AA is controversial not only for it's religious content, but also because it's empirically both far less effective than it claims and less effective than alternatives. See, e.g, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/04/the-irr...

How can anyone make an empirical statement about AA -- an organization that does not collect any sort of statistics about itself what so ever?

AA not collecting statistics doesn't prevent other people from conducting studies of recovery in addicts that include people in AA.

Jesus, is there really a magical anti-alcoholism pill? Why isn't this more widely known? It could save many lives!

I just didn't want to derail things into another "AA is bad because it's religious" discussion. To paraphrase Heinlein: If solemnly rubbing blue mud in my belly button would have gotten me sober, I would have done that. If something like Rational Recovery had been an option, I would have gone. But AA is free and there are meetings everywhere, nearly all the time.

It is kind of dismaying to get out of nearly a month of expensive treatment and then be told, "Welp, pretty much all we've got for you at this point is for you to attend a crapload of AA meetings, good luck." But I figure that desperation is an important part of staying sober, at least until you've fleshed out some kind of support.