Genuinely interested but not impressed Part I

[Rachael]

Hello Interested,

I pulled this from March 24, 1992. If you open the document in word, the reference can be found on Page 9.

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/net/index.asp ... =doc&fid=1

MR. NELSON:  Mr. Speaker, AADAC has been involved with assistance in developing the program of the Alberta Adolescent Recovery Centre since its inception originally as Kids of the Canadian West.   They have developed an exceptionally good program to assist in the care of young people in the province of Alberta for recovery in alcohol and other substances abuses as well as other disorders.   Alberta today has without a doubt exceptional programs for adolescent care, unmatched anywhere in Canada and in fact probably in the United States.  As far as I'm concerned, with the support of the government there is in general terms no reason for young people to have to go to the states.  There is a misconception that because it is an American program it is better.   That is not the case.  Alberta has excep­tional programs that can meet the needs of Albertans in all age groups and particularly our adolescents.  

[Rachael]

Also, Interested,

There are many things about AARC and my experience there specifically that I do not post about here. If you are truly interested in the kids who have been through AARC and our stories, feel free to contact me. You can do that by registering and private messaging me or if you post some way of contacting you, I will.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for the link. I was able to trace it through the date you gave me. I don't know why the query raised nothing when I made it. I concede. My appologies.

[Anonymous]

There are many more references to AARC on this Web-site if anyone is interested. I sorted by relevancy rather than date and much more came up.

[Anonymous]

I have also now been able to find the references to Kids of the Canadian West on the same web site sorted by relevancy. The query is case sensitive.

[Rachael]

Yeah, the search function is also a bit buggy. I've had to backtrack to the page before it and back a few times.

[Anonymous]

I think I also found the link for the Recovering Krystal synopsis. They must have removed the reference to Dr. Vause as a psychiatrist. It looks to me like the same one copied into the thread. I found another one too.
http://www.fanlight.com/catalog/films/378_rk.php
http://www.sbs.com.au/whatson/index.php3?id=483
If these don't work, you can google her name. That is how I found them.
One of the guests wanted to know how to locate a copy. I think you can order a one from one of these sites.

[Anonymous]

Here is another link to a similar synopsis which does include the psychiatrist reference. http://www.mediarights.org/film/recovering_krystal
I concede. It is out there in places. Where the source is I don't know.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I wrote to them, here is thei response:

Dear *********:

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on our description of the film Recovering Krystal, which we distribute. The film, as you know, was produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Fanlight Production distributes a number of films produced by the CBC. Since we are not involved in the production of these programs, we are of course not in a position to evaluate every aspect of the content, but we have generally found them to be well researched and -- as far as we are able to tell -- accurate.

The description of the film on our website was based on materials sent to us by the CBC. However, having checked AARC's website as well as other sources on the internet, I think that the comment in your first paragraph regarding the reasons for the treatment of families is a fair one. We will change that text as soon as possible. We will also remove the reference to Dr. Vause as a psychiatrist. I appreciate your bringing this to our attention.

Your family's experiences with the AARC were obviously pretty negative compared to Krystal's, and I'm sorry to hear that. Both the film and our description of it note that their approach doesn't work for everyone. Nonetheless we think it presents a valuable portrait of a young person recovering from addition, that has proved useful to many of our customers.

I would encourage you to send your comments to the CBC and to Dr. Suzuki as well as to Fanlight.

Best wishes,
Ben Achtenberg
President
[/b]

[hanzomon4]

Well that explains the sudden retraction on, or around, the 15th.

