It is ok to relapse

[FemanonFatal2.0]

Bottomline is they are 84% successful

oooooooooohahoooo. I HIGHLY doubt that.

[ajax13]

Something that you should understand AARColyte, is that you are a group of a few hundred parents, and some of their offspring, who were duped by Dean Vause.  We are everybody else who doesn't believe that a phys ed teacher invented an 85% successful method to cure addicts that revolves around the acquisition by his church of millions of dollars.  You are the small group of people pretending that Dean Vause came up with the program at AARC.  We are everyone else who can see quite plainly that he simply stole the Kids/Straight model for his cult.  You are the demented few who accept Dean Vause's lie that his program is 85% successful, when in fact most clients resume using alcohol and other drugs after leaving AARC.  You are the AARColytes, and we are everybody else who is not.  So by all means, get back to AA, get back to crying, drooling, and hugging your fellow cult members at AARC.

[TheWho]

Something that you should understand AARColyte, is that you are a group of a few hundred parents, and some of their offspring, who were duped by Dean Vause.  We are everybody else who doesn't believe that a phys ed teacher invented an 85% successful method to cure addicts that revolves around the acquisition by his church of millions of dollars.  You are the small group of people pretending that Dean Vause came up with the program at AARC.  We are everyone else who can see quite plainly that he simply stole the Kids/Straight model for his cult.  You are the demented few who accept Dean Vause's lie that his program is 85% successful, when in fact most clients resume using alcohol and other drugs after leaving AARC.  You are the AARColytes, and we are everybody else who is not.  So by all means, get back to AA, get back to crying, drooling, and hugging your fellow cult members at AARC.

Lets see your study then!!  The most recent study I am aware of places the success rate at around 85%. If you feel otherwise then produce your source, until such time we will rely on the presnt study.  I can passionately hate heart surgeons and can substantiate my feelings by a few people who are still sick after surgery.  But this wouldnt override the fact that over a larger cross section of the population surgeons enjoy a substantially higher success rate.
We should base our opinions on studies, not a few friends opinions, but I appreciate your input and passion on the subject.  It is good to keep AARC discussions in the forfront and our interest in the topic here has helped to drive this.  Curiosity for AARC has resulted in a 10 to 30 fold increase in hits on AARC'sWebsite over the past several months which has contributed to private funding toping 28% in the last quarter.
If your wife has a problem and you care for her you may consider spending more time focused on getting her the help she needs, although, not at the expense of keeping up your posts here on fornits which has helped to keep their name visable.  Has there been any discussion on developing a forum dedicated to AARC topics?

[ajax13]

I suggest you look at AARC's study, which demonstrated that most of the clients in the study group resumed drug and alcohol use after completing AARC's fake treatment.  It's no longer necessary to keep attention focused on AARC through Fornits.  Dean Vause was filmed calling his former clients liars, at the same time that it was demonstrated that he has lied about creating AARC himself, when he stole the whole program from Kids.  I suggest you read the Fifth Estate's interview with Michael Patton for some more information related to the completely unreliable and typically fraudulent AARC study.  An analysis of the entire grad population would help to get a realistic picture of the effectiveness of AARC.  I would start with determinning how many are already dead, how many are incarcerated, how many have become hard drug users after their "treatment" for marijuana and alcohol abuse, etc.
In the meantime, good luck with that AARColyte army, little boy.

[TheWho]

I suggest you look at AARC's study, which demonstrated that most of the clients in the study group resumed drug and alcohol use after completing AARC's fake treatment.  It's no longer necessary to keep attention focused on AARC through Fornits.  Dean Vause was filmed calling his former clients liars, at the same time that it was demonstrated that he has lied about creating AARC himself, when he stole the whole program from Kids.  I suggest you read the Fifth Estate's interview with Michael Patton for some more information related to the completely unreliable and typically fraudulent AARC study.  An analysis of the entire grad population would help to get a realistic picture of the effectiveness of AARC.  I would start with determinning how many are already dead, how many are incarcerated, how many have become hard drug users after their "treatment" for marijuana and alcohol abuse, etc.
In the meantime, good luck with that AARColyte army, little boy.

