Fornits

General Interest => Feed Your Head => Topic started by: DannyB II on July 16, 2010, 08:44:14 PM

Title: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: DannyB II on July 16, 2010, 08:44:14 PM
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,881 ... 60,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2003160,00.html)

Friday, Jul. 16, 2010
Does Teen Drug Rehab Cure Addiction or Create It?
By Maia Szalavitz

"Matt Thomas" (a pseudonym) had only recently begun experimenting with marijuana when he got caught selling a few joints in the bathroom at his junior high school. It was no big deal, Thomas thought, especially considering that his parents — an investment banker and a homemaker — smoked pot too.

But Thomas' grades had already begun to slip, perhaps because of his increasing alcohol and marijuana use; that, coupled with his drug-dealing offense, was enough for the school to recommend that his parents place him in an inpatient drug-treatment program. Thomas, then 13, was sent to Parkview West, a residential rehab center located a few miles from his suburban Minneapolis home. (See pictures of teens in America.)

But rather than encouraging sobriety, Thomas says, his seven-week stint at Parkview West helped trigger a decades-long descent into severe addiction — from regular marijuana user to daily drinker to cocaine and methamphetamine addict. "It was [in rehab] that they told me that I was a drug addict and an alcoholic," says Thomas. "There was no turning back. The whole event solidified and created this notion in my own mind and in my social status. Who I was, was an alcoholic and drug addict."

In treatment, Thomas met other addicts. He attended daily group therapy with older teens, who regaled him with glamorized war stories about drugs he'd never tried. In rehab, says Thomas, one's first question upon meeting a new person is, "What's your drug of choice?" And that's often followed by, "What's that like?" Thomas recalls hearing a description of an LSD high so seductive that he pledged he would try it if he got the chance. He did, not long after getting out of rehab. (See TIME's photo-essay "The Great American Pot Smoke-Out.")

Increasingly, substance-abuse experts are finding that teen drug treatment may indeed be doing more harm than good. Many programs throw casual dabblers together with hard-core addicts and foster continuous group interaction. It tends to strengthen dysfunctional behavior by concentrating it, researchers say. "Just putting kids in group therapy actually promotes greater drug use," says Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

The exposure can be especially dangerous for impressionable youngsters. "I've known kids who have gone into inpatient treatment and met other users. After treatment, they meet up with them and explore new drugs and become more seriously involved in drug use," says Tom Dishion, director of research at the Child and Family Center at the University of Oregon, who has documented such peer influence in scientific studies.

In academic terms, the problem is known as deviancy training, or the negative impact of friends on teen behavior — what parents would simply call a bad influence. In one 2000 study, in which researchers measured how much time teens spent together and how much they encouraged their peers' misbehavior, Dishion found that social exposure to delinquent peers at age 14 accounted for 53% of adolescents' life problems five years later — including criminal convictions, sexual promiscuity, relationship issues and drug use.

In another study looking specifically at the impact of group interventions, teenagers who had been identified as being at high risk for drug use and delinquency at ages 11 through 14 were more likely to smoke cigarettes and have disciplinary problems at school three years later if they had been enrolled in a teen focus group about drugs, compared with those who underwent private counseling sessions with their immediate families. "Any condition that promotes kids talking about or endorsing drug use [with one another] would increase the likelihood that the treatment would have a negative effect," says Dishion.

Download TIME's iPhone and BlackBerry application.

In addition, researchers find, the harm of many teen drug-treatment programs may come not only from the negative influence of new relationships but also from the degradation of positive bonds with family. In a 2003 paper, Jose Szapocznik, chair of the epidemiology and public-health department at the University of Miami, found that teens who used marijuana but still had healthy relationships with their families saw those relationships deteriorate — and their drug habits increase — when they were assigned to peer-therapy groups. Among these teens, who were in treatment for a minimum of four weeks, 17% reduced their marijuana habit, but 50% ended up smoking more. "In group, the risk of getting worse was much greater than the opportunity for getting better," Szapocznik says, adding that in contrast, 57% of teens who were assigned to family therapy showed a significant decrease in drug use, while 19% used more.

Although teens with fewer problems may be adversely affected by their more dysfunctional peers, the reverse can also be true: teens with severe behavioral problems actually improve when placed in groups with better-adjusted youth. The 2004 Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) trial, which included 600 teens, found that over the course of a year, marijuana use dropped 25% in teens in both group therapy and family therapy, no matter how severe their behavioral problems were.

CYT's success may be due to the fact that while its participants had varying degrees of behavioral difficulties, they did not differ significantly in terms of substance use — the trial excluded anyone who had used any drug other than marijuana for 13 or more days in the previous three months. That factor alone may account for the across-the-board benefits, but in most teen rehab centers outside of research settings, patients continue to be lumped together with little regard for the severity of their drug problems. (See TIME's health and medicine covers.)

It doesn't help either that the philosophy behind many drug-treatment programs can be easily misinterpreted by teenagers. Most programs in the U.S., including the one Thomas attended, are modeled after the 12-step recovery plan used by Alcoholics Anonymous. The first step encourages participants to accept that they are "powerless" over their addiction and to surrender their will to a higher force. For some people, it inspires mutual support and abstinence, but for others — especially teenagers — it can foster a feeling of defeat. "You get these 12-step teachings telling you that you're doomed, that you have this disease and this is the only way out," Thomas says. (Comment on this story.)

Indeed, surrender is not a word that comes easily to teens, and teaching them to believe they are powerless may create a fatalism that leads to relapse, according to Andrew Morral, a senior behavioral scientist at the Rand Corp. In his studies of teens treated at Phoenix House, one of the largest treatment providers in the U.S., he found that participants who subscribed to the tenet of powerlessness were more likely to return to drugs after treatment, compared with teenagers who did not take the message to heart. (See teens in obesity rehab.)

Still, for an estimated 10% of teen drug users whose addictions are severe enough that they already feel helpless to control them, the 12-step method can help. For example, a study published in July in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence found that teens who had severe addictions to alcohol, marijuana, heroin or painkillers and chose voluntarily to attend 12-step meetings once a week for three months had nearly double the number of sober days as those who did not attend. "People who go to Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous and stick with it are the most severe cases," says study author John Kelly, associate director of the Massachusetts General Hospital – Harvard Center for Addiction Medicine, while people with milder problems typically don't feel they "fit" and quit attending.

See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

The problem is that most treatment programs do not give teens a choice about 12-step attendance; it is usually a mandatory part of rehab or is in some cases legally mandated by a court.

Although individual and family therapy have shown more success with teen drug users than group treatment, most programs continue to use problematic approaches. One reason is cost. Group treatment allows a therapist to see many more patients in a day than individual sessions would. "If you can have four groups a day, you're going to do a lot better [financially] than if you have seven or eight individuals," says Szapocznik, noting that if insurers would pay for individualized treatment according to patient instead of by the hour, treatment for single patients or families could be made affordable.

The 12-step model also remains popular in part because such meetings are free and widely available. What's more, given that about half of addiction counselors are recovering addicts themselves, they tend to stay true to the treatment that worked for them — usually a 12-step program — and are not often well trained in other approaches like family therapy.

Some experts worry that unfavorable treatment strategies may only increase with forthcoming revisions to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the bible of psychiatry. In the current edition of the DSM, substance problems are divided into two diagnoses: "substance dependence," which signifies severe, chronic addiction, and "substance abuse," which applies to the kind of short-term risky behavior that many teens engage in but tend to outgrow.

In the proposed fifth edition of the DSM, however, diagnoses will be divided by drug, then by severity, all under the umbrella category of "addiction." That would mean the label of "addict" may be applied equally to a college binge drinker and a long-term heroin addict, which would not only reinforce the negative labeling effect on teens but also encourage mixing patients with varying substance problems in group therapy. "Failing to make the distinction at diagnosis will contribute to failing to make distinction in treatment," says Dr. Allen Frances, emeritus professor of psychiatry at Duke University and chair of the DSM task force that was in charge of the fourth edition.

What impact the new diagnostic categories may have remains to be seen. For now, researchers say the evidence shows the most effective teen drug treatment involves nongroup settings, especially for young people whose drug habits have not evolved to include harder substances. Anders Hoff, 23, says he was able to overcome his alcohol problem through individual therapy and by avoiding groups that required him to bear the label "alcoholic." At 18, Hoff left his home in Minnesota to attend college in Vermont. By the end of his first semester, he had developed a drinking habit so severe that he was frequently falling down drunk and suffering concussions. He had powerful headaches, and his senses of taste and smell were damaged by brain injury, but he didn't stop binge drinking. Panicked three days before the end of the term, he says, "with a knot in my stomach, I called my parents, said I had a problem and told them I had to go home."

He began individual counseling for alcoholism with Bob Muscala, a nurse in private practice in Edina, Minn., who has worked in the addictions field for 40 years. Hoff had two slips during his three years of therapy, but unlike with the standard 12-step program, his stumbles didn't force him to go back to zero and start counting his sober days all over again. "It didn't make me shut down and say, 'I'm done, let's start again with my old behavior,' " says Hoff, who is now back in school. "When I admitted the incidents, no one said, 'Well, you're an addict. You're never going to stop.' "

NIDA is funding collaborations with drug-treatment programs throughout the U.S. that are aimed at bringing both youth and adult treatments in line with practices that are known to work — for teens, that means family therapy, selective groups or individual therapy that prevents prolonged teen interaction in waiting rooms or other common areas. "There has been an incredible acceptance of evidence-based treatment" in programs that have joined NIDA's initiatives, Volkow says; however, many more community-based programs are still using interventions that have not proved to work.

Meanwhile, some individual treatment providers, like Muscala, continue to do their part, reducing drug use in the U.S. patient by patient. Matt Thomas, who has been in counseling with Muscala for about a year, just celebrated 10 months of sobriety at age 41.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 17, 2010, 08:50:22 AM
This article actually reinforces the conclusions of the Surgeon General's longitudinal clinical study of distressed teens.  The simple, short version:  Aggregating distressed teens increases maladaptive behavior.

This has been known for decades now and it is also another main reason why "programs" will never be effective.

Quote
In addition, researchers find, the harm of many teen drug-treatment programs may come not only from the negative influence of new relationships but also from the degradation of positive bonds with family. In a 2003 paper, Jose Szapocznik, chair of the epidemiology and public-health department at the University of Miami, found that teens who used marijuana but still had healthy relationships with their families saw those relationships deteriorate — and their drug habits increase — when they were assigned to peer-therapy groups. Among these teens, who were in treatment for a minimum of four weeks, 17% reduced their marijuana habit, but 50% ended up smoking more. "In group, the risk of getting worse was much greater than the opportunity for getting better," Szapocznik says, adding that in contrast, 57% of teens who were assigned to family therapy showed a significant decrease in drug use, while 19% used more.

What happens when you go from four weeks of peer group "therapy" to sixteen months or more?  The whole "program model" is bunk.  "Programs" make kids worse.  All available clinical research shows this.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 17, 2010, 09:15:00 AM
Interesting article but to keep it in perspective, the group that was studied were kids who smoked pot and had a good relationship with their family.

In a 2003 paper, Jose Szapocznik, chair of the epidemiology and public-health department at the University of Miami, found that teens who used marijuana but still had healthy relationships with their families saw those relationships deteriorate — and their drug habits increase — when they were assigned to peer-therapy groups.

Many kids in programs today are struggling with family issues and not responding to local services.  Their issues typically go beyond just smoking pot.


...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 17, 2010, 09:27:19 AM
I see you again didn't read the source material before posting your inanities.  There are several studies referenced in the article.  

Quote
Increasingly, substance-abuse experts are finding that teen drug treatment may indeed be doing more harm than good. Many programs throw casual dabblers together with hard-core addicts and foster continuous group interaction. It tends to strengthen dysfunctional behavior by concentrating it, researchers say. "Just putting kids in group therapy actually promotes greater drug use," says Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

Programs make kids worse.  Plain, simple conclusion, supported by clinical studies.

It's also easy to understand that if kids with healthy family relationships get worse, then kids with unhealthy family relationships experience even more troubles.  

The point being, separating a kid from their family is harmful.  Programs separate kids from their families for 12-24 months in general while aggregating them with other drug-using teens and/or teens with psychological problems, which these studies show makes their problems even worse.  That can't be spun away by programmies.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 17, 2010, 09:38:44 AM
Quote from: "Whooter"
Interesting article but to keep it in perspective, the group that was studied were kids who smoked pot and had a good relationship with their family.

In a 2003 paper, Jose Szapocznik, chair of the epidemiology and public-health department at the University of Miami, found that teens who used marijuana but still had healthy relationships with their families saw those relationships deteriorate — and their drug habits increase — when they were assigned to peer-therapy groups.

Many kids in programs today are struggling with family issues and not responding to local services.  Their issues typically go beyond just smoking pot.


...

The above was quoted from the article and paper (and also from your post).  Sorry, DJ, I am just clarifying what the paper said.  

There are independent studies which support that programs are 80% effective when they are away from families for long periods of time 14 to 16 months.  These are kids who are struggling with family issues and are not responding to local services.

We need to look at each research independently and understand the population being studied.  The population cited above in my statement had healthy relationships with their families.  Its important to point this out.



..
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Paul St. John on July 17, 2010, 09:43:27 AM
Whooter, I don't think that anyone who reads the article would miss your point, but to illustrate it more clearly, the article states that those with worse problems- drug addiction, etc. often do benefit from the group therapy, but it is done at the expense of those with lesser problems.

The people with not as bad problems, rub off on those with the larger issues, and the people with the larger issues, rub off on those who don't have that large of issues to begin with...

The picture I get in my head here, is that there is no net loss of bad stuff, but rather it is just redistributed.

In the facility that I went to, there was one heroine addict, one crackhead, about half a dozen coke users, one guy who only smoked pot once, but failed the drug test, his dad had been giving him since he enterred high school, and then there was the majority, pot smokers, who drank on weekends, and had experimented with psychedelics here and there, and then there were also, really young people who I never thought belonged there at all.  These were just people who smoked pot occasionally.


They always said in Daytop, that you don t start your real drug career, until after you leave Daytop, the first time.

I am embarressed to admit this, but in my last week at Daytop, I cut myself.  I had listened to people talking about cutting themselves in group for so long.  They romanticized the shit out of it.  I though that it was stupid as hell.  I remember thinking that they only did it for attention at first.  The more I listenned, it was clearly an addiction.  It was something vey personal that they had for themselves, that Daytop could not take from them.  Hell, Daytop expected that type of shit.

I just remembered this last night.  I tried it.  I cut myself.  This one girl made it sound so fucking seductive, and I did it one day, without knowing what was motivating me to do it.  I know that I was feeling terrible at the time, but I don t think that it is anything that I would have ever done in my life, if I had not been going to these stupid groups.

Paul St. John

PS It is also noteoworthy, that I heard time and time again, that people had come in with very minor drug problems, then developed very strong ones when they left, and came back "ready for treatment"
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 17, 2010, 09:46:08 AM
Quote from: "Whooter"
There are independent studies which support that programs are 80% effective when they are away from families for long periods of time 14 to 16 months.

No, there aren't.  There has never been a longitudinal clinical study of any "parent choice" program.  We both know that.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 17, 2010, 10:32:06 AM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Quote from: "Whooter"
There are independent studies which support that programs are 80% effective when they are away from families for long periods of time 14 to 16 months.

No, there aren't.  There has never been a longitudinal clinical study of any "parent choice" program.  We both know that.

No I didnt say : "longitudinal clinical study of any "Parent Choice" program".  They may exist but I have not read any as of this date.

I stated there were independent studies performed which support that programs are 80% effective...

I would also be careful to conclude from this that all programs are 80% effective because each program incorporates a different model and programs can vary greatly.  So you need to read which programs were included in the study.



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Froderik on July 17, 2010, 10:47:17 AM
Did a lot of drugs before the 'gram, and even more after the 'gram...

TRUE.

/thread
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 17, 2010, 11:06:58 AM
Quote from: "Whooter"
I stated there were independent studies performed which support that programs are 80% effective.

This is an awfully big statement.  "Programs are 80% effective" implies that all programs are 80% effective.  You'd have to cite some research to support this type of claim. I don't believe this is true and I think you're trying to mislead people.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 17, 2010, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Quote from: "Whooter"
I stated there were independent studies performed which support that programs are 80% effective.

This is an awfully big statement.  "Programs are 80% effective" implies that all programs are 80% effective.  You'd have to cite some research to support this type of claim. I don't believe this is true and I think you're trying to mislead people.

Further down in my post I stated:

I would also be careful to conclude from this that all programs are 80% effective because each program incorporates a different model and programs can vary greatly. So you need to read which programs were included in the study.



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Ursus on July 17, 2010, 11:17:24 AM
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Quote from: "Whooter"
There are independent studies which support that programs are 80% effective when they are away from families for long periods of time 14 to 16 months.
No, there aren't.  There has never been a longitudinal clinical study of any "parent choice" program.  We both know that.
No I didnt say : "longitudinal clinical study of any "Parent Choice" program".  They may exist but I have not read any as of this date.

I stated there were independent studies performed which support that programs are 80% effective...
Industry-financed studies are pretty suspect as to their credibility, particularly when there are no peer reviewed articles supporting same findings appearing in academic research journals.

