AARC Summary (i.e. Ajax)

[psy]

A recap for parents on this page:

Hey who.  Ever heard of "GIGO".  It means that if you feed bullshit in, you get bullshit out.

Garbage In, Garbage Out (abbreviated to GIGO) is a phrase in the field of computer science or ICT. It is used primarily to call attention to the fact that computers will unquestioningly process the most nonsensical of input data and produce nonsensical output

Another analogy would be to say that you can't turn shit into gold.

So who is verifying the purity of the input data here?  I really don't care how you interpret it.  I want to know how it was collected and whether the data is accurate.  This means independently conducted studies and double blind control groups (otherwise, it's just marketing).  I'd also like to see whether AARC's rate of "success" is any higher (or lower) than the spontaneous rate of recovery.

So tell me, Who, and stop spinning around in circles: why exactly am I supposed to trust this data given by a biased party as impartial and accurate?

Furthermore, as I stated above: "Who gives a flying fuck if it's "successful" or not!?!? Are their treatment methods humane and ethical? Do they deprive clients of their rights? So many questions like these are far, far, more relevant."

[Anonymous]

Well actually those claims you made do not come from the study at all.  
1. The only figure given in the study for length of time continuously sober since graduation is 48%, and this is dervived from the entire sample, whose length of time since graduation is 2 years 3 months.  Nothing in the study at all showing that 93.1% are still sober after 1 year.  93.1% of those graduated under 2 years maintained 12 months or more of continuous sobriety sometime after graduation.
2.85.7% of those graduated 4 years or more experienced 12 months or more of continuous sobriety.  No figure is included in the study indicating that grads can expect to live a clean and sober life after 4 years.  This is where you've been caught in an outright lie as opposed to a manipulation, as you claimed that your information came from the study when it doesn't.  100% of graduates could be regualar users of drugs and alcohol after 4 years, as there is nothing in the study to disprove this assertion.
3. Looking at table 1, we see that in fact only 10 individuals in the study had been graduated for one year or less.  Taking the Who's rate of continuous sobriety for this group, 93.1%, we see that less than 1 indivual out of the 10 in the sample group has resumed drug and alcohol use.  Thus 51 individuals out of the total number who have resumed drug and alcohol use, 52% or 52 out of 100 individuals, come from the group of 90 individuals who were graduated more than 1 year.  Thus for those in the study graduated more than one year, 51 out of 90 had resumed drug and alcohol use.  So 56% of those graduated more than one year were resuming drug and alcohol use, making the Who's claim of a 48% chance of continuous sobriety after 4 years quite false.  While no information is included in the study to indicate what probability of continuous sobriety since graduation can be expected for those grads out 4 years or more, it is 46% or less.  Didn't make any mention of the probability of your statements being true, but rather the possibility.  I'm really starting to lean heavily to my first assessment of you Who, that you're stupid and arrogant rather than a clever deviant.  Pull up your socks, old chum!

[TheWho]

Again meatwad, you seem to be hung up that these are my personal conclusions.  They are not.  I dont have access to the raw data and therefore cannot conclude anything other than what the study states.  So each time you misinterpret my posts we will have to go back to the study and look at the original tables.
It is important to stick with what the study says and concludes.  If you want to create your own data sets then I suggest you speak with the AARC or Hazelden people, what you are trying to do cannot be done without the raw data.  I do think you have come a long way in understanding the study and  in the midst of our disagreements I think we can both agree that the more people we get to review the study the better.

Lets go back and take a look at what the AARC study says again to refresh our memory:

Table 2 Longest period of continuous sobriety of interviewed graduates, maintained by time since graduation
Time since graduation:….. One month …..Six months …..Twelve months or more
One year or less (n=29) …….0% .........…….6.9% .........…….93.1%
Two to three years (n=42) ..2.49% ..........4.8% .............92.9%
Four or more years (n=14) ...0% ............14.3% ............85.7%.


1.    So for those who finish the program at AARC the graduates can expect a 93.1% chance of staying clean and sober for the first year out.  

2.   After 4 years the graduates can expect an 85.7% probability that they will be living a clean and sober life.

3.   48% of the entire population stayed continuously clean and sober the whole time since graduation.


