I don't have to provide evidence because I am not the one making claims.
Claims which cannot be backed up with evidence, but which must be taken on faith.
For all we know, AA hurts more people than it helps.
Personal testimony is the most common form of evidence known in law. There are millions of personal testimonies as to the effectiveness of AA for those people. This constitutes substantial evidence. If you've got a shred of evidence for the claim that "AA hurts more people than it helps" then lets hear it otherwise it is just a "claim which cannot be backed up with evidence".
I know of no way that AA could harm an individual. The worst case is that postpones their death, incarceration, or commitment to a mental institution.
Statistics on recovery rates are largely meaningless as recovery or not depends on the willingness of the individual to follow the program and not the program itself. While I have no figures to back it up, I firmly believe that AA helped more people in the US recover in its first five years than recovered on their own in the previous 500 years world wide.
It is unfortunate that AA is not for people who need it. It is only for people who want it. It is axiomatic that everyone must hit their own personal bottom. Otherwise they will not be willing to do the emotional housecleaning necessary for recovery.
If anyone finds a method or program other than AA that works for them then I say, "Great, more power to them."
I do not understand your skepticism/ antipathy towards AA.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
The passive/aggressive approach probably won't get ya much traction with this crowd.
/.02