If Aspen's studies were so great, how come no journal would publish them? Aspen publicizes them, however, on pretty much every one of their programs' websites. They must think that parents can be convinced that "publish" and "publicize" are synonymous!  :D

Quote from: "Whooter"
I would also be careful to conclude from this that all programs are 80% effective because each program incorporates a different model and programs can vary greatly.  So you need to read which programs were included in the study.
Riiiiigght. And that would be Aspen Ed programs, amicorrect? Whose aggressive marketing tactics even gives some EdCons due pause and concern...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Froderik on July 17, 2010, 11:29:28 AM
Man, fuck all this shit....what a tiresome debate....where do y'all get the goddam ENERGY????
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 17, 2010, 11:34:47 AM
The programs have had no problems in the past allowing people inside to study their process and report their findings.   I am sure if someone stepped forward and offered to finance the study they would be more than happy to!  

But if a study needs to be done and no one will finance it then you need to finance it yourself.

The study was overseen by a third party to insure no conflict of interest was occurring.

I do understand that studies which show programs in a good light will not be accepted here on fornits.  I am not trying to make believers out of you, But I think it is important to continue to allow the readers to see all sides of the argument so that they can get as much information as possible.



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: DannyB II on July 17, 2010, 11:55:02 AM
Quote from: "Froderik"
Did a lot of drugs before the 'gram, and even more after the 'gram...

TRUE.

/thread

 :roflmao: I love this place...... Frodie
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Froderik on July 17, 2010, 12:12:26 PM
Quote from: "DannyB II"
Quote from: "Froderik"
Did a lot of drugs before the 'gram, and even more after the 'gram...

TRUE.

/thread

 :roflmao: I love this place...... Frodie
:rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :lala:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rocker:
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 17, 2010, 12:50:26 PM
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Quote from: "Whooter"
I stated there were independent studies performed which support that programs are 80% effective.

This is an awfully big statement.  "Programs are 80% effective" implies that all programs are 80% effective.  You'd have to cite some research to support this type of claim. I don't believe this is true and I think you're trying to mislead people.

Further down in my post I stated:

I would also be careful to conclude from this that all programs are 80% effective because each program incorporates a different model and programs can vary greatly. So you need to read which programs were included in the study.



...

But you didn't provide any studies.  You keep tossing out an 80% "success rate" for programs of 14-16 months duration, yet you have no data to support this statement.  That is trying to mislead people.  There's no basis in fact to support your claim.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 17, 2010, 01:14:29 PM
I have posted this so many times I thought everyone had seen it.

Here it is:

Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Ursus on July 17, 2010, 01:49:31 PM
Quote from: "Whooter"
I have posted this so many times I thought everyone had seen it.

Here it is:

Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Like I said, industry-sponsored studies are pretty suspect as to their credibility, particularly when there are no peer reviewed articles supporting same findings appearing in academic research journals.

The study in your above link was presented at a conference but, to my knowledge, was never published in any self-respecting journal. Picking apart the details of the study, as has been done so many times already here, by so many, has revealed why.

Should I be incorrect, and you have proof of its being published somewhere, please do provide us with a link! Incidentally, uploading something on scribd.com doesn't count.  :D
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: DannyB II on July 17, 2010, 02:20:26 PM
Quote from: "Ursus"
Quote from: "Whooter"
I have posted this so many times I thought everyone had seen it.

Here it is:

Link (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
Like I said, industry-sponsored studies are pretty suspect as to their credibility, particularly when there are no peer reviewed articles supporting same findings appearing in academic research journals.

The study in your above link was presented at a conference but, to my knowledge, was never published in any self-respecting journal. Picking apart the details of the study, as has been done so many times already here, by so many, has revealed why.

Should I be incorrect, and you have proof of its being published somewhere, please do provide us with a link! Incidentally, uploading something on scribd.com doesn't count.  :D

Let me ask a stupid question, since no Doctors of Psychology/Sociology read hear, were not being quoted in any journals and I sincerely doubt that anybody with any professional character reads this web site nor do many parents, why is it so important that whooter have a article approved by a self respecting journal and who decides on the respected journal.
Ursus your opinion has its merits but is by no means the end all, especially how you treat information that is posted here, it is questionably irresponsible. You have a tendency of allowing your biased opinions to interfere with good judgement.
Industry sponsored studies are no more suspect then your (Ursus) opinions you give freely here on fornits, hoping that your target audience will read, (PARENTS).
You ask others to reach a high bar of credibility, when you run loose and reckless with your opinions and information you post.
Why Whooter even bothers with you is the 64 thousand dollar question, I think he enjoys the banter.
I have always found you to be a phony who can not find his way out of his prejudices against the TTI.

Whooter please by all means get in on this conversation. They seem to want to hold everyone else to a higher expectation then themselves.
I find Ursus comments, where he says, "the article you posted from the conference was picked apart by many here on Fornits", to be very arrogant to say the least.
Ursus, you really flatter yourself to be a expert. Please don't dislocate your elbow.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 17, 2010, 05:27:13 PM
Ursus happens to be correct in this case, Danny.  Of course, someone who has purported to have completed research that bears certain scientific conlusions should be held to a higher standard than, let's say, a message board poster.

It's called "peer review" (http://http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/29/) and it represents the gold standard in scientific study.  Most people familiar with studies and their review and publication process know this.  A published,  peer reviewed study can be taken seriously.  An unpublished, non-peer reviewed study is unpublished and unreviewed for a reason: it's invalid and the author knows this.  

Anyone wanting their study taken seriously submits it for peer review and if it passes muster, has it published, usually in a reputable trade journal.

Quote
The arbiter of scientific quality

Developments in science and medicine are frequently the subject of news headlines and public discussion. With increasing amounts of scientific information being put into the public domain, and a growing number of organisations involved in promoting and discussing scientific research, it can be difficult to judge which research claims should be taken seriously.

With so much information it is often difficult to judge which research claims should be taken seriously. Which are ‘scares’? Sometimes scientists are reported as saying conflicting things. How do we know what to believe?

There is a system called peer review that is used by scientists to decide which research results should be published in a scientific journal. The peer review process subjects scientific research papers to independent scrutiny by other qualified scientific experts (peers) before they are made public.

More than one million scientific research papers are published in scientific journals worldwide every year. Despite its extensive use and recognition among scientists in assessing the plausibility of research claims, in the rest of society very little is known about the existence of the peer-review process or what it involves.


I think that last sentence applies to a couple of posters in this thread.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: DannyB II on July 17, 2010, 07:29:09 PM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Ursus happens to be correct in this case, Danny.  Of course, someone who has purported to have completed research that bears certain scientific conlusions should be held to a higher standard than, let's say, a message board poster.

It's called "peer review" (http://http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/29/) and it represents the gold standard in scientific study.  Most people familiar with studies and their review and publication process know this.  A published,  peer reviewed study can be taken seriously.  An unpublished, non-peer reviewed study is unpublished and unreviewed for a reason: it's invalid and the author knows this.  

Anyone wanting their study taken seriously submits it for peer review and if it passes muster, has it published, usually in a reputable trade journal.

Quote
The arbiter of scientific quality

Developments in science and medicine are frequently the subject of news headlines and public discussion. With increasing amounts of scientific information being put into the public domain, and a growing number of organisations involved in promoting and discussing scientific research, it can be difficult to judge which research claims should be taken seriously.

With so much information it is often difficult to judge which research claims should be taken seriously. Which are ‘scares’? Sometimes scientists are reported as saying conflicting things. How do we know what to believe?

There is a system called peer review that is used by scientists to decide which research results should be published in a scientific journal. The peer review process subjects scientific research papers to independent scrutiny by other qualified scientific experts (peers) before they are made public.

More than one million scientific research papers are published in scientific journals worldwide every year. Despite its extensive use and recognition among scientists in assessing the plausibility of research claims, in the rest of society very little is known about the existence of the peer-review process or what it involves.


I think that last sentence applies to a couple of posters in this thread.

Thank you DJ,
I really do know a lot of what you just said but you failed to capture my point. I'll try again, none of you are peers, have ever published any articles, hold a Doctorate, ect....so lets get down from our perches and remember who we are. Just because you read someones article including the research does not make you the expert. DJ I have been around enough Professors, Doctors, Professionals in this industry to know that there are not many experts here on fornits, I have a opinion that there are maybe two here, that rise to the level of professionalism.

So lets just quit with all this mumbo jumbo about peers, papers being authenticated checked for accuracy    
and substance bull and get down to how all of you twist and manipulate the information you post.
It is a bunch of bullshit that you are trying to pass off as professional.

Lets say someone has read a opinion on a article from Maia S,"Time Magazine" she is not necessarily a expert nor does she have to go through the process you just described above for her article to be published, she is well respected around here. Maia also does not always quote her sources, she is a little loose. I don't see you guys harping on her for published reports from peer reviews. Shit!!!!, you would be told to go suck a egg.
 
My point is this is not necessarily a professional web site for  Scientists, Scholars and Doctors, it is for the average Joe TT person who does not mind reading documented articles but is not pinning his hopes of getting help here depending upon this.
 
Whooter and yourself have big fat egos (like myself) that need to be fed, so we have to endure post after post of your feeding process.
All I'm saying is remember who we are.

Oh and just so ya know my 14 year old niece knew about the peer review process, it is not that unheard of.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: DannyB II on July 17, 2010, 08:28:23 PM
Quote
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2003160,00.html

Friday, Jul. 16, 2010
Does Teen Drug Rehab Cure Addiction or Create It?
By Maia Szalavitz

"Matt Thomas" (a pseudonym) had only recently begun experimenting with marijuana when he got caught selling a few joints in the bathroom at his junior high school. It was no big deal, Thomas thought, especially considering that his parents — an investment banker and a homemaker — smoked pot too.

But Thomas' grades had already begun to slip, perhaps because of his increasing alcohol and marijuana use; that, coupled with his drug-dealing offense, was enough for the school to recommend that his parents place him in an inpatient drug-treatment program. Thomas, then 13, was sent to Parkview West, a residential rehab center located a few miles from his suburban Minneapolis home. (See pictures of teens in America.)

But rather than encouraging sobriety, Thomas says, his seven-week stint at Parkview West helped trigger a decades-long descent into severe addiction — from regular marijuana user to daily drinker to cocaine and methamphetamine addict. "It was [in rehab] that they told me that I was a drug addict and an alcoholic," says Thomas. "There was no turning back. The whole event solidified and created this notion in my own mind and in my social status. Who I was, was an alcoholic and drug addict."

This is disturbing, especially when the child does not even have the extensive drug history.

Quote
In treatment, Thomas met other addicts. He attended daily group therapy with older teens, who regaled him with glamorized war stories about drugs he'd never tried. In rehab, says Thomas, one's first question upon meeting a new person is, "What's your drug of choice?" And that's often followed by, "What's that like?" Thomas recalls hearing a description of an LSD high so seductive that he pledged he would try it if he got the chance. He did, not long after getting out of rehab.

 
This is sad.
Quote
Increasingly, substance-abuse experts are finding that teen drug treatment may indeed be doing more harm than good. Many programs throw casual dabblers together with hard-core addicts and foster continuous group interaction. It tends to strengthen dysfunctional behavior by concentrating it, researchers say. "Just putting kids in group therapy actually promotes greater drug use," says Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

They at least should separate the extensive from the dabblers in groups that will focus on drug use or better yet have separate treatment centers for this.
Quote
The exposure can be especially dangerous for impressionable youngsters. "I've known kids who have gone into inpatient treatment and met other users. After treatment, they meet up with them and explore new drugs and become more seriously involved in drug use," says Tom Dishion, director of research at the Child and Family Center at the University of Oregon, who has documented such peer influence in scientific studies.
This is true, my story to some extent.
Quote
In academic terms, the problem is known as deviancy training, or the negative impact of friends on teen behavior — what parents would simply call a bad influence. In one 2000 study, in which researchers measured how much time teens spent together and how much they encouraged their peers' misbehavior, Dishion found that social exposure to delinquent peers at age 14 accounted for 53% of adolescents' life problems five years later — including criminal convictions, sexual promiscuity, relationship issues and drug use.

Ok we have to be careful here on accountability, this is accurate I am not arguing but kids do make bad choices and others don't even the "impressionable ones".
Quote
In another study looking specifically at the impact of group interventions, teenagers who had been identified as being at high risk for drug use and delinquency at ages 11 through 14 were more likely to smoke cigarettes and have disciplinary problems at school three years later if they had been enrolled in a teen focus group about drugs, compared with those who underwent private counseling sessions with their immediate families. "Any condition that promotes kids talking about or endorsing drug use [with one another] would increase the likelihood that the treatment would have a negative effect," says Dishion.

Could see this, when I was in Daytop I do remember talking about drugs not having much experience but trying to act cool and many older folks just laughing at me.
This would definitely not be happening in our household.
 
Quote
In addition, researchers find, the harm of many teen drug-treatment programs may come not only from the negative influence of new relationships but also from the degradation of positive bonds with family. In a 2003 paper, Jose Szapocznik, chair of the epidemiology and public-health department at the University of Miami, found that teens who used marijuana but still had healthy relationships with their families saw those relationships deteriorate — and their drug habits increase — when they were assigned to peer-therapy groups. Among these teens, who were in treatment for a minimum of four weeks, 17% reduced their marijuana habit, but 50% ended up smoking more. "In group, the risk of getting worse was much greater than the opportunity for getting better," Szapocznik says, adding that in contrast, 57% of teens who were assigned to family therapy showed a significant decrease in drug use, while 19% used more.

Ok this is a little sketchy and she doesn't quote the research nor who was doing the research. What was all this based on....a bit of a stretch Maia S.
Quote
Although teens with fewer problems may be adversely affected by their more dysfunctional peers, the reverse can also be true: teens with severe behavioral problems actually improve when placed in groups with better-adjusted youth. The 2004 Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) trial, which included 600 teens, found that over the course of a year, marijuana use dropped 25% in teens in both group therapy and family therapy, no matter how severe their behavioral problems were.

Good less folks walking around confused all day.
Quote
CYT's success may be due to the fact that while its participants had varying degrees of behavioral difficulties, they did not differ significantly in terms of substance use — the trial excluded anyone who had used any drug other than marijuana for 13 or more days in the previous three months. That factor alone may account for the across-the-board benefits, but in most teen rehab centers outside of research settings, patients continue to be lumped together with little regard for the severity of their drug problems.
 

This really needs to stop.

Quote
It doesn't help either that the philosophy behind many drug-treatment programs can be easily misinterpreted by teenagers. Most programs in the U.S., including the one Thomas attended, are modeled after the 12-step recovery plan used by Alcoholics Anonymous. The first step encourages participants to accept that they are "powerless" over their addiction and to surrender their will to a higher force. For some people, it inspires mutual support and abstinence, but for others — especially teenagers — it can foster a feeling of defeat. "You get these 12-step teachings telling you that you're doomed, that you have this disease and this is the only way out," Thomas says.
 

This is where I have my problem, why is AA being taught in these centers, forced on these kids. The essence of the AA principles are convoluted.
Man, this is just sad.
This is not the 12 steps or AA, it is whatever programs interpretation, which is usually sick.
Quote
Indeed, surrender is not a word that comes easily to teens, and teaching them to believe they are powerless may create a fatalism that leads to relapse, according to Andrew Morral, a senior behavioral scientist at the Rand Corp. In his studies of teens treated at Phoenix House, one of the largest treatment providers in the U.S., he found that participants who subscribed to the tenet of powerlessness were more likely to return to drugs after treatment, compared with teenagers who did not take the message to heart.


I agree wholeheartedly, this is not something you just throw around recklessly, especially with impressionable
teens.

Quote
Still, for an estimated 10%  of teen drug users whose addictions are severe enough that they already feel helpless to control them, the 12-step method can help. For example, a study published in July in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence found that teens who had severe addictions to alcohol, marijuana, heroin or painkillers and chose voluntarily to attend 12-step meetings once a week for three months had nearly double the number of sober days as those who did not attend. "People who go to Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous and stick with it are the most severe cases," says study author John Kelly, associate director of the Massachusetts General Hospital – Harvard Center for Addiction Medicine, while people with milder problems typically don't feel they "fit" and quit attending.

BIngo, this is what I've been saying all along. Thank You.....Jeesh.

Quote
The problem is that most treatment programs do not give teens a choice about 12-step attendance; it is usually a mandatory part of rehab or is in some cases legally mandated by a court.

Bingo again, this is the problem I've been saying also. AA can not be forced at all in any way or it fails miserably.

Quote
Although individual and family therapy have shown more success with teen drug users than group treatment, most programs continue to use problematic approaches. One reason is cost. Group treatment allows a therapist to see many more patients in a day than individual sessions would. "If you can have four groups a day, you're going to do a lot better [financially] than if you have seven or eight individuals," says Szapocznik, noting that if insurers would pay for individualized treatment according to patient instead of by the hour, treatment for single patients or families could be made affordable.

always money in the end.
Quote
The 12-step model also remains popular in part because such meetings are free and widely available. What's more, given that about half of addiction counselors are recovering addicts themselves, they tend to stay true to the treatment that worked for them — usually a 12-step program — and are not often well trained in other approaches like family therapy.

No kidding, this is another reason AA is misrepresented because you have uneducated folks with years of sobriety thinking they have the "answer" working at treatment centers. They are cheap, the turn over rate is huge.
Quote
Some experts worry that unfavorable treatment strategies may only increase with forthcoming revisions to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the bible of psychiatry. In the current edition of the DSM, substance problems are divided into two diagnoses: "substance dependence," which signifies severe, chronic addiction, and "substance abuse," which applies to the kind of short-term risky behavior that many teens engage in but tend to outgrow.

Well this is a bunch of bullshit, are they just lazy or is it they still don't care about the young troubled teen.

