AJAX 13

[Anonymous]

Since Ajax seems to know better than accredited academics, registered SWs and psychologists, and researchers such as Michael Q. Patton - i think it would only be appropriate that Ajax tell us all what his credentials are.

i challenge you to lay that out for all of us what credentails you have so we can decide whether there is any credibility to what youhave to say. Also,  tell us when it was you actually met Dr. FD Vause as you claim he is a "sociopath" and also tell us when you went to AARC to confirm all the so-called "facts" you say you are sharing here.

I bet we don't get a straight answer again!!!   but surprise us ajax without demanding something or calling me names  as well.

[Anonymous]

Nobody needs to know the credentials of AJAX 13 as his credentials are completely irrelevant in the debate. He has raised concerns that properly trained individuals may not be working at AARC such as a on site psychologist. If they have one great and if not, it is a reasonable question to ask why not? Asking that kind of question does not require one to provide their own person credentials. If you go to a new doctor, dentist, lawyer or any other professional and you ask what are their qualifications, it would certainly raise some eyebrows if their response is along the lines they don't have to tell you unless you tell them yours. If somebody states they are a specialist in something expect somebody to ask them what qualifies them to be an expert and if they lack the ability to respond back in a reasonable manner then they shouldn't be surprised when suspicion about their qualifications arises.

Certainly the idea of a former drug addict working to help a current user makes some sense but a psychologist is also trained to recognize when a user is not telling the truth. I would hate to see the day when a cancer patient can open up their own cancer treatment clinic and treat others afflicted with such a terrible disease based on the concept because they have cancer that makes them qualified to treat others with cancer.

Obviously some of what Ajax13 is saying has some kind of ring of truth to it or else AARC just has some really thin skin because it seems AARC employees spend a decent amount of time making incredibly immature statements towards those who dare to question AARC instead of presenting facts to refute what is said against AARC.

Certainly looking at why AARC feels it is different from other treatment centers and from the stories of those who went through the program as clients, parents or siblings it does make somebody wonder if certain actions that AARC  performs questionable. I know parents being given nicknames such as the crazy one or insane one. The forcing of a belief in a god or higher power on an individual does give the indication of some traits of a cult. The leaving of new clients with older clients who have had a history of sexual assaults and AARC having full knowledge of this certainly raises some eyebrows. Certainly, AARC should not be completely surprised that some of their graduates do not fully recover when they are broken down as human being and told because they are a drug addict that they are nothing and have no rights which legally is completely untrue. Once again, the amount of time individuals who are still connected to AARC and largely through employment spend attacking those who raise issues with AARC makes any rational individual wonder if something more is not really going on. If AJAX 13 really is completely off his rocker then why do individuals continue to acknowledge what he says? This forum is not the easiest thing to find so I have a hard time believing that AARC actually thinks this forum would scare off any potential parents who would force their child into AARC but more along the lines that some of what is said here is true. And since it is true, it is a threat to the AARC so they send individuals out to counter what is said and insult and try to turn the board into a joke. Instead it simply shows what kind of individuals are employed at AARC. Really, any parent who is thinking about forcing their child into AARC needs to do if they are unsure is to read the kind of comments from individuals connected to AARC posted here and realize these are going to be potentially some of the same individuals who are counseling their children and running AARC.

[Anonymous]

Nobody needs to know the credentials of AJAX 13 as his credentials are completely irrelevant in the debate. He has raised concerns that properly trained individuals may not be working at AARC such as a on site psychologist. If they have one great and if not, it is a reasonable question to ask why not? Asking that kind of question does not require one to provide their own person credentials. If you go to a new doctor, dentist, lawyer or any other professional and you ask what are their qualifications, it would certainly raise some eyebrows if their response is along the lines they don't have to tell you unless you tell them yours. If somebody states they are a specialist in something expect somebody to ask them what qualifies them to be an expert and if they lack the ability to respond back in a reasonable manner then they shouldn't be surprised when suspicion about their qualifications arises.


> Also, AJAX also asserts that Union institute is a mail order university – hardly true if he really knew the literature in the area that he thinks he does. He would know the credibility of someone such as Michael Q Patton  serving as faculty at Union not to mention other faculty from Rutgers University serving as faculty with Union. Ajax might also know that professors are not just affiliated with one university but can teach and mentor students from more than one university.


