help me with something

[Troll Control]

Now that that is cleared up it would be nice to get back on topic…….  I believe Crapflower had indicated that the parents were looking into New Leaf Academy for placement for their friends child.  My personal view is that this is a mistake as I initially indicated to Crapflower that children with RAD do better if the problem is dealt with as a family.

No you didn't.  You said this:

Ask the child’s parents to read this. I believe there are still a few openings if they choose (or can) attend.

http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid= ... IgodJHujbw
 

How does Camp Broken Hearts deal with the little "RADishes" you ask?

Camp for Broken Hearts is designed to help the families who are struggling. It will be a week where you won't have to be concerned about your child's behavior. If the child acts out, they will be removed by our trained staff. You will be able to carry on with whatever activity is in progress. Families will be able to relax and have fun. There will be lots of support for everyone.

http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid= ... IgodJHujbw

So really what The Who is advocating is a "camp" where the children will be restrained by staff for "acting out" so the "families will be able to relax and have fun."

I'm not sure how any parent, or anyone at all for that matter, could take seriously anything this person has to say.  Distilled down, The Who consistently recommends a "blame the child" and "remove the child" approach to handling family problems.  Now, he may say that he doesn't, but just read the links he himself provides and they point to the victimization of children and the abdication of parental responsibility.

[Troll Control]

You are looking and quoting a discussion, DJ, as I am.  You need to keep reading down to task force recommendations:

No, you are (inaccurately and partially) quoting a discussion.  I cited the full text of the Task Force's report and linked to the source as well.  Again, you are not telling the truth to the readers here.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... thomaslyon

[TheWho]

I believe RAD is a family issue and kids are better off when this is dealt with as a family vs. Sending a child away.  If you advocate this, DJ, I just don’t agree with you.  Yes I stand by my posts, but let’s quote the whole thing.  

Here is the post you (partially ) referenced:

Crapflower, Adopted children who spent their initial years (1st 26 months, typically, or more) in an institution (especially overseas, eastern Europe where they receive very little compassionate contact) are prone to developing RAD (Reactive Attachment Disorder) if they are not cared for properly. This is a very serious disorder which is extremely difficult to treat. The child is very disruptive and never bonded with anyone including his adoptive parents and has trouble forming any type of relationship. RAD is caused by (or a byproduct of) institutional living (or indifference, neglect, abuse by the parents) so the last thing you want to do is send the child away unless your choice is to disrupt the adoption and the child is going to be placed with another family.

I Also wanted to add that adoptive parents are not fake parents. They are the kids “Real” parents they are just not the biological parents.

Ask the child’s parents to read this. I believe there are still a few openings if they choose (or can) attend.

http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid= ... IgodJHujbw

Link:  http://http://fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=313910&sid=31650e94e8ced4684fee3c0de9610945&sid=31650e94e8ced4684fee3c0de9610945#p313910

[Troll Control]

Now that that is cleared up it would be nice to get back on topic…….  I believe Crapflower had indicated that the parents were looking into New Leaf Academy for placement for their friends child.  My personal view is that this is a mistake as I initially indicated to Crapflower that children with RAD do better if the problem is dealt with as a family.

No you didn't.  You said this:

Ask the child’s parents to read this. I believe there are still a few openings if they choose (or can) attend.

http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid= ... IgodJHujbw
 

How does Camp Broken Hearts deal with the little "RADishes" you ask?

Camp for Broken Hearts is designed to help the families who are struggling. It will be a week where you won't have to be concerned about your child's behavior. If the child acts out, they will be removed by our trained staff. You will be able to carry on with whatever activity is in progress. Families will be able to relax and have fun. There will be lots of support for everyone.

http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid= ... IgodJHujbw

So really what The Who is advocating is a "camp" where the children will be restrained by staff for "acting out" so the "families will be able to relax and have fun."

I'm not sure how any parent, or anyone at all for that matter, could take seriously anything this person has to say.  Distilled down, The Who consistently recommends a "blame the child" and "remove the child" approach to handling family problems.  Now, he may say that he doesn't, but just read the links he himself provides and they point to the victimization of children and the abdication of parental responsibility.