Quote
In the proposed fifth edition of the DSM, however, diagnoses will be divided by drug, then by severity, all under the umbrella category of "addiction." That would mean the label of "addict" may be applied equally to a college binge drinker and a long-term heroin addict, which would not only reinforce the negative labeling effect on teens but also encourage mixing patients with varying substance problems in group therapy. "Failing to make the distinction at diagnosis will contribute to failing to make distinction in treatment," says Dr. Allen Frances, emeritus professor of psychiatry at Duke University and chair of the DSM task force that was in charge of the fourth edition.

and DJ and Ursus wants us to go a get documented articles from peer reviews boards, here is one for ya. The most esteemed, DSM. What a bunch of quacks, they really care about drug abuse.

Quote
What impact the new diagnostic categories may have remains to be seen. For now, researchers say the evidence shows the most effective teen drug treatment involves non group settings, especially for young people whose drug habits have not evolved to include harder substances. Anders Hoff, 23, says he was able to overcome his alcohol problem through individual therapy and by avoiding groups that required him to bear the label "alcoholic." At 18, Hoff left his home in Minnesota to attend college in Vermont. By the end of his first semester, he had developed a drinking habit so severe that he was frequently falling down drunk and suffering concussions. He had powerful headaches, and his senses of taste and smell were damaged by brain injury, but he didn't stop binge drinking. Panicked three days before the end of the term, he says, "with a knot in my stomach, I called my parents, said I had a problem and told them I had to go home."
He began individual counseling for alcoholism with Bob Muscala, a nurse in private practice in Edina, Minn., who has worked in the addictions field for 40 years. Hoff had two slips during his three years of therapy, but unlike with the standard 12-step program, his stumbles didn't force him to go back to zero and start counting his sober days all over again. "It didn't make me shut down and say, 'I'm done, let's start again with my old behavior,' " says Hoff, who is now back in school. "When I admitted the incidents, no one said, 'Well, you're an addict. You're never going to stop.' "

This is one of my biggest problems I have with some of the people in  AA, is how they stigmatize the person who drinks again. They ask him to walk to the front of the room to pick up a white chip to show surrender. Some folks laugh and snicker, gossip about him ect... it is sad. I do not even like the handing out of the chips period, I really don't think I should be rewarded for doing what I am supposed to be doing for myself and love ones.
Ask any smoker how hard it was to quit and stay quit. There were ciggs smoked before they stayed, quit.

Quote
NIDA is funding collaborations with drug-treatment programs throughout the U.S. that are aimed at bringing both youth and adult treatments in line with practices that are known to work — for teens, that means family therapy, selective groups or individual therapy that prevents prolonged teen interaction in waiting rooms or other common areas. "There has been an incredible acceptance of evidence-based treatment" in programs that have joined NIDA's initiatives, Volkow says; however, many more community-based programs are still using interventions that have not proved to work.

They need to wake up and see what works.

Quote
Meanwhile, some individual treatment providers, like Muscala, continue to do their part, reducing drug use in the U.S. patient by patient. Matt Thomas, who has been in counseling with Muscala for about a year, just celebrated 10 months of sobriety at age 41.

One drunk helping another, that is how it works.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 17, 2010, 09:35:09 PM
We have come a long way on Fornits!

A few years ago we would hear:   “We want proof, show us that programs work”.  So various posters provided them with first hand accounts of kids who did well and were set back on a healthy path.

Then they said:  ”Well, we want to see studies”.  So we provided them with studies which showed 60 - 80% of the kids succeed in programs and they said “Ha,Ha they are not accurate!!  You call that a study?  Ppsssfftt…They are merely internal studies.  They could have just made that stuff up!

Then we provided external studies which showed programs to be 60% - 80% effective and they said:  “The studies are no good!!  One of the people on the studies use to work in NATSAP!!!  There could be a conflict of interest”  Ha,Ha  “The entire effort is negated.

So we provided them with Independent studies which show programs to be 80% effective in getting kids placed back on a healthy path with third party oversight to insure there were no conflict of interests.   They said:  "Well…well…. Ooommm…..we want long term clinical trials!!!... yeah that’s it Clinical Trials which cover 5 years out.  We don’t believe your studies we want clinical trials!”  

Oh,Oh wait and we get to pick the journal that it gets published in before we will believe it.”

Lol.

But in all fairness it is good to keep pushing for more and better controlled studies.  I think we can all agree that the more studies that are done the better everyone will feel that the information is accurate and feel more confident about sending our kids there.

The push back here, against the study, is just a sense and impending awareness that certain programs are highly effective, there is no getting around this and rejecting the study out of hand is the only way to ignore the facts and still hold onto the belief that all programs hurt people.  I think it is fair to say, as someone stated earlier, that Maia S. reports are not scrutinized the same or held to the same standard and there is no intention of accepting any report which shows programs to be effective peer reviewed or not.



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 18, 2010, 05:24:59 PM
"Study" vs "magazine article."  Most people understand the difference.  Studies are peer-reviewed if they are credible and magazine articles are fact-checked if they are credible.

The last post is a long song and dance that ultimately simply admits that there are no peer-reviewed published studies of the TTI, nor any clinical trials of their methods.  Just read between the rhetoric.  After forty or more years of operation, you'd think someone would want to answer their critics...but...no.

FWIW, there was no "independent oversight" of the industry whitepaper presented as a "study."  There was only third party review of the questionaire questions.  These were given to kids still in the program who risked not being allowed to leave if they said they weren't helped or didn't improve.  The bias and flawed methodology of the so-called "study" are why it wasn't submitted for peer review as all serious studies are.  This is also why no follow-up was done a year out either.  With no reason to "fake it" the former attendees wouldn't reliably report what the "researcher" was fishing for.  The whole thing is bogus on its face.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: DannyB II on July 18, 2010, 05:49:24 PM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
"Study" vs "magazine article."  Most people understand the difference.  Studies are peer-reviewed if they are credible and magazine articles are fact-checked if they are credible.

The last post is a long song and dance that ultimately simply admits that there are no peer-reviewed published studies of the TTI, nor any clinical trials of their methods.  Just read between the rhetoric.  After forty or more years of operation, you'd think someone would want to answer their critics...but...no.

FWIW, there was no "independent oversight" of the industry whitepaper presented as a "study."  There was only third party review of the questionaire questions.  These were given to kids still in the program who risked not being allowed to leave if they said they weren't helped or didn't improve.  The bias and flawed methodology of the so-called "study" are why it wasn't submitted for peer review as all serious studies are.  This is also why no follow-up was done a year out either.  With no reason to "fake it" the former attendees wouldn't reliably report what the "researcher" was fishing for.  The whole thing is bogus on its face.

You have absolutely no evidence or actual on hands on person that can verify what your saying. This is just coming out of your head otherwise (made up) because it sounds good.
Bla Bla Bla........
DJ, you resort to the same tactics to prove your points, so please.
As far as your explanation of studies vs. mags, no kidding. This was not the point,
the point was, you readily accept Maia S. mag articles no problem yet you grill the
shit out of others, for articles they bring here.
Your a hypocrite, so just stop digging, set the shovel aside and climb out.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 18, 2010, 06:06:42 PM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
"Study" vs "magazine article."  Most people understand the difference.  Studies are peer-reviewed if they are credible and magazine articles are fact-checked if they are credible.

The last post is a long song and dance that ultimately simply admits that there are no peer-reviewed published studies of the TTI, nor any clinical trials of their methods.  Just read between the rhetoric.  After forty or more years of operation, you'd think someone would want to answer their critics...but...no.

FWIW, there was no "independent oversight" of the industry whitepaper presented as a "study."  There was only third party review of the questionaire questions.  These were given to kids still in the program who risked not being allowed to leave if they said they weren't helped or didn't improve.  The bias and flawed methodology of the so-called "study" are why it wasn't submitted for peer review as all serious studies are.  This is also why no follow-up was done a year out either.  With no reason to "fake it" the former attendees wouldn't reliably report what the "researcher" was fishing for.  The whole thing is bogus on its face.

Sorry, DJ, but you cannot bury the facts.   The study was independent and it was overseen by an independent third party.  If you see flaws with this you need to contact the oversight committee and if they agree with you then you can come back and report it to us.
 
When your opinion is presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association like this study was then maybe it will carry some weight.  But until then we need to go with the studies that are presently available.



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: psy on July 19, 2010, 12:05:19 AM
Whooter.  Once again you claim to have posted independent, peer reviewed studies without actually having done so.  No program can honestly claim a 80% success rate and any one that does is lying.  Any honest addiction professional will tell you that.

And you keep posting the Behrens study.  Jesus christ.  That's been blown to shreds time and time again.  It wasn't independent.  It was a study that was funded by Aspen and conducted by a former staffer who currently refers to Aspen programs.  Can that get any further from independent?

Here's a post I have bookmarked blowing the study away:
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&start=0)

And let's get back to Maia. Great article. I don't agree with everything she said but mostly I agree. Programs can easily make bad habits worse by indoctrinating kids into the idea that such bad behaviors are a part of their being, a disease, and cannot be changed.  It teaches that whatever you do in life, your ability or inability to avoid drugs/alcohol is not a choice but something that is fated to be by a higher power.  It's a doctrine that teaches the futility of the exercise of free will.  Like Maia says "fatalism".  One is supposed to "let go and let god (interpreted through your program representative)" because the exercise of free will is futile.  It gives kids an excuse to give into their desires because they are told they are beyond their control (without the holy program).

Because they're also told those who are on drugs cannot control their behavior and are not responsible (it's the disease), they're also encouraged to act out, knowing that later they can simply follow the steps and be absolved of their sins.  Personal responsibility goes out the window.  Healthy feelings of guilt over hurting others goes out the window.  Any amends are a selfish act of self "healing" or self preservation rather than out of genuine remorse.  It's sick.  It's bad enough when people are duped into it.  It's even worse when kids are forced into it and have this crap shoved into their heads which, as Maia points out, is causing very very real damage.  The philosophy is poison.


**which no matter how much Maia wants to pretend, is fundamentally inseparable from AA and it's relatives.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 19, 2010, 07:12:22 AM
Quote from: "psy"
Whooter. Once again you claim to have posted independent, peer reviewed studies without actually having done so. No program can honestly claim a 80% success rate and any one that does is lying. Any honest addiction professional will tell you that.

And you keep posting the Behrens study. Jesus christ. That's been blown to shreds time and time again. It wasn't independent. It was a study that was funded by Aspen and conducted by a former staffer who currently refers to Aspen programs. Can that get any further from independent?

Here's a post I have bookmarked blowing the study away:
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&start=0

You and a few others were not able to find any conflict of interest no matter how hard you tried.  Your own link shows that, psy.  Your "Blown to shreds" is in your mind.  There was a third party oversight committee which watched over the study and insured there was no conflict of interest.  If you feel you found one then you need to present your evidence to the committee in order to convince anyone outside of yourself and fornits.  The study was presented at the APA convention.  Once you have successfully argued your point in front of them and get the blessing of the oversight committee then you can come back and we will discuss the studies validity.  But until then the study remains solid in everyones view.

Also this isn’t about addiction.  These are kids, psy, 99% imo haven't had time to become fully addicted to anything.  Some may have drug issues but addiction problems these should be addressed at rehabs where the kids can be properly detoxed, not Therapeutic programs or wilderness.  

The study measures success of the kids getting back on track, into school and with their families.  I think you might have misunderstood or misread.



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 19, 2010, 07:17:58 AM
Quote from: "psy"

And let's get back to Maia. Great article. I don't agree with everything she said but mostly I agree. Programs can easily make bad habits worse by indoctrinating kids into the idea that such bad behaviors are a part of their being, a disease, and cannot be changed.  It teaches that whatever you do in life, your ability or inability to avoid drugs/alcohol is not a choice but something that is fated to be by a higher power.  It's a doctrine that teaches the futility of the exercise of free will.  Like Maia says "fatalism".  One is supposed to "let go and let god (interpreted through your program representative)" because the exercise of free will is futile.  It gives kids an excuse to give into their desires because they are told they are beyond their control (without the holy program).

Because they're also told those who are on drugs cannot control their behavior and are not responsible (it's the disease), they're also encouraged to act out, knowing that later they can simply follow the steps and be absolved of their sins.  Personal responsibility goes out the window.  Healthy feelings of guilt over hurting others goes out the window.  Any amends are a selfish act of self "healing" or self preservation rather than out of genuine remorse.  It's sick.  It's bad enough when people are duped into it.  It's even worse when kids are forced into it and have this crap shoved into their heads which, as Maia points out, is causing very very real damage.  The philosophy is poison.


**which no matter how much Maia wants to pretend, is fundamentally inseparable from AA and it's relatives.


...... but to keep it in perspective, the group that was studied (at least in part) were kids who smoked pot and had a good relationship with their family.

In a 2003 paper, Jose Szapocznik, chair of the epidemiology and public-health department at the University of Miami, found that teens who used marijuana but still had healthy relationships with their families saw those relationships deteriorate — and their drug habits increase — when they were assigned to peer-therapy groups.

Many kids in programs today are struggling with family issues and not responding to local services.  Their issues typically go beyond just smoking pot.


...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 19, 2010, 09:29:36 AM
Quote from: "Whooter"
There was a third party oversight committee which watched over the study and insured there was no conflict of interest.

No, there wasn't.  There was an outside group that approved the format of the questionaire, nothing more.  If this were true, I'm sure you could post a link and excerpt.

Quote from: "Whooter"
If you see flaws with this you need to contact the oversight committee

There is no oversight committe.

You also have posted numerous times about a fictitious "one year follow-up study."  That doesn't exist either.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 19, 2010, 09:35:13 AM
Quote from: "DannyB II"
You have absolutely no evidence or actual on hands on person that can verify what your saying.

I said the "study" wasn't peer-reviewed or published by a reputable journal.  Obviously, if you could provide proof it was, that would make my point unverifiable.  I'll be waiting for your link to its peer review and publication.  Until then, the only evidence available (the "study" itself) says the opposite of what you're saying, so it looks like you just made the rest up.

Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "guest4NKQD"
There appears to be continued confusion around the study conducted by Ellen Behrens. While she and other industry pundits claim it was an Independent Study, nothing could be further from the truth.

1999 Behrens Clinical Director for Youth care
http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?a ... me=Behrens (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=97347972&page_url=%2f%2fwww.bridgetounderstanding.com%2fcgi-bin%2finfoforum.cgi%3fread%3d260&page_last_updated=3%2f18%2f2001+10%3a59%3a38+AM&firstName=Ellen&lastName=Behrens)

2002 Founded Canyon Research
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html (http://canyonrc.com/experience.html)

2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre ... 060817.htm (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/press%20releases/natsap060817.htm)
 
2004 Behrens doing Consulting for AEG
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 0626.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/TheMapTerritoryES_070626.shtml)

2006 Behrens completes her survey results passed off as Independent Study
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5360.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5360.shtml)
"We also tried to eliminate all students discharged from the programs before graduation because the clinical staff thought it was actually an inappropriate placement, or when they felt the program couldn't be helpful to the child. As a result, the operating assumption of the study is that the students included in the analyzed data were those who were appropriately placed."

http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5494.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5494.shtml)
Comment: ....It would be helpful to know more about Dr. Behren’s research design and methodology. I presume she drew a random sample for the study; otherwise, the results cannot be generalized to the school/residential population at large.
Jerry W Clark
Dba Behavioral Services Ltd
Reno, NV


No Jerry, she didn't. Families from 9 Aspen programs participated in her "study". She and all her staff have links to Aspen programs.
http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc (http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc)
viewtopic.php?p=215887#p215887 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=215887#p215887)

Jan Moss applies the "study" of 9 Aspen programs to entire industry
Disclosure Statement:  Aspen Education Group provided funding for this study.

http://www.natsap.org/Outcome%20Study.doc (http://www.natsap.org/Outcome%20Study.doc)

2006 Behrens is a contributor to NATSAPs "Journal of Therapeutic Schools and Programs.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5456.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/printer_5456.shtml)

ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP APPLAUDS STUDY
(April 26, 2007) According to an article on PRNewswire, Elliot Sainer, President of Aspen Education Group (AEG), Cerritos, CA, announced "AEG is extremely pleased to learn of the very positive findings from the final phase of our industry's first long-term, multi-year clinical study on the effectiveness of private therapeutic residential programs for adolescents. AEG will continue to advocate for new industry research that will further illustrate and promote the best practices and methodologies and enhance our industry's abilities to produce positive and long-lasting results in adolescent therapeutic education."

I guess he was pleased. He paid her to present AEG in the best possible light.

This so-called "study" is pure bologna.  Methods are bad, all kinds of conflicts, lead "researcher" failed to disclose working for the study target, etc., etc., etc.  This industry won't allow scientific examination of it because it would then be proven to be totally ineffective and against ethical and professional standards.  Plain and simple.  This is why they try to pass off drivel like Behrens' as "research" rather than have a real study done.

qft, brother.  don't believe the hype.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 19, 2010, 10:05:37 AM
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)

Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
 
Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.


The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006.  If you still feel that the study is invalid then you can speak to the APA and the review board who audited and approved the study.  If they side with you then come back and make your argument here.

A person unaffiliated with the Framingham Heart Study cannot just invalidate a study and say "Phsst, this study is crap, look there was a doctor involved with the research who use to perform heart transplants and another who is a doctor.  This is a total conflict of interest, someone get me a cigarette and a cheeseburger!!!"  lol



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: psy on July 19, 2010, 10:26:43 AM
DJ, what Whooter is doing is transparent to anybody with half a brain who reads this.  There is no point in further arguing.  Maybe we can get back to the topic of the thread.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 19, 2010, 10:38:00 AM
Quote from: "psy"
DJ, what Whooter is doing is transparent to anybody with half a brain who reads this.  There is no point in further arguing.  Maybe we can get back to the topic of the thread.