[Anonymous]

There is something very strange about Interested's approach here.  If the stories posted by Rachael, Mel, and any others relating abuses at AARC, then it means that there are some very serious problems at AARC that have never been addressed.  If neither Rachael nor Mel were drug addicts, it begs the question how did they get admitted to AARC?  If AARC is providing intensive treatment for chemically addicted people, how could these two have passed through a proper screening process?
If the accounts of abuse at the hands of oldcomers are true, what remedies were implemented by AARC to prevent such occurrences?  If none were implemented, then why not?
There is no way for Interested to disprove the claims of survivors, whether they claim that AARC saved their lives or that AARC destroyed them.  If the accounts of abuse are true, then AARC is beset with very serious problems, and unless the accounts of abuse can be disproved, all of the evidence backing up AARC is meaningless.
Mel claims that Vause referred to himself as a psychologist.  This can be neither proven nor disproven, but AARC's own website carries a magazine article in which Vause is described as such.  What it does is provide evidence that supports Mel's claim, while not proving it.  As the College of Psychologist has replied to several inquiries with the response that Vause is not a psychologist, one is left to ask why he would make that claim.
Rachael claims to have been assaulted by her oldcomer.  While this cannot be proven, ample evidence of similar abuse in other programs using the oldcomer/newcomer dynamic exists.  This again lends credence to the survivor's story.
Interested has not provided any evidence that would disprove the claims made by these people.
As Interested cannot disprove the claims of abuse, and ample accounts of AARC's effectiveness are available on AARC's own website, it begs the question as to what Interested is attempting to do in this forum.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I wrote to them, here is thei response:

Dear *********:

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on our description of the film Recovering Krystal, which we distribute. The film, as you know, was produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Fanlight Production distributes a number of films produced by the CBC. Since we are not involved in the production of these programs, we are of course not in a position to evaluate every aspect of the content, but we have generally found them to be well researched and -- as far as we are able to tell -- accurate.

The description of the film on our website was based on materials sent to us by the CBC. However, having checked AARC's website as well as other sources on the internet, I think that the comment in your first paragraph regarding the reasons for the treatment of families is a fair one. We will change that text as soon as possible. We will also remove the reference to Dr. Vause as a psychiatrist. I appreciate your bringing this to our attention.

Your family's experiences with the AARC were obviously pretty negative compared to Krystal's, and I'm sorry to hear that. Both the film and our description of it note that their approach doesn't work for everyone. Nonetheless we think it presents a valuable portrait of a young person recovering from addition, that has proved useful to many of our customers.

I would encourage you to send your comments to the CBC and to Dr. Suzuki as well as to Fanlight.

Best wishes,
Ben Achtenberg
President
[/b]

Shortly after the Recovering Crystal broadcast I was provided a report from ISAC which they asked that I provide to Dr Suzuki.  He attended in Edmonton and I provided the package to him after a speech he had given (on unrelated  matters) at the University of Alberta.  
On January 17th 2003 he sent a handwritten reply as follows:

thank-you for your letter and the material. I've forwarded them to Dr. Vause of AARC so he can respond to you directly.  
I knew of AARC because Dean's wife is a cousin of my wife.  So I had seen articles and reports on AARC and suggested to David Tucker that he do research into the program.  Tucker decided it was worth doing and proceeded with it.   I had nothing to do with the show until I narrated the script but I found the film to be moving and compelling -- a powerful film.
"David Suzuki"

So, there you have it:  Dr. Suzuki not only has a family relationship to Dean Vause, albeit distant, but he really didn't have anything to do with the film other than narrating to a script.  He doesn't even say that he was there when the film was made!!!

It's not that David Suzuki is the person to be challenged, it's the whole CBC process that had unqualified people drawing emotive conclusions on a film that was made under conditions tightly controlled by an expert propagandist and con artist who has a family relationship that he exploits.

I really do not know whether Dr. Suzuki read the materials I provided him.  But Dean Vause did not contact me as he had suggested.  And Dean Vause knew perfectly well where to contact me because he had all my contact information.  

Since then I have occasionally taken a look back at this site, and spoken directly to people who are now in therapy for the abuse they suffered while in AARC.  For those dear readers who say, "Well why don't they proceed with charges,"  I say that for PTSD it just isn't that simple.

