASAS have to do with the physical attributes of the guest house. However, it is not clear whether OASAS is concerned with a physical liability, (i.e. a sleeping room fails to meet the minimum requirements thereby causing the guest to be in some sort of danger or the guest not having the best opportunity to recover) or a political liability (i.e. a sleeping room fails to meet the minimum requirements thereby causing other licensed residential programs to request a reduction in minimum standards at their respective facilities).

Addressing the possible concerns for physical liabilities first, The Hagaman Guest House meets and in most cases exceeds all physical requirements (except for one 31-inch wide hallway) for a residential program. In fact, guests coming to The Hagaman Guest House from licensed residential programs (inpatient programs) are delighted by the spaciousness and quality of life offered at The Hagaman Guest House.

Nonetheless OASAS's concerns in this area raise some important questions. For example, if a property is approved by local and/or state health officials, even in cases where the minimums required by OASAS are not met, does OASAS have the wherewithal to defend its requirements based on evidence that its regulations are "safer" or "better" than other state agencies or local building codes? Further, is OASAS prepared to show that there is something "special" about where alcoholics and drug addicts sleep as opposed to non-alcoholics or non-drug addicts? And, if OASAS claims that there is something "special" does OASAS have the data to support such contentions? Specifically, does OASAS have data that demonstrates people are safer in a fire or natural disaster or that more people recover from drug and alcohol problems if they are allotted 40 square feet of bedroom space than persons having, say, 35 square feet per person? Moreover, is it not possible, even probable, in the face of no evidence to the contrary, that people may be even safer or have even a higher recovery rate in 35 square feet of allotted sleeping area as opposed to OASAS's required 40 square feet?

This is not idle banter. Every inch of additional space requirement that is not needed adds to the cost of delivering the service. To arbitrarily pick an amount of floor space or to select a standard from some other state agency without regard for the specific needs of the operation may not be in the best interest of the population to be served. For example, it is certainly not in the best interests of the New York State taxpayers to have Medicaid pay one cent more than is needed for an alcoholic to receive treatment. Thus, if treatment facilities could reduce bedroom space requirements by 10% without sacrificing safety and without reducing efficacy rates, it would be in the best interest of the New York State taxpayers for OASAS to change its regulations. Furthermore, it is reasonable to suggest that OASAS could relax some, most, or all of its regulations by 10% without sacrificing safety, quality of treatment or outcome. Such a reduction would translate directly to, at least, a 10% reduction in Medicaid costs for treatment of alcoholics and drug addicts in licensed programs.

...Fair Use cuts...

The truth is that The Hagaman Guest House is providing "treatment" in the generally accepted use of the word. According to Webster's Dictionary the word treatment means: "an act, manner or procedure for treating something." According to that same source "treating" means: "to handle or manage in a particular way." The problem comes when OASAS claims that all procedures that are used to treat alcoholism and drug addictions are covered by OASAS's definition of treatment when, in fact, they are not. Setting aside questions as to the constitutionality and the monopolistic nature of OASAS's word prohibitions, the universal prohibition against using the word "treatment," except by OASAS licensed programs, thwarts any efforts by innovators to develop and enter the market with competing, but different technologies.

Yet, it would seem grossly unfair to allow one group to call themselves treatment without any conformance to regulations within a specific government regulated market, while all others competing in that market are forced to conform. Reasonably, it could be argued that the non-conforming organizations would have an "unfair" competitive advantage over those that do conform. Notwithstanding that having a competitive advantage over ones competition, unfair or otherwise, is American industry at its best, to claim that the perceived, or real, unfair competitive advantage is, in and of itself, problematic would be wrong. Finding a competitive advantage over competition is the bedrock on which a free enterprise system is built.

But those who would assert that The Hagaman Guest House has an unfair competitive advantage based on it not being regulated by OASAS need to look deeper into The Hagaman Guest House's participation in the market. Upon close examination two important facts become clear: (1) The Hagaman Guest House rarely competes against licensed programs for the same treatment dollars and (2) The Hagaman Guest House never provides the same "product" (services) as licensed programs.

