[placer]

Earlier in the article, it states that “The review found 42% of AA participants were completely abstinent one year later, compared with 35% of participants who underwent other treatments like CBT.”

Cochrane reviews are considered the gold standard for meta-reviews. If the data, which does show AA [1] helps some alcoholics become abstinent, wasn’t scientifically sound, it wouldn’t had become part of the review.

Saitz either thinks a 7% improvement is a “similar result”, or he wasn’t familiar with the study when interviewed.

Obviously, people are free to think the science doesn’t “conclusively support” a given theory. Using this line of thinking, some people think radiocarbon dating doesn’t “conclusively support” the idea of the earth being older than 6,000 years -- but that’s hardly an evidence-based scientific line of reasoning.

[1] Since it’s not practical to use randomization to compare AA per se to non-AA recovery because of “contaminated control” issues, modern studies compare twelve-step facilitation (TSF) treatment with non-TSF treatment.