Certainly the idea of a former drug addict working to help a current user makes some sense but a psychologist is also trained to recognize when a user is not telling the truth. I would hate to see the day when a cancer patient can open up their own cancer treatment clinic and treat others afflicted with such a terrible disease based on the concept because they have cancer that makes them qualified to treat others with cancer.

< so, when did he gather any facts on that. Having been there recently and asked those questions of the intake staff I was shown the credentials of the  registered SW and psychologists. In addition they have a psychiatrist who comes in to AARC to assess clients and give directives on treatment  of clients. This person not only has an MD but completed 4 years post grad work in psychiatry and years of experience in practice.

Obviously some of what Ajax13 is saying has some kind of ring of truth to it or else AARC just has some really thin skin because it seems AARC employees spend a decent amount of time making incredibly immature statements towards those who dare to question AARC instead of presenting facts to refute what is said against AARC.>

< and why should Ajax be granted the right to do just that? >

Certainly looking at why AARC feels it is different from other treatment centers and from the stories of those who went through the program as clients, parents or siblings it does make somebody wonder if certain actions that AARC  performs questionable. I know parents being given nicknames such as the crazy one or insane one. The forcing of a belief in a god or higher power on an individual does give the indication of some traits of a cult. The leaving of new clients with older clients who have had a history of sexual assaults and AARC having full knowledge of this certainly raises some eyebrows. Certainly, AARC should not be completely surprised that some of their graduates do not fully recover when they are broken down as human being and told because they are a drug addict that they are nothing and have no rights which legally is completely untrue. Once again, the amount of time individuals who are still connected to AARC and largely through employment spend attacking those who raise issues with AARC makes any rational individual wonder if something more is not really going on. If AJAX 13 really is completely off his rocker then why do individuals continue to acknowledge what he says? This forum is not the easiest thing to find so I have a hard time believing that AARC actually thinks this forum would scare off any potential parents who would force their child into AARC but more along the lines that some of what is said here is true. And since it is true, it is a threat to the AARC so they send individuals out to counter what is said and insult and try to turn the board into a joke. Instead it simply shows what kind of individuals are employed at AARC. Really, any parent who is thinking about forcing their child into AARC needs to do if they are unsure is to read the kind of comments from individuals connected to AARC posted here and realize these are going to be potentially some of the same individuals who are counseling their children and running AARC.

< that again goes both ways – wasn’t Ajax accusing some person under another topic within this site of “shitting their pants” or something similar because they happened to agree that a point was made (well) that accusing a treatment facility of churning out murderers etc. is the same of accusing the cancer clinic of “doing something” to increase the death rate of cancer patients over and above the ”general population. Ajax then states without substantiating any fact that rate is higher than other treatment centres – WHERE is the evidence of that. He doesn’t quote any literature or research that proves that?? SO who really gives the poor impression??

So, ajax won’t be able to tell us why he THINKS he knows so much about AARC or Dean Vause – his accusation that Vause is a sociopath is a real gut-splitting laugh though!!! HE obviously has NEVER met the man or knows anything AT ALL about him – AJAX did prove that when he made that statement!>

[TheWho]

"Still interested" Wouldn’t get too riled up.  It is the same way in other threads on this site.  If they lack facts then they just sling mud or ridicule people.  Most reasonable discussions would be based on requirements and comparing what types of people and degrees are required (or are standard practice) and then compare that to what is actually being done.  Or point out a flaw in a research study by comparing it to a similar study (or outcome) done in the past and discussing the differences.  But most people (like Ajax here) seem to feel they are qualified to dictate what is acceptable and what is not or accuse without justification or data to back up their position.  For many, I have come to believe,  this is just a way for them to get out their frustration it is not meant to be informative, constructive or spark true debate.



...

[Anonymous]

NOTE:
For anyone that is actually interested  - Michael Patton is known world-wide, highly recognized evaluation researcher from the USA. He like Carol Weiss, Michael Scriven, and Robert Stake have many books and articles published in peer-reviewed journals on methods of conducting evaluation research. An an independent evaluator, AARC could not have had a better person conduct the evaluation. He unlike the others has conducted various evaluations of treatment centres so has the most experience in that area.

However, AJAX knows better than Patton. So what are AJax's qualifications in evaluation research and treatment outcomes research??