For those of you with personal experiences, I suggest the person to talk to is not David Suzuki.  Maybe Peter Mansbridge or somebody from W5 might ask a few more penetrating questions  Or at least get some journalist with legal and/or psychological training.  How about Carol Off (sp?).  Somebody in the tradition of Barbara Frum .  Hey, Ian Hanomansing is a lawyer.  I think he'd listen.

[Anonymous]

There is something very strange about Interested's approach here.
My approach is and always has been seeking information and trying to get to facts that would satisfy me as to my own opinions concerning AARC. As I reread my previous posts I realized that what I have been doing is actually recording my thoughts and questions concerning what I have read here.

If the stories posted by Rachael, Mel, and any others relating abuses at AARC, then it means that there are some very serious problems at AARC that have never been addressed.
I have never stated that Rachael and Mel’s stories were in any way untrue, exaggerated, or without merit. I did say that if they are true then there needs to be real investigation and not just bantering back and forth on a web forum that really has very little power to make any significant change. What I have questioned and challenged were the statements that I felt were opinion stated as fact or exaggerations to make a point. I take very little at face value. My question is still, why have these serious problems never been addressed in 15 years of operation?

If neither Rachael nor Mel were drug addicts, it begs the question how did they get admitted to AARC? If AARC is providing intensive treatment for chemically addicted people, how could these two have passed through a proper screening process?
In one of my previous posts I stated that “No parent or court would sign over a child unless they are exhibiting at least some form of extreme behaviourâ€

[Anonymous]

Escalation to a critical point does not mean chemical addiction.  Chemical addiction is chemical addiction.  AARC is not presented as a behaviour modification program for unmanageable teens, it is presented as a treatment centre for adolescents suffering from drug addiction.  Whether or not all concerned feel that a situation is serious, a screening process must exist for AARC to determine addiction.  According to Rachael and Mel, this does not exist.  As there is no psychiatrist at AARC, and a chemical drug screen is not performed at each intake, there is no reason to doubt these women.  
Mel's claim dates to the early nineties, Rachael's from five years ago.  That covers ten years of AARC's existence.  Again, as it is consistent for Straight-modelled programs to foster oldcomer abuse of newcomers, do AARC's links to Kids and Straight increase or decrease the likelihood of abuse at AARC?
The issues raised all have to do with AARC.  Like all other Straight descendents, AARC has amateurs assessing and treating adolescents.  The "treatment" model, taken from Kids, which was taken from Straight, which was taken from the Seed, which was taken from Synanon, is harmful.
As to references to Vause as a psychologist, AARC maintains a copy of the Report article in which Vause is described as a psychologist, on their website.  AARC's own website seems to be the only site on the web where one can see Vause described as a psychologist.  This article dates from AARC's tenth year of operation, and has been maintained on their website for many years.
Perhaps Interested could fall on his knees, declare his powerlessness, and ask Dean Vause to help with his AARCSurvivor addiction.

[Antigen]

Rachael claims to have been assaulted by her oldcomer. While this cannot be proven, ample evidence of similar abuse in other programs using the oldcomer/newcomer dynamic exists. This again lends credence to the survivor's story.
Has Rachael filed a complaint? If so, what was the response? If not, I still don’t understand why not? She may not have felt she had a voice while in AARC but now as an adult without limitations on her freedom, why not? If what I read on this site is true then she would have many people backing her up.

I don't know Rachael very well and have never asked her these questions. But I understand why some people would not file complaints. Ever been through a criminal trial? It's never easy on the victim witnesses. The defence will go to any length within their ability to attack the witness on every level. That's par for the course. I've seen it done to a 10yo rape victim. It's not pretty.

When the perpetrators are clerics (as in this case, clerics in the unholy war on certain un-patentable drugs) it gets much tougher. It's a kangaroo court where the victim is re-victimized. And it's a gambit on the legal level too. A lost case goes to the defence of the criminals. What's worse, they believe their own bullshit.