Regarding the question of competing for the same treatment dollars, The Hagaman Guest House does accept Medicaid or Medicare payments, but according to these social programs the poor have no right to selection of alternative programs. The Hagaman Guest House does accept insurance payments for guests who have out-of-plan coverage and from out-of-state insurance companies who do not require OASAS certification. These payments constitute less than 1% of The Hagaman Guest House's revenues. In contrast, we estimate that at least 50%, and probably as much as 90% or more, of all revenues paid to licensed programs in New York State come from Medicaid, Medicare and insurance companies. Clearly, then, The Hagaman Guest House is not competing with New York State licensed programs for the same treatment dollars.

However, in the future, The Hagaman Guest House may accept payment from HMOs or insurance companies when such payments are offered. The Hagaman Guest House would not consider accepting such payments as a violation of New York State statute or OASAS Regulations. That is to say that, if one party wants to pay for an educational program and another party wants to accept payment for an educational program, a transaction of that kind certainly is not governed by OASAS regulation or prohibited by New York State statute.

Additionally, The Hagaman Guest House does not compete with New York State licensed programs, in that, it does not offer any services rendered by licensed programs. The Hagaman Guest House does not employ any professional counselors, nor does it purport, advertise or in any way imply that it offers such services as counseling, group therapy or any treatment that requires certification by OASAS. The Hagaman Guest House's certified instructors do not counsel or advise guests, nor do they purport, advertise or in any way imply that The Hagaman Guest House offers such services. The Hagaman Guest House does not rehabilitate anyone, nor does it purport, advertise or in any way imply that it offers such services. In fact the Baldwin Program at The Hagaman Guest House teaches guests how to rehabilitate themselves. Thus, The Hagaman Guest House is not competing for the market that wants treatment based on transference of responsibility (e.g. counseling, group therapy, therapeutic roll play, or any other type of therapy).

Nonetheless, The Hagaman Guest House has an important role to play in the alcohol and drug rehabilitation market. There is a segment of the market that does not want the type of treatment offered by OASAS licensed programs, and there is a segment of the market that is not wanted by OASAS licensed programs. Many people have gone to treatment offered by licensed programs over and over again and have come to the conclusion that OASAS licensed programs cannot help them. Some of these people have found their way to the Baldwin Program at The Hagaman Guest House and approximately 70% of them are sober and drug free today. Then there is a population that licensed programs will not take. This population falls into two categories: (1) it is common practice for licensed programs to refuse admission to those who have already been through one or more programs previously, and (2) it is common practice to refuse admission based on inability to pay. While these refusals may be shrouded in contrived conditions to bar admission (no bed space, not a high enough BA, too drunk, and the like), everyone in the industry understands that inability to pay is the number one prohibiting factor barring admission to licensed treatment programs.

...Fair Use cuts...flr...

Even in the face of the previous discussion it is certain that at least some of the licensed programs would contend that The Hagaman Guest House is in fact competing with them, therefore it should be required to abide by the same rules. For the owners and operators of those licensed programs, we offer the following solution: it's a free country. That is to say that there is nothing stopping a licensed program from abandoning its current methods in favor of offering a social, educational program for recovery from alcohol and drug problems. The Hagaman Guest House would welcome the competition because it knows that social and educational programs produce far better recovery rates than treatment offered by licensed programs.

...Fair Use cuts...flr...

For example, we have almost 10 years of verifiable research data on the Baldwin Program. Repeatedly, we have offered to share with OASAS this information. For nearly 10 years Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. has reported verifiable success rates from year to year hovering around 70%.

...Fair Use cuts...flr...

It is safe to say that success rate and price information for New York State licensed programs is not available to the consumer of those services. Moreover, even when success rates have been available there is no standardization of the study methodology. Without standard methods of measurement, consumers are worse off than not having information available at all.

Further, in the last 8 years, Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. has compiled data from a variety of independent studies conducted by others during the past 30 years, and has made that information available to OASAS. While Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. agrees that here and there studies show that psychological and medical methods work, the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary. The truth is that psychological and medical treatment for alcohol and drug problems have not been very effective. In fact, there are responsible studies that have concluded that psychological and medical methods do not work at all and may in fact be harmful.