Sure we will never get a complete answer . . . .. .  just more arguments running down AARC, the evaluation of AARC and the credentials of anyone associated with AARC. I wonder why people who actually know Vause and the credentials of the staff at AARC get a little pissed off. Seems good reason being that those who have no credentials or actually know the facts about AARC write on this site and elsewhere running down the work and obvious success of the place. Why are there so many supporters both past clients and general public???  oh yes, they are all brain-washed . . pretty soon a small city will be considered to be "brain-washed, cult-loving AARColytes"

[Anonymous]

Lets be clear the review performed on AARC in 2005 was not completely independent as Vause was part of those who evaulated the program as well as a couple of other staff members. Also missing from the study is that it does not go from the start of AARC to 2005 and only interviews graduates. An independent review of a program would study both graduates and those that left.

[ajax13]

There is no scientific basis for this claim whatsoever.  Here is what AARC says about the results obtained from a poll they conducted:

"100 sequential graduates who graduated from 1998 to 2003 were selected for interview in 2003, and 85 agreed to participate.  In addition, 30 randomly selected parents, and 11 parents of the 15 clients not interviewed agreed to be interviewed.  Using information from these interviews, data regarding the recovery status of 96 clients was obtained."

This statement raises many issues.  Firstly, in a five year span AARC graduated only one hundred clients.
This with operating costs of six and a half million dollars.  AARC propaganda repeatedly states that the program opened to meet a desperate need for the service in Alberta.  Yet even with clients being brought in from Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and apparently as far away as Pennsylvnia, they managed to produce an average of twenty graduates per year in the period beginning six years (or eight?) years after it's inception.

Second, 85% of the clients agreed to be interviewed, yet AARC still includes data taken from eleven parents of the fifteen non-compliant grads.  There is no reason to give any validity to the claims made by these parents, and the inclusion of their statements in the data renders the entire process meaningless.  

Consider what DavidPablo Escobar-Grant said about parents in AARC:
"Parents could also be really interesting, and sometimes a parent benefited from being in AARC more than their kid."
"Clients who were old enough to sign out were allowed to do so, but the parents were encouraged to stay..."

AARC exists to sell parents peace of mind.  It does not exist to serve the young people who are admitted there.

Back to the study.  The polling was done in 2003, taking in the cohort of grads from '98 to '03.  So some grads had been out over four years, and some less than a year.  The inclusion of such a broad range of grad dates renders it absolutely impossible to derive any meaningful conclusion about long-term abstinence.  

Here is the salient point that establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 85% claim is a lie:
"Of the sample 100 graduates, 85 reported being sober and 48 of the 100 were continuously sober since graduation."
52% have relapsed by AARC's own admission.

"For those graduated for over 4 years, 86% had maintained more than 12 months of sobriety."  
So in the span of four years 86% had been sober more than 25% of the time.  

In the study the average number of grads per year is 20.  If all of the grads were sober for two years straight after AARC, that constitutes 40% of the total number of grads in the poll.  That leaves only 8%, or 8 other grads in the poll who have maintained abstinence since leaving AARC, or 13% of the grads out longer than two years.
The spontaneous remission rate for alcohol abuse is 5%.  So AARC's long-term rate of success could be a low as 8%.  If we take into account that 11% of the data came from AARC parents, and not grads, AARC's long-term success rate may be as low as zero.

When you finish reading this, Interested, why don't you point out which one of the above statements is in error?

As to the Wiz, why don't you prove that he didn't work at Kids?  Why don't you prove that he didn't get his PhD after he opened AARC, and thus AARC is not the product of his PhD research?  Why don't you prove that he didn't use Robert McAndrew of the Union Institute to endorse AARC?  Why don't you prove that McAndrew is an expert on addictions?  Why don't you prove that the Wiz is a psychologist?  AARC's website still carries two articles that state that the Wiz is a psychologist, which seems to point toward him being a tremendous liar if he is not.
Then you can provide the name of the psychiatrist that you claimed was on staff at AARC, along with the names of the Registered Social Worker on staff at AARC, and any psychologists.

As every AARColyte has done since I began posting here, you've attempted to question me rather than refuting anything that I said.  And you are lying through your teeth when you say that AARC has a Registered Social Worker on staff.

When I start telling people I am a psychologist and try to open a treatment centre, then you can ask what credentials I have.