AARC Study Link



...

[Anonymous]

Meatwad is thewho talking to himself.  :jerry:

[psy]

Meatwad is thewho talking to himself.  :jerry:

Could be.  But then again, i've seen people dumb enough to go 200 pages with him debating "statistics" collected in dubious ways.

[Anonymous]

You've posted table 2 a number of times now, presumably in an effort to demonstrate that 93.1% of the group "one year or less" has been continuously sober since the time of graduation, based on the premise that because 93.1% of this group maintained one year or more of continuous sobriety and the individuals had been out of AARC for one year or less.  This however, is incorrect as the group in fact contains 19 individuals who had been graduated for more than one year.  This inconsistency renders it impossible for you to ascertain how many of the the 93.1% were sober for one year from the time of graduation, or at some other time during the two years subsequent to their graduation.  Additionally, in examining the two other groups in table 2, those graduated for 2 to 3 years, and those graduated 4 or more years, we see that the rates for graduates continuously sober for a period of one year or more is 92.9% and 85.7%, respectively.  As less than 93.1% of each of these two groups maintained one year or more of continuous sobriety, it is impossible that that 93.1% of either of these groups were continuously sober for one year after graduation.  It's as if you didn't even put any effort into putting together your first claim.  As for your second claim, that 85.7% of graduates can expect to live a clean and sober life after 4 years, with 52% of graduates already relapsed at an average time of 2 years 3 months after graduation, it is nonsensical.
After 4 years graduates can expect a 52% chance that they will have resumed drug and alcohol use already.  Your third statement isn't even a conclusion based on observations of the study, it's just a regurgitation of a fact stated in the study.  You're getting lazy.  
Keep it up, though Who.  You are doing yeoman's service as a lab specimin.  Observations of your behaviour help in understanding the behaviour of the various criminals and deviants working for, and supporting AARC.  Your small effort  will contribute to the demise of AARC.  Bless you, Who, for you know not what you do.

[TheWho]

Meatwad wrote:

You've posted table 2 a number of times now, presumably in an effort to demonstrate that 93.1% of the group "one year or less" has been continuously sober since the time of graduation, based on the premise that because 93.1% of this group maintained one year or more of continuous sobriety and the individuals had been out of AARC for one year or less. This however, is incorrect as the group in fact contains 19 individuals who had been graduated for more than one year. This inconsistency renders it impossible for you to ascertain how many of the the 93.1% were sober for one year from the time of graduation, or at some other time during the two years subsequent to their graduation. Additionally, in examining the two other groups in table 2, those graduated for 2 to 3 years, and those graduated 4 or more years, we see that the rates for graduates continuously sober for a period of one year or more is 92.9% and 85.7%, respectively. As less than 93.1% of each of these two groups maintained one year or more of continuous sobriety, it is impossible that that 93.1% of either of these groups were continuously sober for one year after graduation. It's as if you didn't even put any effort into putting together your first claim.

The 93.1% does not apply to the other two groups, just the first group.  Moving to the second and third groups the rate would have to stay the same or go down (which it had), because you cannot improve on the initial 93.1%.

As for your second claim, that 85.7% of graduates can expect to live a clean and sober life after 4 years, with 52% of graduates already relapsed at an average time of 2 years 3 months after graduation, it is nonsensical.
After 4 years graduates can expect a 52% chance that they will have resumed drug and alcohol use already.

Again you are having difficulty understanding the study.  There are many people who relapse in life but then continue on to live a clean and sober life.  I think the problem you are having is this black and white mentality that seems to be catchy here.  
A person can graduate from AARC and relapse along the way and then continue on the rest of their life without using.  Or they may relapse a few more times between 5 years and 20 years or at the 30 year mark.

Your third statement isn't even a conclusion based on observations of the study, it's just a regurgitation of a fact stated in the study. You're getting lazy.

It is exactly a regurgitation of the facts stated in the study.  That is the point, meatwad.  If I wanted to draw my own conclusions then I would need access to the raw data, which presently I do not have.  So we are both constricted to the results of the study.