In a study conducted by the Kansas City Veterans Administration Medical Center, the VA reported on three groups. Group One received no treatment at all except for a 15-minute appointment each month with a doctor. Group Two was given Antabuse and Group Three received the full range of treatment including outpatient programs, individual counseling and therapy, family counseling programs, vocational and rehabilitation guidance, Alcoholics Anonymous and the option of taking Antabuse. The group that had no treatment at all did, statistically, significantly better (20% better) than either of the two treated groups. The reason this study is important is that many studies, like the Chapman-Walsh Study, the CALDATA Study and Project MATCH fail to compare their results with the "no treatment" option.

However, the VA study is not the only study that has shown that the "no treatment" option outperforms the treatment option. For two decades William R. Miller, a psychologist at the University of New Mexico has been assessing therapies for treating alcoholism. In 1995 Miller et al., rated 43 kinds of treatment by combining the results of 211 controlled trials that compared the efficacy of a treatment with either no treatment or with other alcoholism therapies (March-April 1998, The Sciences, pg. 17-21 Author: Stanton Peele). According to the findings of Miller et al., the treatment with by far the best overall score was "brief intervention," followed by social skills training and motivational enhancements. "Brief intervention" is as simple as having the client agree to reduce his/her drinking or drugging or to refrain from drinking and drugging altogether. And, "motivational enhancements" is a process of the client deciding what is important in his or her life and then adjust his or her drinking and drugging accordingly. Both processes are far less confrontational than the methods generally employed in OASAS licensed programs. The Miller Report described standard treatment (which includes OASAS licensed programs) as "a milieu advocating a spiritual 12-step (AA) philosophy, typically augmented with group psychotherapy, educational lectures and films, and general alcoholism counseling often of a confrontational nature." These standard treatment techniques ranked at the bottom of Miller's list, with far less proof of their effectiveness than other treatments. Thus, the most frequently used methods throughout the US and in New York State are programs for which there is the least evidence of success.

While there are many other studies that confirm the findings of Miller et al., it would belabor the point to refer to each one individually. The point is simply this: the majority of independent studies show that the same number of individuals recover, by whatever measure is employed by the researchers, whether these individuals receive treatment or not. The absolute conclusion of studying alcohol and drug treatments for the past 50 years is that once an individual who is experiencing problems with alcohol becomes aware of the problem, 20% to 30% will stop the problematic behavior for at least a year regardless of the treatment or with no treatment at all.

Stanton Peele is a psychologist and the author of six books, as well as numerous professional articles on addiction and alcoholism. In the March/April edition of The Sciences he presented an article evaluating Project MATCH. While he rightly points out the flaws in the sampling technique that biased the study to attempt to substantiate the claim that "treatment works," his general observation about claims that treatment works is far more important. Referring to Dr. Enoch Gordis's refrain that "treatment works," Peele writes, " Such an outlook, Gordis's overoptimistic interpretation notwithstanding, represents a public-relations triumph for the alcohol-treatment industry. But the blanket assurance that "treatment works" does precious little for most people who drink too much."

The aforementioned studies raise a very important question. In order to determine the exact benefit of treatment as is provided by OASAS licensed programs, those who would have gotten sober and drug free with just a "brief intervention" must be subtracted out of the number that reportedly get sober and drug free through treatment. This is not a ploy to make treatment look bad, but rather it is scientifically sound to remove that portion of the population that would have recovered without treatment. Since studies have indicated that 20% to 30% of people suffering from alcohol problems respond favorably with just a brief intervention, then the percent of those who are claimed to be helped by treatment must be reduced by that same percent to isolate the efficacy of the treatment. Dr. Enoch Gordis in a talk at the NYSAASAP, Research to Practice Conference at Saratoga, New York this past October (1998) said that treatment is 20% to 30% effective.

It is also not our intent to promote any particular program. Although Baldwin Research is the creator of the Baldwin Program, it is not Baldwin Research's mission to promote that program. To be sure, if there was evidence that other methods obtained better results, Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. would immediately abandon the Baldwin Program to apply its resources on that which achieved the best results. To that end, Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. expended a great deal of its resources understanding what other researchers are doing. For example, Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. spent thousands of person-hours analyzing the CALDATA Study. After careful review of Andrew Mecca's work we could not agree with his conclusion that stated, "This California study corroborates a number of smaller studies in the United States, which prove that appropriate alcohol and other drug abuse treatment works." This horribly misleading statement by Mecca is based on politics; it's bad science.

...Fair Use cuts...flr...