[Anonymous]

interested and The Who were sooo right - AJAx demonstrate that your credentials supercede MQ Pattons because you reasoning and argument certainly don't!!

attack, attack attack. You accuse AARC people of having no training for what they do and FALSELY state there are no registered SW s etc. employed there But because you lack any training or knowledge just keep firing away without any credentials to indicate that you know how an evaluation would be done. I think the American Evaluation Association should be alerted to the fact that Michael Patton doesn't know what he is doing or talking about. Do you, with your exceptional academic knowledge want to let them know. I am sure they would just jump at the chance to be enlightened by someone that may not even have a job much less any degree in anything remotely related to evaluation, addiction medicine or treatment outcome research. Report Patton while you are at it.

[TheWho]

Here is the salient point that establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 85% claim is a lie:
"Of the sample 100 graduates, 85 reported being sober and 48 of the 100 were continuously sober since graduation."
52% have relapsed by AARC's own admission.

48% have been continuously sober and 85% reported being sober at the time of the survey.  So this indicates that 52% fell off the wagon but 85 % were able to get back on.  So the 85% is still a valid number.  It is a little difficult to understand if you are not use to numbers.

"For those graduated for over 4 years, 86% had maintained more than 12 months of sobriety."  
So in the span of four years 86% had been sober more than 25% of the time.  

Exactly, a number of graduates 25%, some 50%, some 75% and some 100%!!! so 14% remained sober just under a year, 86% were more than that.  That is pretty good.

In the study the average number of grads per year is 20.  If all of the grads were sober for two years straight after AARC, that constitutes 40% of the total number of grads in the poll.  That leaves only 8%, or 8 other grads in the poll who have maintained abstinence since leaving AARC, or 13% of the grads out longer than two years.
The spontaneous remission rate for alcohol abuse is 5%.  So AARC's long-term rate of success could be a low as 8%.  If we take into account that 11% of the data came from AARC parents, and not grads, AARC's long-term success rate may be as low as zero.

You cannot add averages together.  You need to take the whole population and produce the percentage that way.

When you finish reading this, Interested, why don't you point out which one of the above statements is in error?

Thanks, just did

[ajax13]

You cannot add averages together?  These are percentages, not averages.  85% were sober when they answered the phone? 

[TheWho]

You cannot add averages together?  These are percentages, not averages.  85% were sober when they answered the phone? 

In the study the average number of grads per year is 20.  If all of the grads were sober for two years straight after AARC, that constitutes 40% of the total number of grads in the poll.

[TheWho]

I haven’t read the study but I will take a shot and comment based on what has been posted here:

I may be able to clarify this a little.  Here is the salient point that establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 85% claim is a lie:
"Of the sample 100 graduates, 85 reported being sober and 48 of the 100 were continuously sober since graduation."
52% have relapsed by AARC's own admission.

The way I read it is 85 reported being sober and 48 were continuously sober since graduation.  So a portion indicated that they went off the wagon at some point during the time after graduation but were able to get back on. 
So it would be safe to say the program was effective for 85% of the graduates (some permanent, others intermittent).

"For those graduated for over 4 years, 86% had maintained more than 12 months of sobriety." 
So in the span of four years 86% had been sober more than 25% of the time. 

In 4 years 86% stayed sober for at least 1 year… some up to 4 years.   So the program can state that if  you attend our program there is an 86% chance that we can help you remain sober for at least 12 months, the rest is up to you.  For anyone who knows someone with addiction issues this is a huge step.  If a person can remain clean and sober for 12 months on their own (within their own environment) then they are pretty much on their way (if they want to be).

Based on just these numbers AARC seems to have a very successful program.



...

[Anonymous]

So it would be safe to say the program was effective for 85% of the graduates

No, because AARC sells itself as a completely dry program meaning to be a completely effective is to not drink or do drugs again.

[ajax13]

You can say whatever you want about getting on or off a wagon, or a jet airplane or a flying carpet.  A minimum of 52% of graduates resume alcohol or other drug use subsequent to leaving AARC. 
So grads who are out of AARC for 45 seconds of sobriety but resume drug or alcohol use but stop and are thus sober when they go to bed represent intermittent success for AARC.
Thanks for helping us resolve this issue, Who.

[TheWho]

So it would be safe to say the program was effective for 85% of the graduates

No, because AARC sells itself as a completely dry program meaning to be a completely effective is to not drink or do drugs again.

So it is not 100% (or completely) effective.  It is 85% effective.  Still pretty good.