I suggest you look at AARC's study, which demonstrated that most of the clients in the study group resumed drug and alcohol use after completing AARC's fake treatment.

I have reviewed the study and it was quite impressive.  I did have a few questions on the sample population that was chosen, but other than that it seemed they did a good job.  Bringing in Hazelden helped out I think with the credibility aspect of the results.

It's no longer necessary to keep attention focused on AARC through Fornits.

It is not necessary either way, but Its always good to keep the focus on as much as possible.  If AARC is to continue to grow it will need fresh contributors and the more light we can cast on them the better (good or bad).

Dean Vause was filmed calling his former clients liars, at the same time that it was demonstrated that he has lied about creating AARC himself, when he stole the whole program from Kids.

I had not read that the kids model was protected in anyway from others using it.  If it was in fact stolen do you have any court documents which show anyone has filed suit on an infringement of any kind?  Again I think this is all fabricated in your mind.  Show as a link where there is a law suit of this alleged theft.
If someone lies about you are you going to just ignore it?  Especially on national television.  Wouldnt you speak up?

I suggest you read the Fifth Estate's interview with Michael Patton for some more information related to the completely unreliable and typically fraudulent AARC study.

I actually watched the entire program, not just Michael Pattons interview, you should try sitting thru the whole program before making a judgement, not just focusing in on small sound bites.
 

An analysis of the entire grad population would help to get a realistic picture of the effectiveness of AARC.

Studies rarely consider interviewing the entire population.  If you are at all familiar with outcome studies you would know that a sample size is determined based on the number of members(whole population) and the sample population is looked at to reflect results of all graduates.  Pull  a few studies at random and look at their core population and you will see it is a sample of the whole.... some move away, some die, others do not respond to studies etc.

I would start with determinning how many are already dead, how many are incarcerated, how many have become hard drug users after their "treatment" for marijuana and alcohol abuse, etc.

The study did not indicate an abnormal death rate or incarceration rate as a result of attending.  As far as drug use the study was clear.  85 % were successful in moving on with their lives.
Getting viable information on those that have passed away would be difficult.  The studies would have to rely on hearsay information from family members which would carry a bias and have to be noted in the studies which makes it difficult to justify inclusion into the sample study.  Trying to get feedback from those who are incarcerated is also sometime difficult.  But as I read thru the study, none of the sample people had died or were in prison so this was not a hurdle.

This is a good discussion, Ajax.  Did your wife attend for the entire time or did she leave the program early?

[ajax13]

The disinfo doesn't work, guest.  AARC is following the identical pattern of Kids.  First the media expose some of the abuses, along with some of the deceptions of the Leader.  This is coupled with some police investigation into the allegations once the media spotlight is on the cult.  Then the lawsuits follow.  In addition to individual malpractise suits, such as those that served to fully discredit Kids and Miller Newton, AARC may also be on the receiving end of a class action suit.  The supporters will have no choice but to ride the train as it careens down the hillside, since AARC used their begathons as public relations tools and essentially made the supporters publicly complicit.  Think of the "Wreck of the Ole '97", with Dean Vause at the throttle.
Now the first part has already ocurred.  The Fifth Estate piece was seen nation-wide.  The police have to respond to the revelations about serious crimes taking place in the course of AARC's program, and finally the lawsuits which will cripple the place will follow.
Always remember guest, Maskirovka.

[TheWho]

The disinfo doesn't work, guest.  AARC is following the identical pattern of Kids.  First the media expose some of the abuses, along with some of the deceptions of the Leader.  This is coupled with some police investigation into the allegations once the media spotlight is on the cult.  Then the lawsuits follow.  In addition to individual malpractise suits, such as those that served to fully discredit Kids and Miller Newton, AARC may also be on the receiving end of a class action suit.  The supporters will have no choice but to ride the train as it careens down the hillside, since AARC used their begathons as public relations tools and essentially made the supporters publicly complicit.  Think of the "Wreck of the Ole '97", with Dean Vause at the throttle.
Now the first part has already ocurred.  The Fifth Estate piece was seen nation-wide.  The police have to respond to the revelations about serious crimes taking place in the course of AARC's program, and finally the lawsuits which will cripple the place will follow.
Always remember guest, Maskirovka.