What is transparent and evident is that I have provided links to the facts.   You know the study is bullet proof so you want to move on.  The study was approved by an oversight committee and presented to American Psychological Association.  A couple of anonymous posters on the internet cant invalidate it.  You would have to try to discredit the committee first and then try to go after the study next and then present your finding to the APA.  You cant do it because it is a valid study.

You or I cant sit here and judge the details or invalidate it. We dont have access to any of the details. That is why they have professionals do it.  If there was a flaw or conflict of interest they would have found it because that is what they do.



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 19, 2010, 11:03:19 AM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Quote from: "Whooter"
There was a third party oversight committee which watched over the study and insured there was no conflict of interest.

No, there wasn't.  There was an outside group that approved the format of the questionaire, nothing more.  If this were true, I'm sure you could post a link and excerpt.

Quote from: "Whooter"
If you see flaws with this you need to contact the oversight committee

There is no oversight committe.

You also have posted numerous times about a fictitious "one year follow-up study."  That doesn't exist either.

"Bulletproof"?   That's funny.  ^^Three bleeding bullet holes right there^^ that can't be plugged.

I hear ya, Psy.  It's tedious.  Anytime Whooter would like to post the proof of any of these items, we can come back to it then.  Until then, these items remain to be Whooter's unsubstantiated opinions only.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 19, 2010, 11:29:32 AM
Like I said you will have to discredit the review board by stating your case, DJ.  If you feel strongly that they just reviewed a questionnaire then make that challenge... ask them if they do the same thing when reviewing studies for the pharmaceutical industry.  There is an independent study, an oversight committee and a presentation to the American Psychological Association (APA).  You need to get one of these to come forward or back down, but this hasnt happened and the study has been standing 4 years.

Sorry DJ, your singled handed anonymous rant on the internet isnt going to invalidate a study, lol.  But it is fun to watch.

Here lets take another look:

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)

Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
 
Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.


The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006.  If you still feel that the study is invalid then you can speak to the APA and the review board who audited and approved the study.  If they side with you then come back and make your argument here.

A person unaffiliated with the Framingham Heart Study cannot just invalidate a study and say "Phsst, this study is crap, look there was a doctor involved with the research who use to perform heart transplants and another who is a doctor.  This is a total conflict of interest, someone get me a cigarette and a cheeseburger!!!"  lol



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 19, 2010, 11:44:22 AM
Quote from: "Whooter"
Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.

Funny, I clicked on that link and there's absolutely zero content related to the study you cited.  Zero.  No "approval."  No "audit."  No nothing. This will have to be resolved before we move on to your other claims.

Sorry, Whooter, but you can't fool people like this.

FWIW, the Framingham Heart Study is peer reviewed and published in multiple medical journals, two things that the Behrens whitepaper is clearly not.  You proved my point, Whooter!

Your final line should have said "Someone get me a peer review and a publication!" Lols.  I'm sure you'll come up with something. ; )
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 19, 2010, 12:04:14 PM
All the links worked for me, I just checked them.  If you dont think the study was conducted by Canyon Research or you feel there was no oversight by WIRB then you can call them.  If you feel that the study wasnt presented at the annual APA conference the feel free to contact them.

I can see that you at least feel the study is bullet proof because you have not been able to dispute the study findings which is a big step, so now you are working to discredit the people who conducted the study and found nothing there so you need to find fault with the review board... good luck with that.  We will all be waiting for the review boards ruling on your findings.

Let us know.



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 19, 2010, 12:25:59 PM
Oh, the link to WIRB worked, it just doesn't mention the study or even Canyon Research.  Isn't that weird, if they oversaw the study as you claim?  I'm guessing you can't substantiate this claim at all, so you're trying to wiggle out of it.  

Just post the link to the WIRB page/content that says they "oversaw" and "audited" the Behrens "study."  Looking at their site, it seems they never even heard of this study, much less had "oversight" or "audited" it.  You just made that up and now you're flailing.  

When you can support your claim about the WIRB and can provide the "one year follow-up" you keep touting, then we can move on to whatever else you want to explore.  Until then, here we stay.  You made a lot of claims, so let's just go one by one.  I'm sure you have the proof.  Don't hold out on us, lol.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 19, 2010, 12:52:07 PM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Oh, the link to WIRB worked, it just doesn't mention the study or even Canyon Research.  Isn't that weird, if they oversaw the study as you claim?  I'm guessing you can't substantiate this claim at all, so you're trying to wiggle out of it.  

Just post the link to the WIRB page/content that says they "oversaw" and "audited" the Behrens "study."  Looking at their site, it seems they never even heard of this study, much less had "oversight" or "audited" it.  You just made that up and now you're flailing.  

When you can support your claim about the WIRB and can provide the "one year follow-up" you keep touting, then we can move on to whatever else you want to explore.  Until then, here we stay.  You made a lot of claims, so let's just go one by one.  I'm sure you have the proof.  Don't hold out on us, lol.

lol sorry DJ, you are all over the place.  You will just have to call them I am sure they dont want to publish a list of their clients on the internet or competitors to see.

click here (http://http://www.aspenranch.com/outcomes.html)

Down at the Bottom you will read:

To read more about this study, visit Canyon Research & Consulting: Independent research company that conducted the study

Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: DannyB II on July 19, 2010, 01:06:35 PM
Quote from: "psy"
Whooter.  Once again you claim to have posted independent, peer reviewed studies without actually having done so.  No program can honestly claim a 80% success rate and any one that does is lying.  Any honest addiction professional will tell you that.

And you keep posting the Behrens study.  Jesus christ.  That's been blown to shreds time and time again.  It wasn't independent.  It was a study that was funded by Aspen and conducted by a former staffer who currently refers to Aspen programs.  Can that get any further from independent?

Here's a post I have bookmarked blowing the study away:
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&start=0)

And let's get back to Maia. Great article. I don't agree with everything she said but mostly I agree. Programs can easily make bad habits worse by indoctrinating kids into the idea that such bad behaviors are a part of their being, a disease, and cannot be changed.  It teaches that whatever you do in life, your ability or inability to avoid drugs/alcohol is not a choice but something that is fated to be by a higher power.  It's a doctrine that teaches the futility of the exercise of free will.  Like Maia says "fatalism".  One is supposed to "let go and let god (interpreted through your program representative)" because the exercise of free will is futile.  It gives kids an excuse to give into their desires because they are told they are beyond their control (without the holy program).

Because they're also told those who are on drugs cannot control their behavior and are not responsible (it's the disease), they're also encouraged to act out, knowing that later they can simply follow the steps and be absolved of their sins.  Personal responsibility goes out the window.  Healthy feelings of guilt over hurting others goes out the window.  Any amends are a selfish act of self "healing" or self preservation rather than out of genuine remorse.  It's sick.  It's bad enough when people are duped into it.  It's even worse when kids are forced into it and have this crap shoved into their heads which, as Maia points out, is causing very very real damage.  The philosophy is poison.


**which no matter how much Maia wants to pretend, is fundamentally inseparable from AA and it's relatives.

Psy,
this is where you are wrong, the only place where it is mentioned that Alcohol is a disease is in "The Doctors Opinion" by Dr. Silkworth. Bill Wilson actually had conflicting ideas about this study because he felt that people would not take responsibility for there problem, as you are saying.
Another thing Psy that I would like to explain, many folks"I" know do not believe in this "disease thought process" it is fatalistic, you never get better. We are not talking cancer necessarily but we are talking about a affliction that if used again can cause problems even death. This is very separable out in the real world concerning AA but I guess as I'm learning more it is not inseparable, the way it is being taught in 12 step programs.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: DannyB II on July 19, 2010, 01:07:51 PM
Quote from: "psy"
DJ, what Whooter is doing is transparent to anybody with half a brain who reads this.  There is no point in further arguing.  Maybe we can get back to the topic of the thread.

Thank you. I asked this several posts ago, though I don't agree with you on your assessment of what Whooter is doing.
I still think we need to get back to the topic.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 19, 2010, 03:32:22 PM
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Oh, the link to WIRB worked, it just doesn't mention the study or even Canyon Research.  Isn't that weird, if they oversaw the study as you claim?  I'm guessing you can't substantiate this claim at all, so you're trying to wiggle out of it.  

Just post the link to the WIRB page/content that says they "oversaw" and "audited" the Behrens "study."  Looking at their site, it seems they never even heard of this study, much less had "oversight" or "audited" it.  You just made that up and now you're flailing.  

When you can support your claim about the WIRB and can provide the "one year follow-up" you keep touting, then we can move on to whatever else you want to explore.  Until then, here we stay.  You made a lot of claims, so let's just go one by one.  I'm sure you have the proof.  Don't hold out on us, lol.

lol sorry DJ, you are all over the place.  You will just have to call them I am sure they dont want to publish a list of their clients on the internet or competitors to see.

click here (http://http://www.aspenranch.com/outcomes.html)

Down at the Bottom you will read:

To read more about this study, visit Canyon Research & Consulting: Independent research company that conducted the study

Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.



...

Soooo...now you're linking to Aspen Education to show that the WIRB "oversaw" a Canyon Research study?  Lols.  I guess now that you have been shown to be making it up you have to try to change gears.  The WIRB never "oversaw" or "audited" the Behrens work, period.  I think we both knew this, but you keep hacking away when you're pinned down.

I did call the WIRB and asked if they were a third party auditor for this study and they said "No, we weren't."  I asked if their website reflected all of the projects they've untertaken and they siad "Yes, it does.  Just use the search feature to pull up any of our research."

Go to their site and search for "Canyon" or "Behrens" and guess what you get?  "Your search returned 0 results."

Ha, Ha, Ha...  Nice try, Whooter, but you're not fooling anyone here.  Just provide the proof where the WIRB states they "audited" or "oversaw" this project as you keep claiming and we can move on.  A link to Aspen Education just doesn't suffice.  They make a lot of false claims, as we all know.

As I said before, the WIRB seems never to have even heard of this study.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Froderik on July 19, 2010, 04:10:43 PM
This THREAD is increasing my drug "risk."
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 19, 2010, 04:46:09 PM
Look, DJ, you just proved yourself to be a liar.  Why do you have to go to such great lengths to ignore and bury facts?  Why not be honest with the readers here.  I gave you all the links and information that you asked for... and enough rope for you to hang yourself.

If you had bothered to read the presentation it is mentioned that WIRB approved the study in the body of the study itself as presented to the American Psychological Association (APA).  You can pretend to have called anyone you want.  But I placed the facts up here with links and you have nothing to dispute it except a fabricated phone call.

Here lets take another look at the facts as they stand today:

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)

Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
 
Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.


The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006.



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 19, 2010, 04:58:19 PM
Interesting tidbit:

Before most research studies can start, they must be approved by a committee, usually called an "institutional review board," or "IRB." IRBs are made up of scientists, doctors, non-scientists and community members. The IRB reviews the research to make sure it is well designed, that the risks are as low as possible, and that these risks are reasonable when compared to the possible benefits of the research. The IRB also reviews the consent form for the research to make sure that it is accurate. If it approves the research, the IRB continues to review the ongoing research after it starts.



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 19, 2010, 05:27:18 PM
That's all well and good, but you have provided zero support for your claim that the WIRB "oversaw" and "audited" this project.  The WIRB says they didn't and there's no documents on their website that support your claim.

I see you're frustrated and angry, probably because you admitted you have fiduciary ties to Aspen and you think they'll lose money if you lose the argument, which you have.  

The WIRB did not "audit" or "oversee" this project, nor was there any "one year follow-up" as you have been claiming.  You made some pretty big claims and couldn't back them up.  It just makes you look more desperate and foolish to start name calling while still never providing any evidence of your claims.  We'll wait for your documentation to be posted or, more than likely, you'll just rant, rave and name-call then skulk away as usual.

It's not that big of a deal.  You should just be honest and stop claiming things you have no evidence to support.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 19, 2010, 06:03:31 PM
This should cover your concern so that your voice will be heard.

You have a fondness for footers, DJ, so I added your disclaimer:

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)

Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
 
* Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.


The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. * Dysfunction Junction of fornits claimed he called WIRB personally and they stated they never heard of this study.

DJ,  The above should alert any new APA members until you can get this straightened out and expose this problem at the next APA convention.  Mention some of your degrees sometimes that helps.

I think that should put this to rest and spare DJ any further embarrassment.



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 19, 2010, 06:23:47 PM
So, in other words, you can't provide anything but a link to the WIRB website which says absolutely nothing about this study?  If you actually read the Behrens work, you'd see that the WIRB did nothing more than approve the questionaire.  

There was no "oversight" or "auditing" as you claimed.  WIRC has no record of "auditing" or "overseeing" this work, only approving a questionaire.  If you have some evidence that even the researcher doesn't claim to have then post it.  If not, then deal wit the fact that you have no evidence to support your flimsy claims.  

You can rant and rave and name-call all you want, but it's not going to mean that evidence will magically appear.  What sunk you is that you claim way more than even Canyon Research claims - nowhere in that study do they claim "oversight" or "auditing" by WIRC.  It's just not in there.  If you hadn't fabricated these "oversight" and "auditing" claims some people may have believed you.  As it stands, nobody does (except maybe Danny, lols).

You're really upset over this, so maybe you should just try to cool off and come back later with some evidence.  We're patient enough to wait for it.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 19, 2010, 06:29:26 PM
Okay so now you have at least agreed that WIRB was involved (I know you are trying to save face here) So I changed the footer.

You have a fondness for footers, DJ, so I added your disclaimer:

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)

Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
 
** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.


The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study.  What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire.

DJ,  The above should alert any new APA members until you can get this straightened out and expose this problem at the next APA convention.  Mention some of your degrees sometimes that helps.



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 19, 2010, 06:38:04 PM
It's right in the study.  I didn't need to call anyone to read it.  They approved the questionaire and that's it.  The researcher doesn't claim "oversight" or "auditing" by the WIRB, only you do.  Sorry that you made those claims up and got burned, but just read the study.  It's in plain print on the second page.  Do a search on the document for "oversight" and "audit" and you get zero hits.  Those terms appear nowhere in the source document you provided. LOLS.  You really shot yourself in the foot there, Whooter.

If you think Canyon/Behrens should be claiming "oversight" and "auditing" of the study by the WIRB, you can ask them to make those claims, but they haven't and they don't.  Just you do.  This is where you got yourself in trouble.  You made wild claims that not even Behrens made.    

If you stick to the facts and don't embellish and lie, maybe people will believe you.  I think that "fiduciary interest" is influencing your embellishing and making up items that don't exist in the study. :nods:
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 19, 2010, 06:44:08 PM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
I didn't need to call anyone to read it

So now you didnt even need to call anyone?  So why did you say you called WIRB?  lol

You are all caught up in your underwear, DJ.  

This third party oversight has really got you in a tizzy. Calm down.  According to you it is just a little questionnaire, no big deal, right?  ... lol



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 19, 2010, 06:54:01 PM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
I did call the WIRB and asked if they were a third party auditor for this study and they said "No, we weren't." I asked if their website reflected all of the projects they've untertaken and they siad "Yes, it does. Just use the search feature to pull up any of our research."

Whoops....  need to back pedal a little?   So I guess you now state that they have worked with this study?  lol

I wont continue to rub it in... just needed to point it out.  I can adjust the footer notes if you like, let me know.



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 19, 2010, 07:25:42 PM
Quote
I didn't need to call anyone to read it
Do you normally call someone to help you with your reading?  Maybe you should.  Maybe then you could understand that the words "oversaw" and "audited" never appear anywhere in the Behrens paper.  Nowhere.  Zip.  Nada.  Ungatz.

You can always tell when Whooter is caught fibbing because he becomes the repetitive spam troll ; )

Let me reiterate for you, since you can't read too good:

I called the WIRB office today and asked, specifically, if they "audited" or "oversaw" the Behrens work.  They said they did not.  I did not ask if they approved the questionaire because that's written on the second page of the study, unlike some words you keep using, lols.

That also jives with Behrens herself, who makes no claim whatsoever that WIRB either "oversaw" or "audited" her work.  Those words never appear anywhere in the work.  They only appear in your claims which you cannot substantiate in any way, shape or form.  Hence, you resort to name-calling and repetitive spam trolling.  

On the second page of the study she says, quite clearly, that WIRB approved the questionaire and that's where her claim ends and yours begins.  

My question is simple:  why did you make up the claim that WIRB both "oversaw" and "audited" Behrens' work when she never even claimed that ridiculous marketing fantasy herself?  Just answer the simple question and we can move on to your remaining bogus claims.

I'm patient and I can wait.  But you've had a couple of days and a made couple dozen responses ranging from your fantasies about me in my underwear to calling me a liar, yet, inescapably, nothing you have said appears in that study.  I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with this, but you ought not to invent stories and you won't get burned over and over.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 19, 2010, 07:43:02 PM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
Quote
I didn't need to call anyone to read it
Do you normally call someone to help you with your reading?  Maybe you should.  Maybe then you could understand that the words "oversaw" and "audited" never appear anywhere in the Behrens paper.  Nowhere.  Zip.  Nada.  Ungatz.

You can always tell when Whooter is caught fibbing because he becomes the repetitive spam troll ; )

Let me reiterate for you, since you can't read too good:

I called the WIRB office today and asked, specifically, if they "audited" or "oversaw" the Behrens work.  They said they did not.  I did not ask if they approved the questionaire because that's written on the second page of the study, unlike some words you keep using, lols.

That also jives with Behrens herself, who makes no claim whatsoever that WIRB either "oversaw" or "audited" her work.  Those words never appear anywhere in the work.  They only appear in your claims which you cannot substantiate in any way, shape or form.  Hence, you resort to name-calling and repetitive spam trolling.  