Anyone can go back and read your recommendation of "Camp Broken Hearts" and anyone can review their website to see that it is punitive to children.  

You said it, not me.  Don't try to say I advocate it, as all who read this know I loathe it.  YOU advised that "RAD" parents go to the camp.  No way around that now.

Ask the child’s parents to read this. I believe there are still a few openings if they choose (or can) attend.

http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/?gclid= ... IgodJHujbw
 

Yep, there it is.  Don't get upset just because I quoted you.  If you have had a change of (Camp Broken) heart, you can just admit your error in judgement and say you no longer recommend this.  No sense in getting frustrated over my repeating wht you yourself wrote.  That makes no sense.

[TheWho]

Never feel people, especially myself, get upset for being quoted.  The beauty of this forum is all the posts can be reviewed and also identified by author thru chosen user names.  I feel quoting people is an easy way to avoid the "he said,she said" type of arguments.
Yes, I think it would be a good alternative for parents to look into and supplied a link so that parents could review the camp themselves to see if it is a good fit.  After reading about the camp parents may choose if this is a direction they would like or not.

I do advocate that children with RAD not be sent away unless the intent is to disrupt the adoption and will not be returning home.  Children with RAD are at severe risk of having a life long struggle with social issues like developing friendships and life partners.  The last thing a child needs at this point is to be separated from their family, in my opinion.  The family should be working with a professional(s) to try to strengthen the bond they have started with their parents (if any exists) instead of starting over with someone they haven’t met before.  There are people who feel the opposite but I have always been a firm believer in building upon what has already been established even if it is minimal.

This camp is for families needing help and learn more about RAD. We stress that the children stay with the family at all times. Not socializing with other children. The more they play together the more they are not bonding and trusting you.


...

[Troll Control]

Hmmmm...  "Stay with the family at all times" huh?

That is, until it inconvenient, then this policy kicks in:

If the child acts out, they will be removed by our trained staff. You will be able to carry on with whatever activity is in progress. Families will be able to relax and have fun.

So they are saying basically "We will restrain your child so as not to interrupt your activities or fun."  I wonder what the real possibility of a "RADish"  ::puke::  not acting out over a week-long period is?  Sounds like an emotionally disturbed child restrain-o-fest to me.

Anyway, that's all of the debunking of The Who I can do for now.  Time to enjoy the weekend!

[TheWho]

Look, calm down a little DJ, we all appreciate your input and trying to catch up on this conversation.  I have given you a lot of latitude here, even tolerated your rudeness, because you have been away and unfamiliar with the topic and joined us in mid thread.  

 The camp link I provided is open to anyone who wants to read it.  That is what it is there for.  If it is a good fit for a particular family then that’s fine, if not that is okay too.  Its important to supply parents with as many options and varying points of view as possible.  But I am not going to sit here, like you are, and try to tell families what is best for them or ridicule something you know nothing about.  Up until a few hours ago you didn’t understand that RAD was even on the DSM-IV list so I would not expect you to be up to speed on possible interventions or understand their effectiveness.  

Try to shake it off and have a good weekend where ever you choose to enjoy it.  The weather up here in NE is supposed to be pretty good.  We may try to extend it a few extra days if it lasts.



...

[Anonymous]

Here is the official definition of Reactive Attachment Disorder from the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th ed.), i.e. being either withdrawn or overly friendly with strangers; these behaviors are associated with early trauma; and it needs to be diagnosed before age 5:
http://behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/reactatt.htm

And here is the unofficial, catch-all definition of RAD presented on The Who's website of : http://www.campbrokenhearts.org/

Symptoms of R.A.D

Superficially engaging & charming

Lack of eye contact on parents terms

Indiscriminately affectionate with strangers

Not affectionate on Parents' terms (not cuddly)

Destructive to self, others and material things (accident prone)

Cruelty to animals

Lying about the obvious (crazy lying)

Stealing

No impulse controls (frequently acts hyperactive)