But even Mecca's economic conclusions were misleading in that he failed to study the "no treatment" option. Moreover, the greatest savings reported by Mecca was not treatment at all but involved giving drug addicts a highly addictive and mind altering drug, methadone. The treatment that was least cost effective was the type offered by OASAS licensed programs. The most cost-effective program was the social based program, similar to the Baldwin Program, for which there is no license available in New York State.

...Fair Use cuts...flr...

Snyder's program was followed by participation, ad infinitum, in a fellowship program, which he had named Alcoholics Anonymous. In 1941 Snyder reported that this approach had yielded a 93% recovery rate. In 1995, 1996 and 1997 using the same techniques that Snyder used, Baldwin Research duplicated Snyder's results reporting a 95% recovery rate, a 94% recovery rate and a 94% recovery rate, respectively. These results are based on abstinence.

Today the Baldwin Program is the most successful program ever developed for helping people with drug and alcohol problems (and other compulsive and obsessive behaviors). All of our evaluations are based on achieving abstinence, since abstinence is the only normal condition for human beings. The American cockeyed notion that drinking alcohol is normal gives testimony as to just how ill informed we are as a society. Most of the world's population does not drink alcohol and does not want to drink alcohol. Therefore, trying to help problem drinkers and drug users to reduce their drinking and drugging into an acceptable behavioral range is tantamount to actually encouraging them to continue harmful behavior.

Even though it is grossly inequitable to compare the Baldwin Program results with other studies that report ambiguous, subjective results of reduced use of drug and alcohol as a basis of success, Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. is, nonetheless, prepared to present the multiyear statistics of the Baldwin Program against the results claimed by other methodologies. The Baldwin Program statistics presented herein were updated 20 November 1998. Bear in mind that simplicity is the essence of sound statistical analysis.

Our statistical analysis is made up of three categories: sober, drunk, and unknown. The sober category is comprised of two groups: those with less than one year of sobriety and drug free living and those with one year or more of sobriety and drug free living. There are no ambiguities; the technique is binary; the subject is either sober and drug free (hereinafter referred to as "sober") or not (hereinafter referred to as "drunk").

With those parameters set, the most current data (November 1998) is as follows. The total sample was 204 subjects. The total number "known" sober at the time of sampling was 80 of which 33 had less than one year sober and 47 had one year or more sober. 18 were "known" to be drunk and 106 were unknown as to their sobriety and drug use.

Examining, first, the most reliable data, that is, the "known" group with one year or more sobriety, the total number in this group was 62 of which 47 (75.8%) were sober and 15 (24.2%) were drunk. The known group with one year of sobriety has consistently demonstrated success rates of 75% (+-) 5%. Like other studies our data is subject to the same inflation of success rate by those who would have gotten sober by a brief intervention. This inflation rate that ranges from 20% to 30% averages approximately 25% from study to study. Adjusting, then, the success rate of the Baldwin Program for those who would have gotten sober without the Baldwin Program, the actually success rate is 50%.

Still, we are suspicious of studies that arbitrarily throw out the "unknown" population. Although we think most researchers are ethical, there are researchers that would throw failures into the unknown category to improve their statistics. One has to understand that supporting the notion that "treatment works" means a lot of money to a lot of people. My cynicism from being in research for 36 years comes from observing that researchers will lie for a whole lot less than money. Here at Baldwin Research, we have gone to great lengths to report on the total population so as not to hide any results.

...Fair Use cuts...flr...

These statistics raise very serious questions as to the advisability of people with drug and alcohol problems attending conventional treatment programs. In that 20% to 30% of those identified as needing help recover without any treatment, it is not only possible, but probable, that treatment is actually contributing factor in the relapse of many of its patients. This suggests that conventional treatment is not just a fraud, taking money for a procedure that clearly doesn't work, but it may, in point of fact, be a cause for relapse and the death of those it claims it is helping. This then is our bloodletting. So the question before us is this: Shall we continue to kill thousands of people, including our children, with a failed treatment, or do we have the courage to change?

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.

TheBitch · Dec 21, 2008

Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

$cilons, burn it to the ground.

fitch2000 · Dec 21, 2008

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."

fitch2000 · Dec 21, 2008

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.

_You_ · Nov 20, 2009

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!!

YAHRLY · Nov 20, 2009

Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

WUT?

shorty6981 · Nov 20, 2009

Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

??