On the second page of the study she says, quite clearly, that WIRB approved the questionaire and that's where her claim ends and yours begins.  

My question is simple:  why did you make up the claim that WIRB both "oversaw" and "audited" Behrens' work when she never even claimed that ridiculous marketing fantasy herself?  Just answer the simple question and we can move on to your remaining bogus claims.

I'm patient and I can wait.  But you've had a couple of days and a made couple dozen responses ranging from your fantasies about me in my underwear to calling me a liar, yet, inescapably, nothing you have said appears in that study.  I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with this, but you ought not to invent stories and you won't get burned over and over.

Well you know if I were you I would be very pissed off.  When you called WIRB the first time they told you they were not involved in the study at all.  Now you tell use they approved the questionnaire, so they were in involved in the study.  So you are claiming this research Company lied to you on the phone.  Seems that you feel everyone is lying to you, DJ.  If I were you before I believed this study I would call them back again and see if they did more than just approve a questionnaire.  My goodness they spend all that time to just spend 10 minutes looking over a questionnaire.  Just doesn't seem right to me somehow being presented in front of the APA conference and all.

Did they give you their cell phone number?  Maybe you can get them at home and get some specifics.  I think you can go right to the APA with this.  I think you uncovered a nest of lies!!  lol  
Let me know if you want me to adjust your disclaimer.. we can do it over again if you like.



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Troll Control on July 19, 2010, 08:01:11 PM
Sooo...to make a long story short...you can't find the words "oversaw" or "audited" anywhere in the study.  That's all I was saying all along.  You made it up and now you've eaten your words yet again.

If you ever find those words in the study, just holler.  Until then, it's obvious you lied...again...and repeatedly.

By the way, I don't even read your posts and I don't think anyone else does either.  If it is more than a one sentence reply with a link to the words "oversaw" and "audited" then you got nothing.  No sense in even reading.

G'nite, sport.  Better luck with your next marketing project.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 19, 2010, 08:13:51 PM
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
By the way, I don't even read your posts and I don't think anyone else does either.

Oh, you hurt my feelings.  You did a ton of responding for someone who doesn't read my posts.  Is this another lie?  Hmmmm.  Well anyway ..

so lets recap.

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)

Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
 
** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.


The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study.  What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire.  So we need to consider DJs' input/opinion against the published facts.



...
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Ursus on July 19, 2010, 09:11:15 PM
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
By the way, I don't even read your posts and I don't think anyone else does either.
Oh, you hurt my feelings.  You did a ton of responding for someone who doesn't read my posts.  Is this another lie?  Hmmmm.  Well anyway ..

so lets recap.

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)

Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
 
** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.


The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study.  What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire.  So we need to consider DJs' input/opinion against the published facts.
Whooter, could you possibly quote exactly where it says that the Western Institutional Review Board "approved research and audited the study?"

Perhaps I'm missing something, which is certainly possible, but the only reference I was able to find in all 21 pages of this presentation ("Report of Findings from a Multi-Center Study of Youth Outcomes in Private Residential Treatment," by Ellen Behrens and Kristin Satterfield; 114th Annual APA Convention; August 12, 2006) as uploaded onto Scribd.com was ... the following emphasized sentence in the Methods section (page 3):

METHOD
Participants.

The sample consisted of 993 adolescents, admitted to one of 9 programs located in the Eastern and Western United States, between August 2003 and August 2005, who, along with their parents or guardians (hereafter referred to as “parents”) agreed to participate in the study and who completed measures at admission and/or discharge. The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.

The contribution of each of the 9 residential programs to the sample was relatively equal and ranged from 9% to 16%. This sample consisted of a mean of 55% (range 37-75%) of the adolescents admitted to the residential programs during the time period. Demographic information (i.e., gender, age) from admission data provided by the residential programs indicated the sample was roughly representative of students enrolled in the programs during the same time period.
[/list][/list]

To tell you the truth, it isn't even clear (to *me*) whether they even had anything to do with the questionnaire, just with the participant consent/assent forms.

Again, I may be missing something. If so, I'd appreciate anyone's clarification/insight. Thanks.
Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Post by: Whooter on July 19, 2010, 09:41:05 PM
Quote from: "Ursus"
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
By the way, I don't even read your posts and I don't think anyone else does either.
Oh, you hurt my feelings.  You did a ton of responding for someone who doesn't read my posts.  Is this another lie?  Hmmmm.  Well anyway ..

so lets recap.

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)

Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
 
** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.


The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study.  What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire.  So we need to consider DJs' input/opinion against the published facts.
Whooter, could you possibly quote exactly where it says that the Western Institutional Review Board "approved research and audited the study?"

Perhaps I'm missing something, which is certainly possible, but the only reference I was able to find in all 21 pages of this presentation ("Report of Findings from a Multi-Center Study of Youth Outcomes in Private Residential Treatment," by Ellen Behrens and Kristin Satterfield; 114th Annual APA Convention; August 12, 2006) as uploaded onto Scribd.com was ... the following emphasized sentence in the Methods section (page 3):

    METHOD
    Participants.

    The sample consisted of 993 adolescents, admitted to one of 9 programs located in the Eastern and Western United States, between August 2003 and August 2005, who, along with their parents or guardians (hereafter referred to as “parents”) agreed to participate in the study and who completed measures at admission and/or discharge. The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.

    The contribution of each of the 9 residential programs to the sample was relatively equal and ranged from 9% to 16%. This sample consisted of a mean of 55% (range 37-75%) of the adolescents admitted to the residential programs during the time period. Demographic information (i.e., gender, age) from admission data provided by the residential programs indicated the sample was roughly representative of students enrolled in the programs during the same time period.
    [/list][/list]

    To tell you the truth, it doesn't appear as though they had anything to do with even the questionnaire, just with the participant consent/assent forms.

    Again, I may be missing something. If so, I'd appreciate your pointing out my omission. Thanks.


    First I would like to say that you are a good friend to DJ to take the focus off of him like this.  The lies he was caught up in got to be pretty embarrassing for him just before he bailed out.  The whole phone call he claimed to make to WIRB was a disaster.

    I don’t think you are missing anything, Ursus, when they presented to the APA I don’t think the audience wanted to hear a drawn out rendition of how the study was over seen and the details of how they were involved.  The audience was interested in the study results which is what they presented.  So you will not see a lot of detail about all the work the oversight committee did.  Just like they didn’t talk about all the hard work Canyon Research did in compiling all the data, the long hours they spent crunching numbers.

    You mentioned yourself in the quote you highlighted that they approved the study and once WIRB insures that the Consent forms are accurate they review the ongoing research.  This is how review boards work.

    Check out their web site if you want to learn more.  It is an interesting process.

    The study was overseen by a third party.  I know it is tough to swallow for some people here but these studies are starting to come out now.  Its only the beginning.

    Quote
    To tell you the truth, it doesn't appear as though they had anything to do with even the questionnaire,

    I agree with you, this was another DJ misconception.  The questionnaire is typically made up by the research firm, (Canyon Research).  He may have confused phone calls.



    ...
    Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
    Post by: Troll Control on July 20, 2010, 08:24:32 AM
    Quote from: "Ursus"
    Quote from: "Whooter"
    Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
    By the way, I don't even read your posts and I don't think anyone else does either.
    Oh, you hurt my feelings.  You did a ton of responding for someone who doesn't read my posts.  Is this another lie?  Hmmmm.  Well anyway ..

    so lets recap.

    Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)

    Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
     
    ** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.


    The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study.  What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire.  So we need to consider DJs' input/opinion against the published facts.
    Whooter, could you possibly quote exactly where it says that the Western Institutional Review Board "approved research and audited the study?"

    Perhaps I'm missing something, which is certainly possible, but the only reference I was able to find in all 21 pages of this presentation ("Report of Findings from a Multi-Center Study of Youth Outcomes in Private Residential Treatment," by Ellen Behrens and Kristin Satterfield; 114th Annual APA Convention; August 12, 2006) as uploaded onto Scribd.com was ... the following emphasized sentence in the Methods section (page 3):

      METHOD
      Participants.

      The sample consisted of 993 adolescents, admitted to one of 9 programs located in the Eastern and Western United States, between August 2003 and August 2005, who, along with their parents or guardians (hereafter referred to as “parents”) agreed to participate in the study and who completed measures at admission and/or discharge. The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.

      The contribution of each of the 9 residential programs to the sample was relatively equal and ranged from 9% to 16%. This sample consisted of a mean of 55% (range 37-75%) of the adolescents admitted to the residential programs during the time period. Demographic information (i.e., gender, age) from admission data provided by the residential programs indicated the sample was roughly representative of students enrolled in the programs during the same time period.
      [/list][/list]

      To tell you the truth, it isn't even clear (to *me*) whether they even had anything to do with the questionnaire, just with the participant consent/assent forms.

      Again, I may be missing something. If so, I'd appreciate anyone's clarification/insight. Thanks.

      Here's an interesting fact about the Certificate of Approval: it only refers to the consent/assent forms prior to the study start and has nothing to do whatsoever with the results of the study, which appear never to have been submitted to WIRB, as they have no record of the study.

      Quote from: "WIRB Policy"
      The Certificate of Approval will indicate approval of a consent form.

      So, there's the extent of the WIRB involvement - they approved the consent/assent forms and nothing more.

      I've been asking for the same thing for a couple of days, Ursus.  Obviously, it isn't there and Whooter made it up.  You have correctly pointed out the fact that WIRB had nothing whatsoever to do with "oversight" or "auditing" of this study, as they told me when I called.  They don't claim that, Canyon/Behrens don't claim that...only Whooter claims that.  He got burned behind that statement and now he's just throwing a hissy.

      Now he's back to claiming "third-party oversight" and he doesn't name who "oversaw" the study, of course, because that's just made up, too.  He was formerly claiming it was WIRB, but that is proven false, so now he just makes the claim with no attribution whatsover.

      This guy is as phony as it gets and will say anything to try to market Aspen, even if it means publicly pooping in his own pants over and over.  It appears that "fiduciary interest" he has in Aspen Education has clouded his judgment.  Remember, he's in it for the money, not the truth.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 08:42:30 AM
      DJ, I think we need to drop you down from your claimed PhD to a masters degree (and even that is sagging a bit).  You have not done your homework on Studies and their oversight Review Board.

      Once the Study has been approved (Which WIRB did with this study).  They continue to review the study and its progress.... "Oversight".  Didnt you ask these questions during your phone call?  Did you not read up on third party oversight by a review board?



      so lets recap.

      Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)

      Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
       
      ** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.


      The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study.  What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire.  So we need to consider DJs' input/opinion against the published facts.



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 20, 2010, 08:53:38 AM
      Quote from: "Behrens Study, p.3"
      The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.

      Quote from: "WIRB Policy"
      The Certificate of Approval will indicate approval of a consent form.

      You'll have to provide some evidence of your claim of continuing review.  WIRB only reviews what is submitted and Canyon Research/Ellen Behrens only submitted the consent/assent form.  That's it.  No continuing review whatsoever.  even the researcher don't make the claims you're making.  Just you and Aspen's marketing department do.  Hmmmm....

      I'm sure, if you really try hard, you can provide a link to something that bolsters your obviously made up claims.  Until then, this issue has been closed.  Thanks for playing.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 10:16:13 AM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      Quote from: "Behrens Study, p.3"
      The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.

      Quote from: "WIRB Policy"
      The Certificate of Approval will indicate approval of a consent form.

      You'll have to provide some evidence of your claim of continuing review.  WIRB only reviews what is submitted and Canyon Research/Ellen Behrens only submitted the consent/assent form.  That's it.  No continuing review whatsoever.  even the researcher don't make the claims you're making.  Just you and Aspen's marketing department do.  Hmmmm....

      I'm sure, if you really try hard, you can provide a link to something that bolsters your obviously made up claims.  Until then, this issue has been closed.  Thanks for playing.

      So at least we can agree that WIRB approved the study.  So the study was approved by an independent third party.  When the study is approved they issue a "Certificate of Approval".  Once this is submitted they have approved the study and continue to review the research projects.  I believe it is a federal requirement that the review board continues to review it.   Did you ask them this question DJ?  Oh, wait you said they never heard of this study lol.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 20, 2010, 10:34:46 AM
      More on this here. (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&p=370312#p370312)

      Quote from: "WIRB Policy"
      The Certificate of Approval will indicate approval of a consent form.

      That's it. "Consent form approved."  This has nothing to do with continuing review, just pre-research paperwork.  Canyon got pre-research approval of their consent forms, but that's where the involvement of the review board ended.  Even Canyon doesn't claim any "continuing review."  Maybe Whooter should ask them why they didn't submit their study for review and stop making up a story that they did.

      This issue in now closed.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Froderik on July 20, 2010, 10:37:40 AM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      This issue in now closed.
      I agree.   :suicide:
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 11:09:54 AM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      More on this here. (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&p=370312#p370312)

      Quote from: "WIRB Policy"
      The Certificate of Approval will indicate approval of a consent form.

      That's it. "Consent form approved."  This has nothing to do with continuing review, just pre-research paperwork.  Canyon got pre-research approval of their consent forms, but that's where the involvement of the review board ended.  Even Canyon doesn't claim any "continuing review."  Maybe Whooter should ask them why they didn't submit their study for review and stop making up a story that they did.

      This issue in now closed.

      Consent form is not all they approved:

      The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.

      Here is a copy of their "Certificate of Approval"

      Sample 1 (http://http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:SJ436FlS-UwJ:molyneaux.us/Global_SUIE/IRB/Molyneaux_CertificateofApprovalforStudy1095420,PanelMeeting50369,WO14797321.PDF+wirb+certificate+of+approval+form&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShpURqHUvjacM32lv8YRLav1O46MVidLLeYkoKcUS-jxsOFqB5szt1UtVUEngO8WsxhZGVamNX420U_0NRuxxcKjuR1PIu0LYRdnudeAzaql_WAJZALLKzLRT4WLjxUkhxd7-l8&sig=AHIEtbRwui-be51KikeuSb7i4alS80Pbpw)

      Sample 2 (http://http://www.cmagtracker.org/WIRB/Approval.PDF)

      at the bottom of page 2 it states:

      Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing
      Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started
      .




      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 20, 2010, 11:29:34 AM
      Soo...you don't have any docs related to this study I see.  Only "samples."  

      Of course, I don't expect everyone to be adept at navigating DHHS/FDA rules, but I do work with them in an everyday capacity, so I'll explain it for you.  There is no requirement for continuing review for human subject studies when only a self-report form or public data is used.  Continuing review is required for clinical trials and behavioral research using methods other than self reporting.  This is covered under the "exemptions" rules of DHHS CFR regulations.

      I can link to lots of "samples" for lots of things.  You might as well have linked to a free sample of Downy fabric softener.  It would be just as relevent, lol.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 11:56:14 AM
      We have come a long way.  A few weeks ago many people had never heard of the Residential Treatment Outcome Study performed by Canyon Research.  They looked at close to 1,000 children and families and found that the programs studied where up to 80% effective.

      Dysfunction junction and myself managed to put the spot light on this study over the past day or two and were able to nail down that the study was indeed independent and was overseen by an independent third party in the form of a Review Board (WIRB).  From WIRB’s documents:

      The IRB also reviews the consent form (which they did for the Aspen Study) for the research to make sure that it is accurate. If it approves the research, the IRB continues to review the ongoing research after it starts. (This is called oversight).

      WIRB reviewed the consent forms and approved the study and issued “Certificates of approval” as was pointed out in the study itself and presented to the APA.
      Here are some supportive links and information as we stand today:

      Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)

      Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
       
      ** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.


      The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
      Here are copies of their "Certificate of Approval" forms
      Sample 1 (http://http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:SJ436FlS-UwJ:molyneaux.us/Global_SUIE/IRB/Molyneaux_CertificateofApprovalforStudy1095420,PanelMeeting50369,WO14797321.PDF+wirb+certificate+of+approval+form&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShpURqHUvjacM32lv8YRLav1O46MVidLLeYkoKcUS-jxsOFqB5szt1UtVUEngO8WsxhZGVamNX420U_0NRuxxcKjuR1PIu0LYRdnudeAzaql_WAJZALLKzLRT4WLjxUkhxd7-l8&sig=AHIEtbRwui-be51KikeuSb7i4alS80Pbpw)
      Sample 2 (http://http://www.cmagtracker.org/WIRB/Approval.PDF)

      at the bottom of page 2 it states:

      Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing
      Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started
      .



      The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** As a disclaimer Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study.  What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire.  So we need to consider DJs' input/opinion against the published facts.



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 20, 2010, 12:08:24 PM
      Quote from: "Whooter"
      If it approves the research, the IRB continues to review the ongoing research after it starts. (This is called oversight).

      This statement is false.  Continuing review is never required by law for self-reporting or public data.  Part of what Whooter doesn't understand is that this is not a clinical trial.  It's a self-report study.  Whooter doesn't understand the difference, so you'll have to excuse his ignorant repetitive trolling about nonexistent, unrequired, unsolicited, undocumented "continuing review."

      And the certificate of approval applies only to the consent/assent forms, nothing more, as stated explicitly in the WIRB policy.
      Title: example of WIRB "Certificate of Approval" forms, Sample 2
      Post by: Ursus on July 20, 2010, 12:11:02 PM
      Quote from: "Whooter"
      Sample 2 (http://http://www.cmagtracker.org/WIRB/Approval.PDF)

      at the bottom of page 2 it states:

      Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started.
      Interesting language in that "page 2" of "Sample 2" you reference, Whooter. Here is the whole of it, colored emphasis added...