So it seems we have established you have no other study other than the one which reports an 85 % success rate.  You also failed to support your allegations that AARC stole a model from another program in the form of law suits and happy to see you understood the power of sample populations and understand that there is no abnormal death rate or incarceration rate.  So far we have a viable program which has continued to increase its basis of support before and after the airing of “Fifth Estate” .  The website has experienced a big jump in activity and contributions since its airing.  Seems the rest of your post is wishful thinking on your part.  No one is scrambling except yourself.

You and others pay a huge tribute to AARC in that with all your effort to discredit them you have brought nothing to the table.  AARC continues to be open to studies and local news media for documentaries.  This continued testing is a tribute to its success and openness.

[ajax13]

Maskirovka.  Look it up.  Or don't.  Head between knees AARColytes, try to go limp before impact.

[FemanonFatal2.0]

What you dont seem to understand here is that there is no way that that study could have possibly been accurate. You said it yourself you had some questions about the sample population used in this study but that is exactly where you are getting that 85%. Because the people who were contacted had to first be recommended by the program, how else would the people doing the study reach the former clients? No one came here to Fornits to ask the former students to participate so that in itself proves that they used a small audience of people they knew would give the program a positive review. The only way a study like that could be considered credible is if they had an equal amount of pro and anti- program people being surveyed and they asked specific questions about tangible results, not just someone's loyalty to the cult.

The next thing you need to consider is, are they talking about the success rate or the satisfaction rate? because that is VERY relative, I know people who have claimed satisfaction with the program even though their kids have long since returned to the life of drugs or are already dead or in jail.

I have a little experiment that I am doing myself. For the last few months I have been making contact with former students of Darrington Academy a WWASP affiliated school. I have recently asked them to participate in a survey that will ask specific questions, not just about the kind of system that was being run and the various human rights violations that were committed but also about their general opinion and satisfaction with the program. I have made it clear that I welcome both positive and negative reviews of the school and no matter what is said in their answers I will not discriminate when I turn the results over to the department that is investigating the school. Now just so you know I did not find these people on a anti-Darrington Academy website and I did not find them through means of advertising the fight against institutionalized child abuse. I found them by following the friend list trail on myspace which by doing such there is absolutely no way I could disscern if that person was for or against Darrington Academy. I still, and don't plan to even ask their opinions on the school until after they have taken the survey. I am more than certain there is no way that any significant amount of people participating in this survey would be biased for or against the program. They are truly "picked at random" and should be a pretty good representation of the general population of ex students of Darrington Academy. Although I can tell you that the response, simply via comments these people have made are synonymous with the assumption that Darrington was another one of those bullshit programs but I will let the results of that survey show you the TRUTH.

[TheWho]

What you dont seem to understand here is that there is no way that that study could have possibly been accurate. You said it yourself you had some questions about the sample population used in this study but that is exactly where you are getting that 85%. Because the people who were contacted had to first be recommended by the program, how else would the people doing the study reach the former clients? No one came here to Fornits to ask the former students to participate so that in itself proves that they used a small audience of people they knew would give the program a positive review. The only way a study like that could be considered credible is if they had an equal amount of pro and anti- program people being surveyed and they asked specific questions about tangible results, not just someone's loyalty to the cult.

Choosing your population sample isn’t a fair approach.  You may choose 50 people who are positive and 50 people who are negative towards a particular program but what if 90% of the kids didn’t like the program or were unsuccessful?  Your sample would be biased towards the school making them look much better and more successful than they are.  Samples need to be random or consecutive and cannot be hand picked.

The next thing you need to consider is, are they talking about the success rate or the satisfaction rate? because that is VERY relative, I know people who have claimed satisfaction with the program even though their kids have long since returned to the life of drugs or are already dead or in jail.