Learning Lags

Lack of cause and effect thinking

Lack of conscience

Abnormal eating patterns

Poor peer pressure

Preoccupation with fire

Preoccupation with blood and gore

Persistent nonsense questions & chatter

Inappropriately demanding & clingy

Abnormal speech patterns

Triangulation of adults

False allegations of abuse

Presumption entitlement issues

Parents appear hostile and angry

And more from the leading proponent on Attachment Therapy Parenting:
http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/thomas.html

[Anonymous]

Look, calm down a little DJ, we all appreciate your input and trying to catch up on this conversation.  I have given you a lot of latitude here, even tolerated your rudeness, because you have been away and unfamiliar with the topic and joined us in mid thread.  

 The camp link I provided is open to anyone who wants to read it.  That is what it is there for.  If it is a good fit for a particular family then that’s fine, if not that is okay too.  Its important to supply parents with as many options and varying points of view as possible.  But I am not going to sit here, like you are, and try to tell families what is best for them or ridicule something you know nothing about.  Up until a few hours ago you didn’t understand that RAD was even on the DSM-IV list so I would not expect you to be up to speed on possible interventions or understand their effectiveness.  

Try to shake it off and have a good weekend where ever you choose to enjoy it.  The weather up here in NE is supposed to be pretty good.  We may try to extend it a few extra days if it lasts.



...

  You've pissed him off, DJ.  TheWho's falling back on his troll handbook.  You're an amateur, who, and when you get spanked you always react this way.

Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the
"play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in
public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the
opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something
which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to
completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical
of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that
statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide
and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to
make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material
somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first
instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid
the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".


Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:
The Rules of Disinformation
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright © 1997 All rights reserved

[TheWho]

**You've pissed him off, DJ. TheWho's falling back on his troll handbook. You're an amateur, who, and when you get spanked you always react this way**

This *who* person was able to show Disfuntion Junction that RAD was on the DSMIV list.  Disfunction was posing as a psychiatrist and *who* exposed him big time.  I would be pissed too, it took *who* pages to explain this to him.  What a waste of fucking space.

[Anonymous]

MarkF is TheWho.

He attempts to pretend to be an outsider by deliberately misspelling 'dysfunction' even though the word appears on this page dozens of times. The over use of *stars* is his lame attempt to change his grammar style. Not using the quote tags is also part of his failed attempt to appear like an outsider unfamiliar with how to post on this forum properly.

1/10

[Troll Control]

**You've pissed him off, DJ. TheWho's falling back on his troll handbook. You're an amateur, who, and when you get spanked you always react this way**

This *who* person was able to show Disfuntion Junction that RAD was on the DSMIV list.  Disfunction was posing as a psychiatrist and *who* exposed him big time.  I would be pissed too, it took *who* pages to explain this to him.  What a waste of fucking space.

Wierd how this conclusion is drawn.  If you read the thread you will see The Who not one single time mentioned the DSM until after this quote.  Here is where the DSM was first mentioned in this argument:

No, I'm not shining anyone on about RAD. While Reactive Attachment Disorder is in the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual that defines and bestows legitimacy upon mental disorders, there is no officially recognized and quantified entity called "attachment therapy." Any person or organization offering "attachment therapy" is engaged in pure quackery.

RAD currently is included in the DSM-IV, but has been discredited as a dx over the past several years.

Here's how it works: A bunch of doctors, psychologists or psychiatrists see what amounts to a "syndrome" and realize that there is money to be made by creating a diagnostic label for it and begin to lobby to have it included in the DSM so they can begin to "treat" it and get insurance money for doing so. Eventually, when the research body is more complete, longitudinal studies and outcome studies have been completed the community of MH professionals circle back and review the issue and make needed changes to the dx criteria or remove the "disorder" from the DSM.

A prime example of this is MPD or "Multiple Personaiity Disorder." There is no such thing - never has been - but yet it ended up in the DSM for several years and iterations and was widely diagnosed and treated based on the DSM criteria. Now it has been purged from the DSM and the professional lexicon.