      Are we to understand that "consent has been waived" for a questionnaire which inherently involves, by definition as well as through timing, coercion and undue influence?

      -------------- • -------------- • --------------

      ALL WIRB APPROVED INVESTIGATORS MUST COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING:

      Unless consent has been waived, conduct the informed consent process without coercion or undue influence, and provide the potential subject sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate.
       
      [/list]
      Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started.[/list]

      DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES:

      Contact · Company Name
      Sherry L. Aliotta BSN, R.N. · Case Management Society of America (CMSA)
      Susan A. Rogers BSN · Case Management Society of America (CMSA)
      Jeanne Boling · Case Management Society of America and Pfizer, Inc.
      David Day · Case Management Society of America and Pfizer, Inc.
      Liza Greenberg · Case Management Society of America (CMSA)
       
      SITES: If the PI has an obligation to use another IRB for any site listed below and has not submitted a written statement from the other IRB acknowledging WIRB's review of this research, please contact WIRB's Client Services department.

      Address
      Suite 230, 8201 Cantrell Road, Little Rock, Arkansas  72227


      Page 2 of 2[/list]
      Copyright ©2005 Western Institutional Review Board, Inc. All rights reserved.[/list][/list]
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 20, 2010, 12:19:28 PM
      While interesting, Ursus, considering that MBA was one of the facilities examined (shut down by state authorities for systematic child abuse, including coerced participation), self-report studies are exempt under the law from continuing review.  This form is not applicable to Behrens' work in any way.

      I did, as an aside, submit an email and documentation to WIRB regarding MBA's closure by authorities along with the investigation report to WIRB and asked if they were aware this program involves coersion and abuse as well as Behrens' connection to Aspen and NATSAP to see if that was properly disclosed.  I hope to get a response soon and will share it when I do.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Dr. Acula on July 20, 2010, 12:25:41 PM
      :dose:
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 12:28:03 PM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      Quote from: "Whooter"
      If it approves the research, the IRB continues to review the ongoing research after it starts. (This is called oversight).

      This statement is false.  Continuing review is never required by law for self-reporting or public data.  Part of what Whooter doesn't understand is that this is not a clinical trial.  It's a self-report study.  Whooter doesn't understand the difference, so you'll have to excuse his ignorant repetitive trolling about nonexistent, unrequired, unsolicited, undocumented "continuing review."

      And the certificate of approval applies only to the consent/assent forms, nothing more, as stated explicitly in the WIRB policy.


      Sorry Dj, I am providing links to everything we have talked about.  You claim to have made phone calls to WIRB and you told us that they told you they were not involved in the study at all.  So at this point, in order to maintain some credibility, I think it best to provide links.

      From WIRB:

      What is an IRB and what does it have to do with research?

      Before most research studies can start, they must be approved by a committee, usually called an "institutional review board," or "IRB." IRBs are made up of scientists, doctors, non-scientists and community members. The IRB reviews the research to make sure it is well designed, that the risks are as low as possible, and that these risks are reasonable when compared to the possible benefits of the research. The IRB also reviews the consent form for the research to make sure that it is accurate. If it approves the research, the IRB continues to review the ongoing research after it starts.

      Link (http://http://www.wirb.com/)



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 20, 2010, 12:38:52 PM
      Yeah, the only problem is that you have no idea what you're talking about.  What you posted is for clinical trials, Whooter, and the forms you linked to were for clinical trials.  Behrens did a self-report questionaire, which is vastly different.  You's jus' a ig'nant wretch.  You don't know no better.  :rofl:

      Here's the law:

      Quote from: "45 CFR 46 101 (b), Exemptions from Continuing Review"
      Categories of Research Exempt from Committee Review
      45 CFR 46 101(b)
      ...

      2. Surveys/Interviews; Standardized Education Tests; Observation of Public Behavior
      Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior.

      ...

      So, despite Whooter's protestations, anybody familiar with human research knows that surveys (e.g. self-report forms) and interviews are exempt from review.  It's "Research 101" and Whooter needs to register for the class.

      Two days of embarassing yourself has thankfully come to an end, Whooter.  Your "case" is coooked.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 12:58:26 PM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      Yeah, the only problem is that you have no idea what you're talking about.  What you posted is for clinical trials, Whooter, and the forms you linked to were for clinical trials.  Behrens did a self-report questionaire, which is vastly different.  You's jus' a ig'nant wretch.  You don't know no better.  :rofl:

      Here's the law:

      Quote from: "45 CFR 46 101 (b), Exemptions from Continuing Review"
      Categories of Research Exempt from Committee Review
      45 CFR 46 101(b)
      ...

      2. Surveys/Interviews; Standardized Education Tests; Observation of Public Behavior
      Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior.

      ...

      So, despite Whooter's protestations, anybody familiar with human research knows that surveys (e.g. self-report forms) and interviews are exempt from review.  It's "Research 101" and Whooter needs to register for the class.

      Two days of embarassing yourself has thankfully come to an end, Whooter.  Your "case" is coooked.

      DJ, nice try, but we are talking about studies here (your link doesnt cover that).  We have demonstrated that this study attained a "Certificate of Approval" from an Independent Review Board.  Their own documents indicate that they continue to review the study throughout.

      Maybe you should make another phone call and let them know they dont have to provide oversight.  But I am sure the APA feels happier knowing the study was overseen by a third party.  People here on fornits feel that the studies should be overseen by a third party so why shouldnt they be?



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 20, 2010, 01:06:33 PM
      LOLS!  That's rich.  Whooter, you may want to believe you're fooling some people, but you ain't fooling me.  

      It is a study.  A self-report study.  It's exempt from continuing review.  I have worked with human research for many years including Medical Device Reporting and I know that you know that I know that you have no idea what you're talking about.

      Quote from: "45 CFR 46 101 (b), Exemptions from Continuing Review"

      Categories of Research Exempt from Committee Review
      45 CFR 46 101(b)
      ...

      2. Surveys/Interviews; Standardized Education Tests; Observation of Public Behavior
      Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior.

      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 01:15:52 PM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      LOLS!  That's rich.  Whooter, you may want to believe you're fooling some people, but you ain't fooling me.  

      It is a study.  A self-report study.  It's exempt from continuing review.  I have worked with human research for many years including Medical Device Reporting and I know that you know that I know that you have no idea what you're talking about.

      Quote from: "45 CFR 46 101 (b), Exemptions from Continuing Review"

      Categories of Research Exempt from Committee Review
      45 CFR 46 101(b)
      ...

      2. Surveys/Interviews; Standardized Education Tests; Observation of Public Behavior
      Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior.

      ...

      Look, DJ, with that whole lying thing about you calling WIRB and them saying they never heard of this study I dont think many here will take your word on anything.  But tell you what, if you can get WIRB to buy into your definition then maybe they will save some money by not having to spend time overseeing educational tests.
       But according to their own process definition once they give a certificate of approval for the STUDY (lol), they continue to oversee it until it is done.  Its just they way they do it.
      You cant go against what their own process says.  I have shown you, via links, that they provided oversight.



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 20, 2010, 02:40:50 PM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      LOLS!  That's rich.  Whooter, you may want to believe you're fooling some people, but you ain't fooling me.  

      It is a study.  A self-report study.  It's exempt from continuing review.  I have worked with human research for many years including Medical Device Reporting and I know that you know that I know that you have no idea what you're talking about.

      Quote from: "45 CFR 46 101 (b), Exemptions from Continuing Review"

      Categories of Research Exempt from Committee Review
      45 CFR 46 101(b)
      ...

      2. Surveys/Interviews; Standardized Education Tests; Observation of Public Behavior
      Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior.

      ...

      It's clear what the law is and it's clear that Behrens had only a certificate of approval for the consent/assent forms, as stated in the study.  The law states that data acquired by self-reporting is oversight exempt and nobody pays the oversight fees when they're not required.  It's not my word.  It's the law.  You've proven yourself only to be an ignoramus and a buffoon.

      This issue has been closed and repetitive trolling won't change the facts.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 02:51:39 PM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      LOLS!  That's rich.  Whooter, you may want to believe you're fooling some people, but you ain't fooling me.  

      It is a study.  A self-report study.  It's exempt from continuing review.  I have worked with human research for many years including Medical Device Reporting and I know that you know that I know that you have no idea what you're talking about.

      Quote from: "45 CFR 46 101 (b), Exemptions from Continuing Review"

      Categories of Research Exempt from Committee Review
      45 CFR 46 101(b)
      ...

      2. Surveys/Interviews; Standardized Education Tests; Observation of Public Behavior
      Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior.

      ...

      It's clear what the law is and it's clear that Behrens had only a certificate of approval for the consent/assent forms, as stated in the study.  The law states that data acquired by self-reporting is oversight exempt and nobody pays the oversight fees when they're not required.  It's not my word.  It's the law.  You've proven yourself only to be an ignoramus and a buffoon.

      This issue has been closed and repetitive trolling won't change the facts.

      Your link doesn't even come close to describing "Residential Treatment Outcome Studies".  Anyone who reads it knows it doesn't apply, DJ.  Its a poor attempt to take the focus off the study and onto some educational Test requirements.

      We need to stick with the definitions and facts as applied to the study by the Review Board.  I think we should get back to the study at hand.  I will update our status and see where we are at.



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 20, 2010, 02:57:29 PM
      Uh, 45 CFR 46 is the guidelines for research studies, dimwit.  Section 101(b) describes continuing review exemption, of which one is any research that uses surveys to gather study data.  You have no clue how HHS/FDA compliance works.  

      I just showed your "we're talking about studies, not surveys" post to a colleague here and she just laughed her ass off and said "That guy is an IDIOT!"  

      I work in a business that is heavily regulated by HHS/FDA and work with compliance testing and reporting daily.  You have no idea of what you speak and it shows.  You can't tell the difference between a behavioral study and a clinical trial or even the the difference between a study and data acquisition methods.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 03:08:47 PM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      Uh, 45 CFR is the guidelines for research studies, dimwit.  Section 46 describes continuing review exemption, of which one is any research that uses surveys to gather study data.  You have no clue how HHS/FDA compliance works.  

      I just showed your "we're talking about studies, not surveys" post to a colleague here and she just laughed her ass off and said "That guy is an IDIOT!"  

      I work in a business that is heavily regulated by HHS/FDA and work with compliance testing and reporting daily.  You have no idea of what you speak and it shows.  You can't tell the difference between a behavioral study and a clinical trial or even the the difference between a study and data acquisition methods.

      You may be good at having fun around the office but you have trouble understanding Review Boards and their processes.  I think they were laughing at you because your link didnt reference anything about studies, DJ.  You can name call all you want but until you convince the oversight committee that they dont need to oversee Residential Treatment studies then you 2 are stuck laughing among yourselves.

      The rest of us will go with what WIRB states in their own process and that is they oversee all the studies that they give "certificates of approval" to.  I have supplied links and you have  lied about calling WIRB and trying to make the readers here believe they never heard of the study.

      Lets move forward and just stay with the facts as they apply to the study... I need to post that update.. give me a minute.



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 03:16:56 PM
      The IRB reviews the research to make sure it is well designed, that the risks are as low as possible, and that these risks are reasonable when compared to the possible benefits of the research. The IRB also reviews the consent form for the research to make sure that it is accurate. If it approves the research, the IRB continues to review the ongoing research after it starts.

      Link to WIRB (http://http://www.wirb.com/)

      Seems pretty straight forward to me.

      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 20, 2010, 03:42:19 PM
      ^^For a clinical trial, yes.^^  We all agree the Behrens study is not a clinical trial, or are you now trying to suggest it is? :rofl:  I think you may not know the difference, although you've ranted and raved for years how no clinical trials are needed.  But guess what?  If no clinical trial is needed, neither is a continuing review!  You sort of defeated your own rhetoric here, bud.

      You must have missed the part on the WIRB page that says "unless the research is exempt," which self-report studies are. :beat:   :feedtrolls:

      What "samples" will you link us to next?  Oreo cookies?  Dryer sheets??

      Quote from: "WIRB policy"
      WIRB will provide formal exemption determinations for research under 45 CFR 46.101(b) for a fee. WIRB will also provide exemption determinations from the FDA regulations (21 CFR Parts 50, 56, 312 and 812) for those exemptions allowed under 21 CFR 56.104. However, WIRB generally does not provide determinations on whether a given research study meets the definition of a “clinical investigation” or a “marketing application.”

      No wonder this study hasn't been under continuing review...lols.

      Don't look for WIRB to classify this as "marketing," which it is, but they do exempt self-report studies from continuing review, contrary to what dum-dum keeps saying.  He's clinging to the meme "all approved studies must be reviewed!" which is an obvious fabrication from an ignorant person. :lala:

      Hmmmmmmmm....45 CFR 46.101(b)....where have I seen that before?
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 04:02:15 PM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      ^^For a clinical trial, yes.^^  We all agree the Behrens study is not a clinical trial, or are you now trying to suggest it is? :rofl:  I think you may not know the difference, although you've ranted and raved for years how no clinical trials are needed.  But guess what?  If no clinical trial is needed, neither is a continuing review!  You sort of defeated your own rhetoric here, bud.

      You must have missed the part on the WIRB page that says "unless the research is exempt," which self-report studies are. :beat:   :feedtrolls:

      What "samples" will you link us to next?  Oreo cookies?  Dryer sheets??

      Quote from: "WIRB policy"
      WIRB will provide formal exemption determinations for research under 45 CFR 46.101(b) for a fee. WIRB will also provide exemption determinations from the FDA regulations (21 CFR Parts 50, 56, 312 and 812) for those exemptions allowed under 21 CFR 56.104. However, WIRB generally does not provide determinations on whether a given research study meets the definition of a “clinical investigation” or a “marketing application.”

      No wonder this study hasn't been under continuing review...lols.

      Don't look for WIRB to classify this as "marketing," which it is, but they do exempt self-report studies from continuing review, contrary to what dum-dum keeps saying.  He's clinging to the meme "all approved studies must be reviewed!" which is an obvious fabrication from an ignorant person. :lala:

      Hmmmmmmmm....45 CFR 46.101(b)....where have I seen that before?

      I never said "all" studies need to be reviewed... lol.  You guys get all hung up .... "All" programs are evil... "All" programs are ineffective!

      What I am saying is this study was reviewed.  If you look at the links I provided and read the study you would find out that this study (not all studies) received a "certificate of Approval" from WIRB review board and they over saw the study.

      If you want to show this as marketing then provide a link.  The problem is that you confuse your opinion with facts, you think this is marketing or a survey or highschool testing or exempt from oversight but it clearly is not.  You havent provided proof.



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 04:03:09 PM
      We have come a long way.  A few weeks ago many people had never heard of the Residential Treatment Outcome Study performed by Canyon Research.  They looked at close to 1,000 children and families and found that the programs studied where up to 80% effective.

      Dysfunction junction and myself managed to put the spot light on this study over the past day or two and were able to nail down that the study was indeed independent and was overseen by an independent third party in the form of a Review Board (WIRB).  From WIRB’s documents:

      The IRB also reviews the consent form (which they did for the Aspen Study) for the research to make sure that it is accurate. If it approves the research, the IRB continues to review the ongoing research after it starts. (This is called oversight).

      WIRB reviewed the consent forms and approved the study and issued “Certificates of approval” as was pointed out in the study itself and presented to the APA.
      Here are some supportive links and information as we stand today:

      Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)

      Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
       
      ** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.


      The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
      Here are copies of their "Certificate of Approval" forms
      Sample 1 (http://http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:SJ436FlS-UwJ:molyneaux.us/Global_SUIE/IRB/Molyneaux_CertificateofApprovalforStudy1095420,PanelMeeting50369,WO14797321.PDF+wirb+certificate+of+approval+form&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShpURqHUvjacM32lv8YRLav1O46MVidLLeYkoKcUS-jxsOFqB5szt1UtVUEngO8WsxhZGVamNX420U_0NRuxxcKjuR1PIu0LYRdnudeAzaql_WAJZALLKzLRT4WLjxUkhxd7-l8&sig=AHIEtbRwui-be51KikeuSb7i4alS80Pbpw)
      Sample 2 (http://http://www.cmagtracker.org/WIRB/Approval.PDF)

      at the bottom of page 2 it states:

      Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing
      Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started
      .



      The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** As a disclaimer Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study.  What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire.  So we need to consider DJs' input/opinion against the published facts.



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 20, 2010, 04:29:09 PM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      ^^For a clinical trial, yes.^^  We all agree the Behrens study is not a clinical trial, or are you now trying to suggest it is? :rofl:  I think you may not know the difference, although you've ranted and raved for years how no clinical trials are needed.  But guess what?  If no clinical trial is needed, neither is a continuing review!  You sort of defeated your own rhetoric here, bud.

      You must have missed the part on the WIRB page that says "unless the research is exempt," which self-report studies are. :beat:   :feedtrolls:

      What "samples" will you link us to next?  Oreo cookies?  Dryer sheets??

      Quote from: "WIRB policy"
      WIRB will provide formal exemption determinations for research under 45 CFR 46.101(b) for a fee. WIRB will also provide exemption determinations from the FDA regulations (21 CFR Parts 50, 56, 312 and 812) for those exemptions allowed under 21 CFR 56.104. However, WIRB generally does not provide determinations on whether a given research study meets the definition of a “clinical investigation” or a “marketing application.”

      No wonderudy hasn't been under continuing review...lols.

      Don't look for WIRB to classify this as "marketing," which it is, but they do exempt self-report studies from continuing review, contrary to what dum-dum keeps saying.  He's clinging to the meme "all approved studies must be reviewed!" which is an obvious fabrication from an ignorant person. :lala:

      Hmmmmmmmm....45 CFR 46.101(b)....where have I seen that before?