I agree that the term success is relative and difficult to nail down and define.  Can living a clean and sober life include having a drink once in a while?  Can a person call themselves a vegetarian if they have a little Turkey at family gatherings at thanksgiving?  Does their actions on that day erase their diet choices for the rest of the year.
If a persons life was spiralling out of control due to daily intoxication, losing their job and family.  Then after treatment they lived a sober life, held down a job, contributed to society but had a drink once or twice a year.  Would this person be considered a success?  If this person relapsed after 3 years would we say the program was a success or failure?
I think because of these questions the data was presented the way it was, showing number of months sober and percent relapse.

[ajax13]

"As recently as last year, AARC described the study as an “independent outcomes validation study,” according to an AARC funding submission document sent to the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission, which the fifth estate obtained through the province’s freedom of information legislation.

We obtained a version of the 2003 study and showed it to three psychology professors who specialize in addiction—the University of Calgary’s David Hodgins, the University of Lethbridge’s Robert Williams and Bruce Alexander, professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University.

All three raised questions about the way the study was carried out. While Hodgins described the study as “not a bad program evaluation,” he, Williams and Alexander all listed flaws. Among them:

The success rate doesn’t include people who didn’t finish the program.

The grads were interviewed by people linked to AARC. This could bias what was reported, Alexander said. “Imagine calling up somebody who’s graduated from a program and saying: ‘Hey, are you taking drugs any more?’ And this person has already been put in the program against their will perhaps precisely because they took drugs. And what are they going to say? ‘Oh yes, I’m taking lots of drugs now,’” Alexander said.

As for whether the study is “independent,” Williams characterized it as “semi-independent.” He said in an email, “It is always better to have a totally independent evaluation. However, it is not unusual for ‘in-house’ evaluations to occur.”
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/power ... study.html

The fifth estate also asked the man who AARC says completed the study—Dr. Patton. He told the fifth estate his involvement was largely limited to supervising a graduate student who crunched the data—data gathered by people associated with AARC.

“I did not conduct the study. They conducted the study. I oversaw the analysis,” he said.

Patton said that while the study was a good preliminary “internal evaluation” with positive results, the next step would be to review AARC’s success rate independently. He noted that the study was rejected for publication by two journals.

“It’s expensive of course to commission an external evaluation. But, that would be the next step. I do remember that the internal evaluation results were quite positive. But, the evaluation that was done did not independently examine the process. The graduate student that I supervised did not independently talk to any of the young people or the parents. He simply analyzed the data that they sent him. And I was the supervisor of him which is how my name ends up on the report,” Patton said.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/power ... study.html

Alberta Hansard April 4, 2006
688
Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr.
Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive
cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and
sober after five years.
http://www.assembly.ab.ca/Documents/isy ... /doc/#hit1

Of the sample of 100 graduates, 85 reported being sober and 48 of the 100 were continuously sober since graduation.
http://www.aarc.ab.ca/alumni/AlumAdv_winter05.pdf

[TheWho]

Hodgins described the study as “not a bad program evaluation,”

Of the sample of 100 graduates, 85 reported being sober and 48 of the 100 were continuously sober since graduation.

85/100 = 85% ....  approx. half had relapsed at some point since graduation.

[TheWho]

Hodgins described the study as “not a bad program evaluation,”

Of the sample of 100 graduates, 85 reported being sober and 48 of the 100 were continuously sober since graduation.

85/100 = 85% ....  approx. half had relapsed at some point since graduation.

That is impressive, what does AA claim?  5-6%?  which is about even with doing nothing at all.  So having 50% of the graduates not drugging or drinking is incredible.  Does anyone have a link to the study? or a copy they could post?

[TheWho]

Hodgins described the study as “not a bad program evaluation,”

Of the sample of 100 graduates, 85 reported being sober and 48 of the 100 were continuously sober since graduation.

85/100 = 85% ....  approx. half had relapsed at some point since graduation.

That is impressive, what does AA claim?  5-6%?  which is about even with doing nothing at all.  So having 50% of the graduates not drugging or drinking is incredible.  Does anyone have a link to the study? or a copy they could post?

AARC Study


Summary:

85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years
93% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 12 months
52% of all graduates have had at least one relapse since graduating.

[TheWho]

whoops, forgot.  Here is their website:

AARC WebSite