_You_ · Nov 20, 2009

Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

/r/ dome for bumping an 11-month old Fred Rice kookfart

xenubarb · Nov 20, 2009

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.

Example:

the guests are guided through a course that first helps them to identify their behavior patterns, underlying problems and negative as well as positive thought patterns.

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.

Asshole · Nov 20, 2009

Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

tl;dr

JohnnyRUClear · Nov 20, 2009

Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

xenubarb;1073367 said:

This bear's watching.

This bear's applauding that bear.

FUCK · Nov 20, 2009

Re: Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

RAWR

Slate · Jan 26, 2011

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 thecleanslate.org. 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:

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

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.

Anonymous · Jan 26, 2011

Slate said: ↑

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. ..

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.

Slate · Jan 26, 2011

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.

Anonymous · Jan 26, 2011

Anonymous said: ↑

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 suspicion 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.

Slate said: ↑

I understand your concern - I found the thread through a search on Baldwin Research

hmm

Slate · Jan 26, 2011

Anonymous said: ↑

hmm

???
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.

withconscience · Jan 26, 2011

Slate said: ↑

???
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.

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?

timthephoto · Jan 26, 2011

Slate's Blog said:

One thing I’m very concerned about, is that when people finally realize that conventional treatment and 12-step methods of recovery don’t work, they go looking for alternatives and get drawn in by another ineffective program, or something that has the same characteristics they were trying to escape by looking for alternatives. The danger I want to highlight today is Narconon. For those who don’t know, the treatment centers called Narconon, use a program developed with Scientology, based on the writings of L Ron Hubbard, and are primarily run by scientologists. I will not use this post as a means to debate the merits and/or problems of scientology, because I’m not well versed in it.

http://www.thecleanslate.org/new-face-of-recovery-is-a-front-for-narconon-and-scientology/

OTBT · Jan 26, 2011

Slate said: ↑

???
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.

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)

http://www.saintjudecountryretreat.com/addiction-treatment-22.php

On December 31, 1990, 70% of those who came to the Baldwin Group during 1990 were sober and drug free. Of the alcoholics and drug addicts who came to the Baldwin Program 57% got sober and drug free immediately and remained that way; 13% sobered up and stopped using drugs after some relapse; 8% kept in touch with the Baldwin Group and have enjoyed some sobriety even though they continue to drink and drug today; twenty-two percent drank and/or drugged and disassociated with the Baldwin Group.

Gottheil and Associates (1982) reported that only 19% of 20 treated alcoholics remained abstinent during the first six months after treatment; 48% became relapsed drinkers during that time. Two other studies having a combined total of 499 treated alcoholics reported 18% remained abstinent during the first six months following treatment thereby confirming Gottheil and Associates' findings. The Maddux and Desmond study of 1981 reported following treatment for drug addiction, 13% remained abstinent for six months. The Baldwin Research Project reports 73% of those in the Baldwin Group remained abstinent for more than six months, a reported success rate more than 3 times that of conventional treatment programs.

Even those who did not achieve sustained sobriety or remain free of drugs showed improvement following their exposure to the Baldwin Program. All achieved a longer period of sobriety and free from drugs than they had ever achieved before. The combined success of the total group can be measured by the number of sober and drug free person-months versus the total number of person-months of the study. The total number of person-months is the sum of the number of persons in the study month by month for each month for the twelve consecutive months. The total number of person-months was 262 months. The individuals in the Baldwin Program amassed 212 sober and drug free months, which yielded an 81% success rate.

The significance of preceding excerpt and the Table 4.6 from The Baldwin Research Project of 1990* is that both Baldwin Research and Narconon employed a social structure (peer group) in their respective programs, and both Baldwin Research and Narconon employed educational techniques in their respective programs, and both programs collected specific data on the results of their respective programs, and both programs opened their programs up to outside scrutiny and verification, and both Baldwin Research and Narconon independently reported the exact same success of their respective subjects and the exact same failure rate for conventional treatment.

Note: *The Baldwin Research Project of 1990 is presented in its entirety in Appendix A.)