      This issue is closed.  Whooter is an ignoramus.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: DannyB II on July 20, 2010, 04:49:35 PM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      ^^For a clinical trial, yes.^^  We all agree the Behrens study is not a clinical trial, or are you now trying to suggest it is? :rofl:  I think you may not know the difference, although you've ranted and raved for years how no clinical trials are needed.  But guess what?  If no clinical trial is needed, neither is a continuing review!  You sort of defeated your own rhetoric here, bud.

      You must have missed the part on the WIRB page that says "unless the research is exempt," which self-report studies are. :beat:   :feedtrolls:

      What "samples" will you link us to next?  Oreo cookies?  Dryer sheets??

      Quote from: "WIRB policy"
      WIRB will provide formal exemption determinations for research under 45 CFR 46.101(b) for a fee. WIRB will also provide exemption determinations from the FDA regulations (21 CFR Parts 50, 56, 312 and 812) for those exemptions allowed under 21 CFR 56.104. However, WIRB generally does not provide determinations on whether a given research study meets the definition of a “clinical investigation” or a “marketing application.”

      No wonderudy hasn't been under continuing review...lols.

      Don't look for WIRB to classify this as "marketing," which it is, but they do exempt self-report studies from continuing review, contrary to what dum-dum keeps saying.  He's clinging to the meme "all approved studies must be reviewed!" which is an obvious fabrication from an ignorant person. :lala:

      Hmmmmmmmm....45 CFR 46.101(b)....where have I seen that before?

      This issue is closed.
      [/size][/color]

      Really, Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 05:08:00 PM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      ^^For a clinical trial, yes.^^  We all agree the Behrens study is not a clinical trial, or are you now trying to suggest it is? :rofl:  I think you may not know the difference, although you've ranted and raved for years how no clinical trials are needed.  But guess what?  If no clinical trial is needed, neither is a continuing review!  You sort of defeated your own rhetoric here, bud.

      You must have missed the part on the WIRB page that says "unless the research is exempt," which self-report studies are. :beat:   :feedtrolls:

      What "samples" will you link us to next?  Oreo cookies?  Dryer sheets??

      Quote from: "WIRB policy"
      WIRB will provide formal exemption determinations for research under 45 CFR 46.101(b) for a fee. WIRB will also provide exemption determinations from the FDA regulations (21 CFR Parts 50, 56, 312 and 812) for those exemptions allowed under 21 CFR 56.104. However, WIRB generally does not provide determinations on whether a given research study meets the definition of a “clinical investigation” or a “marketing application.”

      No wonderudy hasn't been under continuing review...lols.

      Don't look for WIRB to classify this as "marketing," which it is, but they do exempt self-report studies from continuing review, contrary to what dum-dum keeps saying.  He's clinging to the meme "all approved studies must be reviewed!" which is an obvious fabrication from an ignorant person. :lala:

      Hmmmmmmmm....45 CFR 46.101(b)....where have I seen that before?

      This issue is closed.  Whooter is an ignoramus.

      We already established earlier that this is a study, DJ, and therfore doesnt fall under 45 CFR 46.101.  Your name calling clearly shows that you are frustrated that my facts hold up and you are just reaching for straws.  Calm down, read the study and the stipulation in the "Certification of approval" and WIRBS own processes and you will see the facts clearly.

      Sorry, DJ, but this wasnt a highschool interview or a test... This was a "Residential treatment outcome study" involving a 1,000 kids and families.  An exemption means it is non-standard.  If you can prove they were exempt then be my guest.

      But from your own post is shows the WIRBs' standard protocol after the "certificate of approval" is given is for WIRB to provide oversight.  Unless you can provide proof otherwise then we have to go with the facts and procedures as they are presented.

      I can provide another recap in a few minutes.



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 05:20:27 PM
      We have come a long way.  A few weeks ago many people had never heard of the Residential Treatment Outcome Study performed by Canyon Research.  They looked at close to 1,000 children and families and found that the programs studied where up to 80% effective.

      Dysfunction junction and myself managed to put the spot light on this study over the past day or two and were able to nail down that the study was indeed independent and was overseen by an independent third party in the form of a Review Board (WIRB).  From WIRB’s documents:

      The IRB also reviews the consent form (which they did for the Aspen Study) for the research to make sure that it is accurate. If it approves the research, the IRB continues to review the ongoing research after it starts. (This is called oversight).

      WIRB reviewed the consent forms and approved the study and issued “Certificates of approval” as was pointed out in the study itself and presented to the APA.
      Here are some supportive links and information as we stand today:

      Residential Treatment Outcome-Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)

      Canyon Research & Consulting (http://http://canyonrc.com/home.html): Independent research company that conducted the study.
       
      ** Western Institutional Review Board (http://http://www.wirb.com/): Independent board that approved research and audited the study.


      The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
      Here are copies of their "Certificate of Approval" forms
      Sample 1 (http://http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:SJ436FlS-UwJ:molyneaux.us/Global_SUIE/IRB/Molyneaux_CertificateofApprovalforStudy1095420,PanelMeeting50369,WO14797321.PDF+wirb+certificate+of+approval+form&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShpURqHUvjacM32lv8YRLav1O46MVidLLeYkoKcUS-jxsOFqB5szt1UtVUEngO8WsxhZGVamNX420U_0NRuxxcKjuR1PIu0LYRdnudeAzaql_WAJZALLKzLRT4WLjxUkhxd7-l8&sig=AHIEtbRwui-be51KikeuSb7i4alS80Pbpw)
      Sample 2 (http://http://www.cmagtracker.org/WIRB/Approval.PDF)

      at the bottom of page 2 it states:

      Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing
      Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started
      .



      The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** As a disclaimer Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study.  What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire.  So we need to consider DJs' input/opinion against the published facts.



      ...

      We can end it here if you like  Unless DJ wants to produce evidence that they applied for and received an exemption.  Then we can pick it up again.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 20, 2010, 05:22:05 PM
      Quote from: "Whooter"
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      ^^For a clinical trial, yes.^^  We all agree the Behrens study is not a clinical trial, or are you now trying to suggest it is? :rofl:  I think you may not know the difference, although you've ranted and raved for years how no clinical trials are needed.  But guess what?  If no clinical trial is needed, neither is a continuing review!  You sort of defeated your own rhetoric here, bud.

      You must have missed the part on the WIRB page that says "unless the research is exempt," which self-report studies are. :beat:   :feedtrolls:

      What "samples" will you link us to next?  Oreo cookies?  Dryer sheets??

      Quote from: "WIRB policy"
      WIRB will provide formal exemption determinations for research under 45 CFR 46.101(b) for a fee. WIRB will also provide exemption determinations from the FDA regulations (21 CFR Parts 50, 56, 312 and 812) for those exemptions allowed under 21 CFR 56.104. However, WIRB generally does not provide determinations on whether a given research study meets the definition of a “clinical investigation” or a “marketing application.”

      No wonderudy hasn't been under continuing review...lols.

      Don't look for WIRB to classify this as "marketing," which it is, but they do exempt self-report studies from continuing review, contrary to what dum-dum keeps saying.  He's clinging to the meme "all approved studies must be reviewed!" which is an obvious fabrication from an ignorant person. :lala:

      Hmmmmmmmm....45 CFR 46.101(b)....where have I seen that before?

      This issue is closed.  Whooter is an ignoramus.

      We already established earlier that this is a study, DJ, and therfore doesnt fall under 45 CFR 46.101.  Your name calling clearly shows that you are frustrated that my facts hold up and you are just reaching for straws.  Calm down, read the study and the stipulation in the "Certification of approval" and WIRBS own processes and you will see the facts clearly.

      Sorry, DJ, but this wasnt a highschool interview or a test... This was a "Residential treatment outcome study" involving a 1,000 kids and families.  An exemption means it is non-standard.  If you can prove they were exempt then be my guest.

      But from your own post is shows the WIRBs' standard protocol after the "certificate of approval" is given is for WIRB to provide oversight.  Unless you can provide proof otherwise then we have to go with the facts and procedures as they are presented.

      I can provide another recap in a few minutes.



      ...

      Your ignorance is just...wel...stunning/.  You shouldn't pretend to understand CFR regulations, it just makes you look even more stupid.

      Here's the best part.  this is called parapraxis, or in lay terms, a "Freudian slip":

      Quote from: "Whooter"
      ...stipulation in the "Certification of approval" and WIRBS own processes...

      You got that part right - it is BS that you're slinging!

      Let's see...45 CFR 46 (http://http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm) is also called the "protection of human subjects" regulation.  No way that has anything to do with human studies or anything.  Who could be so outrageous to suggest that?  Whooter, you're really, really killing yourself here.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 05:50:19 PM
      You are upset because this is a study not a highschool test. lol  

      WIRB will provide formal exemption determinations for research under 45 CFR 46.101(b) for a fee.

      So WIRB provides exemption if they qualify under 45 CFR 46.101(b) (which we already established that they dont).  But if a research firm does feel their study is exempt from oversight then they need to apply for it, get accepted and pay an extra fee... otherwise after the "Certificate of Approval" WIRB will oversee the rest of the study.

      Your own post stipulated this DJ.  So now if you can provide evidence that Canyon Ranch applied for this and was given an exemption under  45 CFR 46.101(b) then bring it to the table.  But we both agree this would be non standard from their normal procedure.  So until you can prove this then we have to go with WIRB standard procedures.



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 20, 2010, 06:16:55 PM
      Non-standard?  Dude, you seriously need to educate yourself.  It is standard under law that human research is exempt from continuing review when the data gathering method is a survey.  When survey research is used, continuing review simply doesn't apply.  

      All human research falls under 45 CFR 46 and 101(b) is the exemption clause for survey research.  I work with these laws daily.  Most of what I do is FDA/HHS compliance testing for medical devices which are developed through human research.  101(b) submittals are no-brainers that require no review due to the data collection method, usually surveys.  Whooter simply does not understand this system, but he likes to make believe he does.

      Let me know when you "refudiate" the federal laws, Whooter. :beat:

      Quote from: "Federal Law"

      §46.101 To what does this policy apply?

      (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this policy applies to all research involving human subjects conducted, supported or otherwise subject to regulation by any federal department or agency which takes appropriate administrative action to make the policy applicable to such research. This includes research conducted by federal civilian employees or military personnel, except that each department or agency head may adopt such procedural modifications as may be appropriate from an administrative standpoint. It also includes research conducted, supported, or otherwise subject to regulation by the federal government outside the United States.

      (1) Research that is conducted or supported by a federal department or agency, whether or not it is regulated as defined in §46.102(e), must comply with all sections of this policy.

      (2) Research that is neither conducted nor supported by a federal department or agency but is subject to regulation as defined in §46.102(e) must be reviewed and approved, in compliance with §46.101, §46.102, and §46.107 through §46.117 of this policy, by an institutional review board (IRB) that operates in accordance with the pertinent requirements of this policy.

      (b) Unless otherwise required by department or agency heads, research activities in which the only involvement of human subjects will be in one or more of the following categories are exempt from this policy:

      (1) Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices, such as (i) research on regular and special education instructional strategies, or (ii) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods.

      (2) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless:
      (i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation.

      (3) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures, or observation of public behavior that is not exempt under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if:
      (i) the human subjects are elected or appointed public officials or candidates for public office; or (ii) federal statute(s) require(s) without exception that the confidentiality of the personally identifiable information will be maintained throughout the research and thereafter.


      (4) Research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records, pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, if these sources are publicly available or if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects.

      (5) Research and demonstration projects which are conducted by or subject to the approval of department or agency heads, and which are designed to study, evaluate, or otherwise examine:
      (i) Public benefit or service programs; (ii) procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs; (iii) possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures; or (iv) possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or services under those programs.

      (6) Taste and food quality evaluation and consumer acceptance studies, (i) if wholesome foods without additives are consumed or (ii) if a food is consumed that contains a food ingredient at or below the level and for a use found to be safe, or agricultural chemical or environmental contaminant at or below the level found to be safe, by the Food and Drug Administration or approved by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.


      It's not that complicated.

      Let me guess...Whooter's next argument will be "These aren't human subjects, DJ.  They're children.  Ha, Ha, Ha.  This is product research."
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 06:47:56 PM
      Quote
      WIRB will provide formal exemption determinations for research under 45 CFR 46.101(b) for a fee.

      So you need to determine if 1st the study qualifies for an exemption and second if Canyon Research applied for and was granted an exemption and paid the extra fee to be exempt.



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 07:22:50 PM
      Interesting tidbit from the study:

      Ninety-five percent had prior treatment and 85% were
      treated for multiple presenting problems, the most common of which were disruptive behavior,
      mood, and substance abuse problems.


      Many here at fornits were under the impression that these kids didnt receive local services prior to going to a Residential Treatment Center.



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 20, 2010, 09:25:18 PM
      A few more thoughts on this Exemption Discussion:

      Another thing to consider is that companies charge a fee to investigate whether or not a study qualifies for an exemption under  45 CFR 46.101 (b).  We cannot determine this sitting here on the internet.  There is no evidence that they applied for an exemption.

      For example:   If their survey forms (if that’s what they called them) contained the peoples names, childs names  or any  slight identifiers which could trace the survey back to them then they would not qualify for an exemption under the law.  There are many other factors which would disqualify a study from being exempt.  Without seeing the study design and forms we could not possibly determine this.

      Another thought,  It would be a little absurd to seek third party oversight from WIRB and then ask for an exemption against it, don’t you think.

      As you read through their web site it becomes clear that people hire them to help them and to oversee their study and that is the whole intent of this.  If people come along and try to argue that they sought exemption from it then they need to provide proof.



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 21, 2010, 06:18:19 AM
      Several of the programs in the study have problems with child abuse and one was closed for "systematic child abuse."

      The study actually concludes that child abuse is beneficial to children.  We all understand that conclusion invalidates the research.

      I see Whooter has now abandoned his latest claim that federal regulations protecting human subjects don't apply to children.  That's progress, but the rest of what he's saying is still plain old bunk.  He now claims to be an expert on laws he never heard of yesterday.  It's laughable.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 21, 2010, 06:56:14 AM
      I think we have exhausted the discussion on oversight and we have not found any evidence that the study was determined to meet 45 CFR 46.101 (b) exemption.  So we need to conclude that oversight to the study was done as per WIRBs normal procedures.

      I think this is a good point to start discussing the study as DJ has begun.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 21, 2010, 07:09:42 AM
      Some clips from an interview with the Behrens who conducted the research


      Ellen explained that what makes this outcome study unique is that it is longitudinal with a large sample size and included multiple programs. "Therefore, it has given us our first glimpse into the outcomes of private parent-choice residential care, and we think it's fairly indicative of what happens in a treatment setting. We found that the types of youth we tend to serve appear to be those with multiple problems. In fact approximately 85 percent of the youth in this sample had more than one serious problem for which they were treated and tended to be equally male and female. This is noteworthy because there is an assumption in the published literature that residential programs do not have a good gender balance. In reality from the multiple programs in our study, there was a good balance. About 95% of the youth in our study had received and "failed" prior treatment at other levels of care and/ or types of treatment."



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 21, 2010, 08:49:20 AM
      This work used two self-report surveys, the YSR (Youth Self Report), and the CBCL (Child Behavior Check List), each of which consist of a ten minute checklist.  These checklists were given to the kids (YSF) and parents (CBCL) while the kids were still in the program which is poor methodology to say the least, especially considering many of these kids were abused and neglected in the programs and self-preservation would motivate them to say anything to get out and the parents had no routine ability to observe and report on their child's behavior.  

      These facts are readily admitted by the researchers.  For example, they state that youth and parents have tendencies to underreport problems.  That is, the kids "fake it to get out,"  and the parents need to justify the expenditure.

      Quote from: "Behrens Study"
      ...parents are often confronted  by clinical staff if they discharge an adolescent against program advice, they, along with their adolescent,  may have a conscious or unconscious motivation to underreport problems.

      The majority of subjects were in programs only six months, that is, pulled early against program protestations.

      Additionally, the YSR and CBCL are both data acquisition tools that are exempt from continuing review under 45 CFR 46 101(b), so these findings have never been reviewed or analyzed.

      Considering that several of these facilities have also been charged with child abuse and neglect, the survey results are unreliable.  This is likely why this study has never been reviewed or published except as a marketing tool for Aspen Education.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 21, 2010, 09:11:56 AM
      Quote from: "Behrens Study"
      A number of issues warrant further research attention...this study did not use a control group.

      No control group?  What did they measure against?

      Quote from: "Behrens Study"
      Future research in private residential treatment needs to address the question of post-discharge maintenance of treatment gains.  The residential treatment literature indicates that a significant portion of adolescents who function well at discharge subsequently experience a decline when transferred to a lower level-of-care (Curry, 1991; Epstein, 2004; Hair, 2005).  The second phase of this study will explore that issue using the private residential data of the present study as the point of comparison.

      It has been almost six years since this study was performed.  Why has the "second phase" never been conducted?

      Aspen got the marketing tool it wanted from the first, deeply flawed project which has no scientific validity, as admitted in the work itself.  Just read it.  Why would they pay for a second phase when they know the kids take a nose-dive after the program (e.g. Whooter's daughter, et al)?
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 21, 2010, 09:23:30 AM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      This work used two self-report surveys, the YSR (Youth Self Report), and the CBCL (Child Behavior Check List), each of which consist of a ten minute checklist.

      It doesnt appear that you are too familiar with the Youth Self Reports.  These collect a little more information than just a check list, there is also a written section to elaborate on their stay , concerns etc.


