It is ok to relapse

[TheWho]

Look, I think Ajax meant to say 4 years instead of 5.  Its an honest mistake, I wouldnt hang him for it!!

[TheWho]

Look, I think Ajax meant to say 4 years instead of 5.  Its an honest mistake, I wouldnt hang him for it!!

Some could call it a lie, others could say he just a made an error when speaking.  I depends on each persons point of view.  I think Ajax was try to deceive the readers.  But you are welcome to your own opinion.

[ajax13]

You AARColytes aren't very good at this.  If you want to play the disinfo semantics game, you have to first find an ambiguity or an error.  Since I stated clearly that the time since graduation used in the study's analysis of continuous sobriety  was just over two years and not five years, as Herard implied, you didn't find an ambiguity or an error.  So instead, you skipped over that part and kept repeating the assertion that I had made the statement or inferred that the study showed that the mean time since graduation was 5 years.  Since I said that opposite, you had to resort to a lie again.
It's easy to play the game if you undertand the rules, but you guys are too used to repeating what you're told, rather than figuring things out for yourself.
Pedophile, you're excluded, since you planted the disinfo.  AARColytes, this one's for you.  Find an instance where I stated that the mean time since graduation applied to determine the rate of continuous abstincence was five years.  On your mark, get set, see you at the top of the hill!

[psy]

I don't see why you bother debating the numbers.  It's an internal study and as such, the data has as much integrity as AARC does from the get-go (which is not saying much at all).  AARC has lied about lots of stuff.  Why would anybody think statistics would be any different.

[TheWho]

You AARColytes aren't very good at this.  If you want to play the disinfo semantics game, you have to first find an ambiguity or an error.  Since I stated clearly that the time since graduation used in the study's analysis of continuous sobriety  was just over two years and not five years, as Herard implied, you didn't find an ambiguity or an error.  So instead, you skipped over that part and kept repeating the assertion that I had made the statement or inferred that the study showed that the mean time since graduation was 5 years.  Since I said that opposite, you had to resort to a lie again.
It's easy to play the game if you undertand the rules, but you guys are too used to repeating what you're told, rather than figuring things out for yourself.
Pedophile, you're excluded, since you planted the disinfo.  AARColytes, this one's for you.  Find an instance where I stated that the mean time since graduation applied to determine the rate of continuous abstincence was five years.  On your mark, get set, see you at the top of the hill!

Nice try, but you stated a mean time of 2 years, not 5.  Where did the mean time of 5 come from?  Look Ajax, if you want to hold everyone else to every word they say you need to be able to handle it yourself.
So show me the refernce to the mean time of 5 years which you are disputing or correcting.  Then we can move on.  If you mis spoke and made a mistake that is okay too.  People make errors when speaking, I understand.

[ajax13]

No one's debating the numbers.  Pedophile is back on the disinfo campaign, and I'm a little bored today, so I'm playing along.  Keep in mind AARColytes, the way this will be decided is in the courts.  The Provincial Government can never openly acknowledge that they stole tax-payer's money to fund a cult.  It will have to be lawsuits that cripple the organization.  The philanthropists who pay AARC's tab can't turn around and admit that a phys ed teacher and his minions duped them out of tens of millions of dollars.  These people are successful businessmen and women, and would look like fools if the reality of AARC is exposed.  So, over time the money will be scaled back.  Those with the most to lose when AARC goes down will fight the hardest to keep it afloar, others will simply back away slowly.  
Because rehab is being touted as a great money-making scheme for those who will provide treatment to the inmates in Alberta's jails, AARC will gain some defenders from those who could profit from this new drug court system.  AARC may evolve into something else, as Straight did.
But the lawsuits will serve to expose the ridiculous and unethical psychic surgery used in AARC, as well as the long-proven dangers of the Newcomer/Oldcomer dynamic, as well as the host homes.
There will always be parents who want a simple solution to the problems posed by their children, and there will always be crooks like Vause, Miller Newton, and Mel Sembler who claim to have that solution.