Research conducted by organizations that provide treatment has ranged from incompetent to absurd, to outright lies. Why, then, believe Narconon data? There are several reasons. The most compelling, however, is the simple truth that independent researchers have all agreed on two facts: (1) psychological based treatment is ineffective in the treatment of alcohol and other drug problems and claims by providers of this type of treatment to the contrary are just not credible, and (2) social based and educational based programs produce significantly better results than psychological based programs (CALDATA Study and Baldwin Research). Narconon’s data, in this regard, has merely reinforced that which had already been reported by independent researchers.

Another reason for viewing Narconon’s reported success as credible is the fact that multiple organizations outside of Narconon conducted or participated in the studies.

The California Dept. of Corrections, Teenicos Asociados de Investigacion y Marketing, California Institute for Women, The Arizona Correctional Authority, Riker's Island Institute for Men in New York, Youth Training School (YTS) of the California Youth Authority and others all participated in or independently conducted studies of Narconon results. The point to this discussion is simply this: Programs that are producing good results, like The Hagaman Guest House Baldwin Program and Narconon, are more than happy, in fact encourage, outside organizations to study the success rate. Conversely, programs that do not produce good and lasting results are loathed to have independent outsiders scrutinize their results.

Program that have good results to report want the results known as a matter of good marketing. As previously reported Baldwin Research, from time to time, polls treatment programs in New York State for success rates among other program characteristics. When 25 out of 25 programs polled could not or would not disclose their success rate, it is clear that the success rates must be poor. Moreover, it is probable that most or all of the treatment programs randomly polled really didn’t know their success rate. Unlike programs like the Baldwin Program and other programs that have high success rates, treatment programs with poor success rates, which includes all conventional treatment programs, certainly do not spend a lot of time and other resources documenting their poor results.

Another significant agreement between the Narconon Program and the Baldwin Program is the recognition that there is a specific set of activities that must be adhered to by virtually all substances abusers if they are to recover. This concept is diametrically opposed to the conclusion of the Match Study.

Discussion on the Match Study – Revision 2.0

The Match Study was not the only flawed government study that published erroneous conclusions. The CALDATA conclusions were not only misleading but bad science. Its conclusion that “treatment worked” sounded promising for alcoholics and drug addicts but on closer examination the assertion that “treatment worked” was an economic assertion claiming to save the taxpayers of California millions of dollars. But even that assertion turned out to be based on false economies.

OTBT · Jan 26, 2011

(continued)

Discussion on the CALDATA Study – Revision 2.0

In contrast to both of the aforementioned studies Baldwin Research Institute has been, since the late 1980’s, contending that conventional treatment, treatment licensed by OASAS and similar agencies in other states, does not work . Other researchers were not so blatant as to say that treatment doesn’t work but reported through study after study of poor success rates.

It was never the intention for Baldwin Research to enter into the treatment business. As a matter of historical perspective Baldwin Research set up the Baldwin Program at The Hagaman Guest House as a means to study the effects of social and educational based programs on drug and alcohol problems. From the very start Baldwin Research has had its efforts sabotaged by a collusive force made up of Alcoholics Anonymous, New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services and the Roman Catholic Church.

All three organizations have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Alcoholics Anonymous has a strangle-hold on the treatment industry where a majority of those employed in the treatment industry are members of Alcoholics Anonymous. It is imperative for Alcoholics Anonymous to maintain its hold over the market in that most of its revenues is generated from the industry. The New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services employs a substantial number of members of Alcoholics Anonymous; it is impossible to know the exact number inasmuch as Alcoholics Anonymous is a clandestine organization. Furthermore, licensing or credentialing of care providers and employees of care providers is governed by The New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services. Those that receive licenses and credentials from The New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services are substantially (probably predominately) members of Alcoholics Anonymous and/or related organizations. And finally, the Roman Catholic Church is the number one provider of conventional drug and alcohol programs in the country. In New York State alone the combined activities of these organizations are estimated to cost the people of the state in excess of Two Billion Dollars annually. Based on the previous discussion where it has been definitively demonstrated by responsible researchers that the treatment that these organizations provide are of no value , it is clear why these organizations must stop the efforts of Baldwin Research.

Copyright 1998 Baldwin Research Institute, Inc.

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.

withconscience · Jan 26, 2011

Slate said: ↑

Being against the disease model of addiction doesn't necessarily make you a scientologist or new-age nutbag.

No, but making claims like this: "the world's most successful residential program" makes them read/sound like Scientologist/nutbags.