The same will happen with RAD in due course. As with any other "fashion in science" (Read Irwin Sperber's (my mentor in Social Sciences) book Fashions in Science to understand how "trendy" medical, psychological and social sciences are and how practitioners get "on board" based on the fad rather than the science.

Here's a good link to review how children are abused in the name of "attachment therapy" or treatment of RAD, especially by scurrilous practitioners of coercive "therapy" (i.e. every TBS, EG, Wilderness, Bootcamp):

http://specialchildren.about.com/gi/dyn ... /apsac.htm

Excerpts regarding EG/TBS type "programs":

"a. Treatment techniques or attachment parenting techniques involving physical coercion, psychologically or physically enforced holding, physical restraint, physical domination, provoked catharsis, ventilation of rage, age regression, humiliation, withholding or forcing food or water intake, prolonged social isolation, or assuming exaggerated levels of control and domination over a child are contraindicated because of risk of harm and absence of proven benefit and should not be used.

b. Prognostications that certain children are destined to become psychopaths or predators should never be made based on early childhood behavior. These beliefs create an atmosphere conducive to overreaction and harsh or abusive treatment. Professionals should speak out against these and similar unfounded conceptualizations of children who are maltreated.

c. Intervention models that portray young children in negative ways, including describing certain groups of young children as pervasively manipulative, cunning, or deceitful, are not conducive to good treatment and may promote abusive practices. In general, child maltreatment professionals should be skeptical of treatments that describe children in pejorative terms or that advocate aggressive techniques for breaking down children’s defenses.

d. Children’s expressions of distress during therapy always should be taken seriously. Some valid psychological treatments may involve transitory and controlled emotional distress. However, deliberately seeking to provoke intense emotional distress or dismissing children’s protests of distress is contraindicated and should not be done.

e. State-of-the-art, goal-directed, evidence-based approaches that fit the main presenting problem should be considered when selecting a first-line treatment. Where no evidence-based option exists or where evidence-based treatment options have been exhausted, alternative treatments with sound theory foundations and broad clinical acceptance are appropriate. Before attempting novel or highly unconventional treatments with untested benefits, the potential for psychological or physical harm should be carefully weighed."

The type of places advocated (advertised, marketed and sold) by The Who or those like him can be accurately described in the clear and pejorative terms above and should be strictly avoided.
Last edited by Dysfunction Junction on Yesterday, 17:51, edited 1 time in total.
Dysfunction Junction
phpBB Prolific contributor
 
 
Posts: 2472
Joined: 06 Mar 2005, 18:15
Location: Measured Reason, USA
Private message

Disfunction was posing as a psychiatrist

And this was never said at all, anywhere in this thread or any other thread on this board.  None.

Somebody has a wee bit of a problem with the facts (nothing new).

[TheWho]

This was what Disfunction junction said:
*"RAD" is a 100% BOGUS dx*

It was proven that function was wrong.  But it took pages and pages before he understood, so*who* had a right to be pissed off.  we have a link to the DSMIV which had RAD on it and a Study which showed Function to be wrong. Oh, yes and now I am  *who* HAH,HAH,HAH.... Hi *who* look at me!!   ...

[Anonymous]

MarkF is TheWho.

He attempts to pretend to be an outsider by deliberately misspelling 'dysfunction' even though the word appears on this page dozens of times. The over use of *stars* is his lame attempt to change his grammar style. Not using the quote tags is also part of his failed attempt to appear like an outsider unfamiliar with how to post on this forum properly.

1/10

All the first-name, last-initial posters in this thread are him. Looks like he's getting damn, damn desperate. I was thinking it's more Aspen trolls, but nah, it's just him.

That, and he doesn't want anyone knowing what anyone who's read the first part of this thread knows:

NEW LEAF ACADEMY IS A HELLHOLE.

[TheWho]

Nah, he isnt even pushing for new leaf academy or saying anything about it.  He is saying not to send the kid there, he is talking about some camp called "Broken Heart" which isnt aspen as far as I know.  I dont think it is him.