[TheWho]

You AARColytes aren't very good at this.  If you want to play the disinfo semantics game, you have to first find an ambiguity or an error.  Since I stated clearly that the time since graduation used in the study's analysis of continuous sobriety  was just over two years and not five years, as Herard implied, you didn't find an ambiguity or an error.  So instead, you skipped over that part and kept repeating the assertion that I had made the statement or inferred that the study showed that the mean time since graduation was 5 years.  Since I said that opposite, you had to resort to a lie again.
It's easy to play the game if you undertand the rules, but you guys are too used to repeating what you're told, rather than figuring things out for yourself.
Pedophile, you're excluded, since you planted the disinfo.  AARColytes, this one's for you.  Find an instance where I stated that the mean time since graduation applied to determine the rate of continuous abstincence was five years.  On your mark, get set, see you at the top of the hill!

Nice try, but you stated a mean time of 2 years, not 5.  Where did the mean time of 5 come from?  Look Ajax, if you want to hold everyone else to every word they say you need to be able to handle it yourself.
So show me the refernce to the mean time of 5 years which you are disputing or correcting.  Then we can move on.  If you mis spoke and made a mistake that is okay too.  People make errors when speaking, I understand.

From what I have read in the past good luck trying to get Ajax to admit to one of his lies.  He will run you in circles after he is caught, but it is fun to watch.  He expects everyone else to tell the truth except himself.

[ajax13]

Why are you asking where the figure came from when you can plainly see where it came from?  If you disagree with my interpretation of Herard's lie, wherein he claimed that 85% of the grads were still sober after 5 years, by all means you're entitled to your opinion.  Since the study did not say that 85% of grads were still sober after 5 years, Herard's figure of 5 years is open to interpretation.  My assumption was that he was implying that the mean time since graduation for those in the study was 5 years, which it wasn't.  Perhaps he was implying that each graduate was assessed at the 5 year mark since graduation, which they weren't.  As always, I await an AARColyte explanation for the lies.
So far, none of you have made an attempt, choosing instead to latch onto Pedophile's erroneous statement that I had claimed that a mean time of 5 years since graduation was included in the study.
You see, I've pointed out a series of lies, specifically that Herard lied about what was in the study.  You AARColytes have claimed I was lying, but as always, you can't quite seem to show how.

Can't say that I'm due for a haircut.  That's the Synanon word for what the Wiz passes off as his treatment, and I'm not about to join your cult.

[TheWho]

Why are you asking where the figure came from when you can plainly see where it came from?  If you disagree with my interpretation of Herard's lie, wherein he claimed that 85% of the grads were still sober after 5 years, by all means you're entitled to your opinion.  Since the study did not say that 85% of grads were still sober after 5 years, Herard's figure of 5 years is open to interpretation.  My assumption was that he was implying that the mean time since graduation for those in the study was 5 years, which it wasn't.  Perhaps he was implying that each graduate was assessed at the 5 year mark since graduation, which they weren't.  As always, I await an AARColyte explanation for the lies.
So far, none of you have made an attempt, choosing instead to latch onto Pedophile's erroneous statement that I had claimed that a mean time of 5 years since graduation was included in the study.
You see, I've pointed out a series of lies, specifically that Herard lied about what was in the study.  You AARColytes have claimed I was lying, but as always, you can't quite seem to show how.

Can't say that I'm due for a haircut.  That's the Synanon word for what the Wiz passes off as his treatment, and I'm not about to join your cult.

I will respond when you clear up your lie.  If you bothered to read the report you would see where the information comes from.  Here it is again:

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.

AARC Study  

AARC Website

[Anonymous]

:guesswho:

[Anonymous]

I didn't attempt to murder anyone or commit suicide, still a AARC failure

is A. Mazur a success or failure based on what he did?
Or A. Evans, he was one of those graduates and counsellors. Still killed someone, so success or failure? You tell me.

[Anonymous]

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.