Slate · Jan 26, 2011

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.

OTBT · Jan 27, 2011

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%

http://www.baldwinresearch.com/new/jude-thaddeus-program.cfm

The Jude Thaddeus Program™ success rate is better than 65%, and has been verified by independent research companies. No other program in the country can legitimately make that claim. And, these research reports are made available to the public exactly as prepared by the outside independent researchers. That is to say that the reports as they appear on the internet are unedited. No rehabilitation program or 12 step based recovery program could withstand the scrutiny of an independent research study of success rates because such a study would most certainly expose these programs as being no better than no treatment at all. In fact, independent studies have been conducted and reported that conventional treatment and 12 step based programs are frequently less successful than no treatment at all. So, take care when looking at success rates claimed by conventional treatment programs and 12 step programs that exceed 5%. To promote their services conventional treatment programs and 12 step programs either make up their success rate or they conduct their own studies loading their analysis to favor the outcome they desire.

What is the Jude Thaddeus Program™?

First it is important to know what the Jude Thaddeus Program™ is not: it is not treatment; it is not rehabilitation; it is not psycho-babble; it is not spiritual fantasy; it is not counseling and it most certainly is not 12 steps. It is, first and foremost, an educational experience leading to better choices in the future and a more positive lifestyle. It is a program that develops social skills and eases social anxieties. It is a program that moves participants from fear and anxiety to self-confidence and positive motivation. In short, it is a life changing experience.

What makes the Jude Thaddeus Program™ so successful?

The Jude Thaddeus Program™ is effective because it teaches common sense solutions, it builds on the hard work of maturing and changing negative habits into positive action, and it makes clear how to accept deferred gratification through stick-to-itiveness, and carefully constructed goal oriented plans. Although these principles are time tested, they require work, and the willingness to change.

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:

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.
...

I would tend to think that ANY organization that simultaneously praises Narconon and dismisses Alcoholics Anonymous (and the Catholic Church? WTF?) is definitely suspect.

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.

Ann O'Nymous · Jan 27, 2011

OTBT said: ↑

Your open request to call and visit BRI and judge for ourselves is definitely a good sign.

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.

OTBT · Jan 27, 2011

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.

BigBeard · Jan 27, 2011

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.

BigBeard

Squirrel King · Jan 27, 2011

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. http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=0812695682

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

Man the Harpoons. We have a Scilon front or a Scilon copycat.

Squirrel King · Jan 27, 2011

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.

Auditor's Toad · Jan 27, 2011

Squirrel King said: ↑

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

Auditor's Toad · Jan 27, 2011

xenubarb · Jan 27, 2011

fitch2000 said: ↑

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."

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.

Paroxetine Samurai · Jan 27, 2011

Slate said: ↑

Explanations...

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.

Squirrel King · Jan 27, 2011

xenubarb said: ↑

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.

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.)

timthephoto · Jan 28, 2011

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

withconscience · Feb 6, 2011

Slate said: ↑

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.

"Narconon is the ONLY successful drug rehabilitation program on the planet."

L. RON HUBBARD
COMMODORE

2x Former Guest · Feb 7, 2011

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 recovery.....er....recoveredness....by 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 orange-papers.org 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.

Slate · Feb 10, 2011

@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.

wolfyrik · Feb 10, 2011

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.

thefatman · Feb 10, 2011

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

Log in or Sign up

Baldwin Research Institute -- A Scientology Fraud?

DamOTclese Member

TheBitch Member

fitch2000 Member

fitch2000 Member

_You_ Member

YAHRLY Member

shorty6981 Member

_You_ Member

xenubarb Member

Asshole Member

JohnnyRUClear Member

FUCK Member

Slate Member

Anonymous Member

Slate Member

Anonymous Member

Slate Member

withconscience Member

timthephoto Member

OTBT Member

OTBT Member

withconscience Member

Slate Member

OTBT Member

Ann O'Nymous Member

OTBT Member

BigBeard Member

Squirrel King Member

Squirrel King Member

Auditor's Toad Member

Auditor's Toad Member

xenubarb Member

Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

Squirrel King Member

timthephoto Member

withconscience Member

2x Former Guest Member

Slate Member

wolfyrik Member

thefatman Member

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Predefined Skins