Keep it up, though Who. You are doing yeoman's service as a lab specimin. Observations of your behaviour help in understanding the behaviour of the various criminals and deviants working for, and supporting AARC. Your small effort will contribute to the demise of AARC. Bless you, Who, for you know not what you do.

Sounds like you may have an agenda.  Seems we see the results of the study differently and that is why I think we can both agree that we encourage individuals to read it for themselves.  The study speaks for itself, but it seems people are hearing or interpreting it a little differently based on this very argument.



...

[TheWho]

Meatwad, I wouldn’t despair too much on whether you are right or I am right (its not really important) the pure fact that we are having this discussion (or exercise in thinking) is a win win for all of us.  It is raising awareness that the study exists and thru our debate we are encouraging people to read the study for themselves.  I think we can both agree that there are far too few studies out there and the more information we can get out there to the parents the more informed decisions they will make regarding their family and loved ones.

[Anonymous]

Rock solid credible? A strange mishmash of terms to describe a scientific study of a health care facility. There's only one person so desperate to be heard that he would embarass himself like this. Still at it, Joshy?
I assume that the next communication won't be by telephone. My Special Lady Friend left several messages for Natalie Oldcomer, in an effort to acquire her records from AARC. Never did get a call back. So, I'm hoping that the next communication comes in the form of a singing telegam. Do they send singing telegrams out to Langdon, Joshy?
Glad to see that you're able to gain access to AADAC's vast compilation of personal data on the citizens of Alberta. Funny stuff.
In a way, I admire your pluck. You're willing to shit yourself in an effort to get attention, and you appear to have no qualms about doing it.

I asked several times for copies of records... declined. I was later told it would have to go past their "legal committee" which includes my son's lawyer who is supposed to be and claimed to be independent of the AARC program. How independent is he if he's on the program's "Legal committee"?

So no records. My son also requested his records while he was still in the program and he was told they had been destroyed.

study

Hazelden was contacted. THEY said they "reviewed data provided by AARC" They did not. I repeat... they DID NOT conduct the study.

All parents thinking about placing their child in the AARC program are encouraged to contact me regarding my family's experience with the AARC program.

WYSI "NOT" WYG

[psy]

Rock solid credible? A strange mishmash of terms to describe a scientific study of a health care facility. There's only one person so desperate to be heard that he would embarass himself like this. Still at it, Joshy?
I assume that the next communication won't be by telephone. My Special Lady Friend left several messages for Natalie Oldcomer, in an effort to acquire her records from AARC. Never did get a call back. So, I'm hoping that the next communication comes in the form of a singing telegam. Do they send singing telegrams out to Langdon, Joshy?
Glad to see that you're able to gain access to AADAC's vast compilation of personal data on the citizens of Alberta. Funny stuff.
In a way, I admire your pluck. You're willing to shit yourself in an effort to get attention, and you appear to have no qualms about doing it.

I asked several times for copies of records... declined. I was later told it would have to go past their "legal committee" which includes my son's lawyer who is supposed to be and claimed to be independent of the AARC program. How independent is he if he's on the program's "Legal committee"?

So no records. My son also requested his records while he was still in the program and he was told they had been destroyed.

study

Hazelden was contacted. THEY said they "reviewed data provided by AARC" They did not. I repeat... they DID NOT conduct the study.

All parents thinking about placing their child in the AARC program are encouraged to contact me regarding my family's experience with the AARC program.

WYSI "NOT" WYG

Thank you again for putting things in perspective.  If the facility isn't willing to be honest about things like their record keeping, why in the world would anybody give any credence at all to the data provided by them.

Got any other examples why parents shouldn't trust a damn thing AARC has to say?  For example, why was your son told you hadn't contacted him?  What was the reality?  What were you told about contacting him?  The reality?  What other things did AARC tell you or your son which turned out to be true?  See.  This all goes to the heart of the cribility of the "witness" providing the data.

Maybe we should ask some former students about AARC's "treatment" and compare it to kids/Straight Inc.  From the AARC survivors i've talked to, it seems to almost be a perfect carbon copy.  Or maybe we should ask some former students about gang rape...  Or about the honesty of the doctor AARC uses to examine the rape cases...  Quite a few have come forward with strikingly similar stories about what went on.