Since we're splitting hairs here.

IF 52% of graduates had a relapse they aren't STILL living a clean and sober life after 4 years

[TheWho]

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.

Since we're splitting hairs here.

IF 52% of graduates had a relapse they aren't STILL living a clean and sober life after 4 years

Maybe another way to look at it is suppose you were a 3 pack a day smoker and you entered a cessation program and were able to quit.  Then after a year you had a few smokes after your fathers funeral but went back to not smoking again.  Even though you relapsed doesn’t mean the program didn’t work for you or that you are not considered a non-smoker.  The entire process of becoming abstinent includes relapses.  Very few people can ever quit cold turkey “The First Time” and never go back.  It takes several tries and steps backwards before you can move forward for good.

[FemanonFatal2.0]

I'd like to know just how many of those graduates didn't have a substance abuse problem before they entered the program. What about the numerous amounts of teenagers who tried drugs but grew out of that on their own... are we really supposed to think that this program is responsible for the fact that all humans eventually mature?

Heres a for instance, If i were to participate in a WWASP study and as the questions would be written by WWASP they would ask me questions like this:

Do you use any drugs? No.

Can you hold down a job? Yes.

Have you been charged with any criminal activity since you came home? No.

and so on and so forth.

So would my answers to these questions indicate that the program was a success for me? Was the fact that I was neither a criminal nor a drug addict before I went into the program taken into account in this study? or that I did my fair share of drugs and drinking AFTER the program and matured out of that stage on my own? or that I was physically abused and strongly oppose the program. Does that have anything to do with the "success rate" or is that just all a little too relative to be taken seriously? Furthermore what about the kids that died or are in jail or wouldn't have even the slightest reason to keep in touch with AARC in order to be on their list for this survey. So honestly what surprises me is that other 15%, why would "druggies" even do this study in the first place?

Psy nailed it, this was a biased internal study from the beginning and these bogus claims have no credibility, but the programs have been lying for years so why should we put it passed them now?

[TheWho]

I'd like to know just how many of those graduates didn't have a substance abuse problem before they entered the program.

I think the study covered that part of it to insure there was a problem to solve.  Each kid was matched with a problem.

 

What about the numerous amounts of teenagers who tried drugs but grew out of that on their own... are we really supposed to think that this program is responsible for the fact that all humans eventually mature?

That is a good point.  There is no way to tell if any of these kids would have worked things out on their own regardless if they were in a program or not.

Heres a for instance, If i were to participate in a WWASP study and as the questions would be written by WWASP they would ask me questions like this:

Do you use any drugs? No.

Can you hold down a job? Yes.

Have you been charged with any criminal activity since you came home? No.

and so on and so forth.

So would my answers to these questions indicate that the program was a success for me? Was the fact that I was neither a criminal nor a drug addict before I went into the program taken into account in this study? or that I did my fair share of drugs and drinking AFTER the program and matured out of that stage on my own? or that I was physically abused and strongly oppose the program. Does that have anything to do with the "success rate" or is that just all a little too relative to be taken seriously? Furthermore what about the kids that died or are in jail or wouldn't have even the slightest reason to keep in touch with AARC in order to be on their list for this survey. So honestly what surprises me is that other 15%, why would "druggies" even do this study in the first place?

The only way to know “for sure” is if we could take the same kids and go back in time have them not attend AARC and see how their outcomes differed.  Another study which may be more accurate is to take similar kids with similar back grounds and send half thru AARC and allow the other half to try to make it thru on their own and compare the 2 groups.  It would be nice to even get an full independent study done, but I doubt that will happen any time soon based on how expensive they can be.

Psy nailed it, this was a biased internal study from the beginning and these bogus claims have no credibility, but the programs have been lying for years so why should we put it passed them now?

Any internal study is bound to be somewhat biased but it doesn’t mean it lacks credibility.  An independent agency would word the survey questions differently.  If fornits regulars wrote the questions they would be different still and carry its own bias.