You really know who you're defending, Whooter?  Is this a fucking game to you?

[Carmel]

Statistics or no....still the real questions are not being answered as Psy indicated.  Sobriety at what price?  You see, this is brainwashing, coersive technique we are talking about here.  There is no real, honest change made by the individuals placed in these programs....its forced contrition which over a long sustained period becomes viewed as truth by the client.  If someone locks you up in a windowless room for 12 hours a day 7 days a week, and proceeds to bludgeon you emotionally and physically about what and who you are....how long before your reality rearranges to the point of believing you are exactly what they say you are?  This is why I laugh at people like TheWho because they can never ever truly understand whats so horrific about this program.  They dont understand that a greater part of the abuse that occurs physically was actually an escape mechanism from the horror of the methodology.  Kids ran for the door and were restrained so they could FEEL something, a break from the monotony of mental torture and isolation......people who havent been there cannot wrap their heads around this idea.  

Do you know that when I ran away from that place I was probably the most honest I had ever been?  That the brutal honesty I encountered in deciding that death was prefferable to continuing to stay at that horrid place and defile my soul is probably what actually turned my life around forever?  Its because I chose to see truth that I found it, not because I was force fed the concept.  

There is no stat in this exhaustive exchange that accounts for the number of children placed in these programs who DO NOT actually have a drug problem.  How many of these "sober graduates" can be correctly identified as actual addicts? Can you produce a statistic or even a documented single incident of a client refused admission due to the fact that they did not fit the definition of a drug addict upon arrival?  

Before you even come near the idea of sober versus using at all, you have to look at the plumbing under the floor...something these advocates have no interest in observing.

As far as paperwork is concerned...of course they are inclined to withhold it....most certainly because the greater part of the documentation available on each client is probably filled out by either an uncertified staff member, or another client.  The only useful thing that may be part of an individuals file is probably their intake forms, also probably filled out by other clients, but possibly signed by a staff member.  Do you know who did my intake? Two third phasers.....and they kept me in there so long that they already had me admitting to doing drugs I had never even seen before.  You wont find those nice tidbits in your marketing brochure. They were going to make me into an addict so they could make me sober.  

I strongly urge these advocates to take an honest look at what actual survivors have to say about the experience and try to envision it.  I am 33 with a family and a full life, I have no other reason to share my experiences with these methods than to give an honest account of what I was subjected to.  What I saw countless countless others subjected to.  There is no bone left to pick, only the bare bones truth about the nature of the method, which no matter how you slice it.....will always be flawed.

 :hug:

[Anonymous]

ITT: Its funny how this turned out. cant stop laughing.

[Anonymous]

ITT: Its funny how this turned out. cant stop laughing.

in that the people who antagonized AARC  people are in hiding. Funny what happens when you might end up having to be accountable for your dishonest lies.

[Froderik]

ITT: Its funny how this turned out. cant stop laughing.

in that the people who antagonized AARC  people are in hiding. Funny what happens when you might end up having to be accountable for your dishonest lies.

Ok, I find this post disturbing and will have to reply later.

[ajax13]

How did it turn out?  I'm in regular contact with former inmates, many of whom were terrified of the consequences of revealing the truth about AARC.  The unassailabale truth is that AARC is an offshoot of a phenomenon rooted in criminality.  The dismal failure of the alliance of crooks and crazies that tried to launch AARC originally as Kids produced a much more cynical and devious entity, but one that is still rooted in deception.  The people with whom I have come in contact who were subjected to the criminal assault on their rights by the Wizard of Vause and his minions have their hands full living their lives, but they know the truth.  What is the truth?
A deviant fraud established a program in a facility that operates entirely outside of the law.  This program is at it's core anti-human and, lest we forget, illegal.  Everyday in AARC hive-minded amateurs break the law by performing activities that are legally restricted to health-care professionals.  Every night newcomers are illegally held against their will in the homes of unlicensed de-facto foster parents.  AARC is fraud.  AARC is medical malpractise.  AARC is kidnapping.  AARC is a disgrace to the people of Calgary.