      Quote
      Additionally, the YSR and CBCL are both data acquisition tools that are exempt from continuing review under 45 CFR 46 101(b), so these findings have never been reviewed or analyzed.

      The exemption would be denied if they applied for it if the YSR and/or CBCL had any ID# or the childs name which could trace a child back to the report that was submitted.  WIRB would need to review the process used and the YSR/CBCL to see if they comply with this condition (and others) before they can be considered for exemption.  I haven't seen it stated anywhere in this study where they applied and/or took this exemption.

      Example: 46.101(B)
      (2) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless:
      (i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation.



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 21, 2010, 09:35:29 AM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      The majority of subjects were in programs only six months, that is, pulled early against program protestations.

      DJ you are misquoting and misinterpreting the study left and right.  Lets be careful, here is a quote from the study:

      The study states:
      The average length of stay was 8.6 months for those discharged with maximum benefit
      and 6.5 months for who were discharged with partial benefit or against program advice. The
      majority discharged with program approval: 53% with maximum benefit, 19% prematurely but
      with approval, 15% against program advice, 8% needed treatment beyond the scope of the
      program, and 3% “other” discharge status.




      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 21, 2010, 10:34:36 AM
      Quote from: "YSR Instructions"
      Time required:
      Approximately 10 minutes.

      That's right from the instructions.  I tend to believe the test designer over an anonymous poster.

      As far as average length of stay is concerned, I made no representation whatsoever.  How could I have "misrepresented" something I never even mentioned?  That makes no sense.  

      I would hope, being a smart guy and all, you understand that the average tells nothing of the distribution above and below it.

      You could have 10 kids stay for one month and five kids stay for 24 months and the average would be 8.6 months with the vast majority of kids staying less than 1 month and 1 day.  It's called mathematics.  You should look it up.  I wonder how you claim to have such vast experience with statistics and not even understand the concept of an average? :bs:

      Regarding YSR reporting...It is exempt because the children's names or identities are mentioned nowhere in the study nor can their identities be inferred from any information in the study.  They would be recorded in the data set by the researcher as "Subject 1," "Subject 2" or "Reporter 1," or "Reporter 2."  Show me a study that says "the subjects were John Smith, Jane White" etc.  It's not done that way and I think we all know that by now.

      Yesterday you said 45 CFR 46 doesn't even pertain to this study because "it's a study, not a high school test," an obvious lie that shows your ignorance on the subject as well, and now you're claiming to understand exemptions under the title.  :roflmao:   You were saying yesterday high school tests are subject to federal regulations, but studies aren't. :roflmao:   ::) You've no idea what you're talking about and quite obviously have never had any experience with human research.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 21, 2010, 12:12:02 PM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      Regarding YSR reporting...It is exempt because the children's names or identities are mentioned nowhere in the study nor can their identities be inferred from any information in the study. They would be recorded in the data set by the researcher as "Subject 1," "Subject 2" or "Reporter 1," or "Reporter 2." Show me a study that says "the subjects were John Smith, Jane White" etc. It's not done that way and I think we all know that by now.

      DJ, nobody would list the names of the 1,000 kids in the body of the study itself.  They are concerned that the kids identities remain safe.  Read the requirements again:

      Quote
      Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, (i) unless:
      information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects;
      and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation.

      YSRs ask for the persons name (it is not anonymous) and it is set up to link to identifiers via an id system.  In order to be exempt they would have to adopt a system which keeps the people being surveyed completely anonymous so that the children can remain safe.  The review board would have to look at how the names are handled to determine if the parents names and those of their childrens will remain safe from being linked to "Subject 1".."Subject 2"   etc. before they allowed exemption.  



      Here is a sample of the Youth Self Report (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/7304205/Youth-SelfReport-Sample) , you will see that they ask for the childs name and there is an id number assigned to connect each report to the childs name.  You will also notice it is more than just as checklist (as you claimed).  They capture written feedback from each person surveyed.


      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 21, 2010, 12:23:37 PM
      Quote from: "Whooter"
      unless:
      information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects

      This means how the researcher records the data, not what the subject writes on the form, dingbat.  What's written on the form is the information obtained not the recorded data.  Of course, since you know nothing, you don't know this either.

      Interesting how you skipped the whole bit about statistics, too.  You don't even understand basic math and you're going to hold yourself out as an expert on federal regulations regarding human subject research?  

      You're the same guy who was saying yesterday that 45 CFR 46 101(b) has nothing to do with "studies."  Everyone's BS detector is going off when you post.

      Quote from: "Whooter"
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      Yeah, the only problem is that you have no idea what you're talking about.  What you posted is for clinical trials, Whooter, and the forms you linked to were for clinical trials.  Behrens did a self-report questionaire, which is vastly different.  You's jus' a ig'nant wretch.  You don't know no better.  :rofl:

      Here's the law:

      Quote from: "45 CFR 46 101 (b), Exemptions from Continuing Review"
      Categories of Research Exempt from Committee Review
      45 CFR 46 101(b)
      ...

      2. Surveys/Interviews; Standardized Education Tests; Observation of Public Behavior
      Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior.

      ...

      So, despite Whooter's protestations, anybody familiar with human research knows that surveys (e.g. self-report forms) and interviews are exempt from review.  It's "Research 101" and Whooter needs to register for the class.

      Two days of embarassing yourself has thankfully come to an end, Whooter.  Your "case" is cooked.

      DJ, nice try, but we are talking about studies here (your link doesnt cover that).

      Oh, really now?  You're...well...an idiot.  

      Of course the federal regulations governing human research studies don't cover human reseach studies.  How absurd! ::)  :agree:
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 21, 2010, 12:39:47 PM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      Quote from: "Whooter"
      unless:
      information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects

      This means how the researcher records the data, not what the subject writes on the form, dingbat.  What's written on the form is the information obtained not the recorded data.  Of course, since you know nothing, you don't know this either.

      Interesting how you skipped the whole bit about statistics, too.  You don't even understand basic math and you're going to hold yourself out as an expert on federal regulations regarding human subject research?  You're the same guy who was saying yesterday that 45 CFR 46 "has nothing to do with studies."  Everyone's BS detector is going off when you post.

      Look, DJ, you have reduced yourself to name calling because you failed to show that the study was exempt from oversight.  The data collection clearly links the childs name to an Identifier (As I presented in the link sample).  This problem needs to be cleared  up before anyone would grant exemption.  You have not proved anything.  In fact the use of the YRS enforces that they did record the childrens names and utilized an identifier.

      What we have is a Certificate of approval which states WIRB provides continuous involvement in the study.  We also have links to WIRBs' own process which shows they continue to observe the study.  Everything points to oversight except in your own mind.

      If you personally feel the study did not receive oversight that is okay.  But you have not demonstrated this.



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 21, 2010, 12:42:09 PM
      I just explained data recording versus information obtained.  Go back and read again if you missed it.  If you did read it, then you're too dumb to understand it and should look for a new hobby.

      As far as continuing review...none was done and none claimed by the researcher.

      Quote from: "WIRB Policy"
      The Certificate of Approval will indicate approval of a consent form.

      That's all it means.  Nothing more.  Straight from the WIRB site.  Taake note, this is their policy statement not a sample clinical trial form which has nothing to do with a self-report survey study.  The consent form was approved before the study and the study was never submitted for review.

      Quote from: "Whooter"
      We also have links to WIRBs' own process which shows they continue to observe the study.

      No, we don't.  We have a link to a sample form for a clinical trial from "Google Docs" and not the WIRB website.  You are trying to mislead people by saying this is from the WIRB website.  As stated above the Certificate of Approval, by WIRB policy, is the approval of the consent form.

      Quote from: "WIRB Statement of Compliance"
      WIRB Statement of Compliance

      Western Institutional Review Board (WIRB) is duly constituted, has written procedures for initial and continuing review of clinical trials; prepares written minutes of convened meetings, and retains records pertaining to the review and approval process; all in compliance with requirements of FDA regulations 21 CFR Parts 50 and 56, HHS regulations 45 CFR 46, and International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) E6, Good Clinical Practice (GCP), as applicable. WIRB is registered with OHRP/FDA; our IRB registration number is IRB00000533, parent organization number is IORG0000432 (effective through September 16, 2012).

      "Continuing review" is explicitly stated to be for "clinical trials" and clinical trials only.  Funny what you see when you view the source and not sample forms from Google docs.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Froderik on July 21, 2010, 12:48:00 PM
      I'm as stoned as an old testament hooker in a synagogue full of rabbis.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 21, 2010, 02:10:04 PM
      Look, DJ, like I stated the childs name is being recorded along with an identifier which can be traced back to each survey form.  You cannot be exempt if the names are recorded and traceable.  

      Here take a look at the regulation again:
      Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless:
      (i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects;
      and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation.


      The Youth Self Report records the childs name and assigns an identifier.

       YSR Sample (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/7304205/Youth-SelfReport-Sample)

      So it can not be exempt by definition.  Thats why WIRB has a determination process which was shown in a earlier post.

      They are recording childrens names.  They don’t qualify for an exemption.  I highlighted it on red for you.  If you are observing people or interviewing people without taking their personal information then yes I am sure you could get an exemption from oversight.

      Sitting behind your computer and not seeing the recording process there is no way you can tell if the childrens names are being protected... thats why they have a determination process to insure their identity and safety is protected.  You should know this stuff, DJ.



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 21, 2010, 02:17:31 PM
      The info you were looking for earlier

      From WIRBs' website:

      The IRB also reviews the consent form (which they did for the Aspen Study)  for the research to make sure that it is accurate. If it approves the research, the IRB continues to review the ongoing research after it starts. (This is called oversight).

      So based on WIRBs own practices Standard procedure is that WIRB continues to review the ongoing study after it reviews the consent form and gives them a  "Certificate of approval"



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: DannyB II on July 21, 2010, 02:33:58 PM
      Quote from: "Froderik"
      I'm as stoned as an old testament hooker in a synagogue full of rabbis.

      maybe a female adulterer at the center of a mosque, with the Talibanny.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 21, 2010, 02:41:03 PM
      As far as the math issue goes:

      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      The majority of subjects were in programs only six months, that is, pulled early against program protestations.

      I didnt see your conclusion that: "the majority of the subjects were in the program only six months" in the body of the study.  I am interested to know how you derived it or this is concluded in the study or not.  

       Here is a quote from the study from Page 6 para. 3:

      The study states:
      The average length of stay was 8.6 months for those discharged with maximum benefit
      and 6.5 months for who were discharged with partial benefit or against program advice. The
      majority discharged with program approval: 53% with maximum benefit, 19% prematurely but
      with approval, 15% against program advice, 8% needed treatment beyond the scope of the
      program, and 3% “other” discharge status.




      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Troll Control on July 21, 2010, 02:51:19 PM
      Oops!  Whooter got caught quoting Google docs instead of WIRB's policy and now he's angry!  You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar again, buddy.  I can see how upset you are from the big, red typrface.  Just making it big and red doesn't make it true.  

      I quoted the WIRB policy and it clearly states that "continuing review" is for "clinical trials" which this study is not.  Now you're going to cry over being snagged again. :cry:   They do not do continuing review for studies that aren't clinical trials, period.

      Quote from: "Whooter"
      the childs name is being recorded along with an identifier

      Really?  How could you know this?  Recording is not obtaining, mind you.  Recording is done by the researcher, not the subject.  You just made that up like most of the things you say.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 21, 2010, 03:09:49 PM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"
      Oops!  Whooter got caught quoting Google docs instead of WIRB's policy and now he's angry!  You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar again, buddy.  I can see how upset you are from the big, red typrface.  Just making it big and red doesn't make it true.  

      I quoted the WIRB policy and it clearly states that "continuing review" is for "clinical trials" which this study is not.  Now you're going to cry over being snagged again. :cry:   They do not do continuing review for studies that aren't clinical trials, period.

      Oh DJ, grow up.  The quote was from WIRBs' website (http://http://www.wirb.com/content/research_subjects.aspx) : lol

      What is an IRB and what does it have to do with research?

      ........The IRB also reviews the consent form (which they did for the Aspen Study)  for the research to make sure that it is accurate. If it approves the research, the IRB continues to review the ongoing research after it starts. (This is called oversight).

      So based on WIRBs own practices Standard procedure is that WIRB continues to review the ongoing study after it reviews the consent form and gives them a  "Certificate of approval"



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 21, 2010, 03:27:20 PM
      Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction"

      Quote from: "Whooter"
      the childs name is being recorded along with an identifier

      Really?  How could you know this?  Recording is not obtaining, mind you.  Recording is done by the researcher, not the subject.  You just made that up like most of the things you say.

      The childs First Name, Middle name and Last name are recorded on the Survey... (Look at the upper left hand box)  then an Identifier is placed in the upper right hand box.
      These are not anonymous surveys.  They dont qualify as I explained in the previous post.

      YRS Sample (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/7304205/Youth-SelfReport-Sample)

      If you feel they were able to get an exemption then that is fine.  But as it stands the surveys do not meet the exemption requirements.



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 21, 2010, 03:51:46 PM
      Interesting Tidbit from the study:

      An important secondary finding is that very few adolescents decline in functioning over the
      course of treatment.
      This finding is significant when considered in light of research that has
      raised the possibility that group-based adolescent treatment can lead to deterioration, in certain
      instances. Specifically, some research has found that association with deviant peers in therapy
      may increase problematic behaviors, such as externalizing behavior and substance use (Dishion,
      McCord, & Poulin, 1999)




      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: DannyB II on July 21, 2010, 04:10:29 PM
      Hey Whooter and Dysfunction Junction Get The Fuck Off This Thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



      Whooter you constantly bitch at others for trashing threads, your doing it now.
      Have you got a problem with me now that you have to so throughly disrespect me.
      I have asked you twice to move on, start your own thread. Psy has asked.
      Guys, please take this to your own thread, nobody else gives a shit anymore.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 21, 2010, 04:14:09 PM
      Quote from: "DannyB II"
      Hey Whooter and Dysfunction Junction Get The Fuck Off This Thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



      Whooter you constantly bitch at others for trashing threads, your doing it now.
      Have you got a problem with me now that you have to so throughly disrespect me.
      I have asked you twice to move on, start your own thread. Psy has asked.
      Guys, please take this to your own thread, nobody else gives a shit anymore.

      We tried to move it but Joel covered it in Porn.  I'll move it over again... to Here !! (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=370468#p370468)



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Whooter on July 21, 2010, 04:20:09 PM
      Quote from: "Paul St. John"
      Whooter, I don't think that anyone who reads the article would miss your point, but to illustrate it more clearly, the article states that those with worse problems- drug addiction, etc. often do benefit from the group therapy, but it is done at the expense of those with lesser problems.

      The people with not as bad problems, rub off on those with the larger issues, and the people with the larger issues, rub off on those who don't have that large of issues to begin with...

      The picture I get in my head here, is that there is no net loss of bad stuff, but rather it is just redistributed.

      In the facility that I went to, there was one heroine addict, one crackhead, about half a dozen coke users, one guy who only smoked pot once, but failed the drug test, his dad had been giving him since he enterred high school, and then there was the majority, pot smokers, who drank on weekends, and had experimented with psychedelics here and there, and then there were also, really young people who I never thought belonged there at all.  These were just people who smoked pot occasionally.


      They always said in Daytop, that you don t start your real drug career, until after you leave Daytop, the first time.

      I am embarressed to admit this, but in my last week at Daytop, I cut myself.  I had listened to people talking about cutting themselves in group for so long.  They romanticized the shit out of it.  I though that it was stupid as hell.  I remember thinking that they only did it for attention at first.  The more I listenned, it was clearly an addiction.  It was something vey personal that they had for themselves, that Daytop could not take from them.  Hell, Daytop expected that type of shit.

      I just remembered this last night.  I tried it.  I cut myself.  This one girl made it sound so fucking seductive, and I did it one day, without knowing what was motivating me to do it.  I know that I was feeling terrible at the time, but I don t think that it is anything that I would have ever done in my life, if I had not been going to these stupid groups.

      Paul St. John

      PS It is also noteoworthy, that I heard time and time again, that people had come in with very minor drug problems, then developed very strong ones when they left, and came back "ready for treatment"


      That is actually a good point.  I could see myself wanting to try something new (when I was younger) if someone described it the way you stated.  I was always up for experimenting at that age (at least to see what it was like).  I think many do and that poses a real risk of making kids worse off than they are.
       
       interesting.



      ...
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: DannyB II on July 21, 2010, 08:52:03 PM
      Quote from: "Whooter"
      Quote from: "Paul St. John"
      Whooter, I don't think that anyone who reads the article would miss your point, but to illustrate it more clearly, the article states that those with worse problems- drug addiction, etc. often do benefit from the group therapy, but it is done at the expense of those with lesser problems.

      The people with not as bad problems, rub off on those with the larger issues, and the people with the larger issues, rub off on those who don't have that large of issues to begin with...

      The picture I get in my head here, is that there is no net loss of bad stuff, but rather it is just redistributed.

      In the facility that I went to, there was one heroine addict, one crackhead, about half a dozen coke users, one guy who only smoked pot once, but failed the drug test, his dad had been giving him since he enterred high school, and then there was the majority, pot smokers, who drank on weekends, and had experimented with psychedelics here and there, and then there were also, really young people who I never thought belonged there at all.  These were just people who smoked pot occasionally.


      They always said in Daytop, that you don t start your real drug career, until after you leave Daytop, the first time.

      I am embarressed to admit this, but in my last week at Daytop, I cut myself.  I had listened to people talking about cutting themselves in group for so long.  They romanticized the shit out of it.  I though that it was stupid as hell.  I remember thinking that they only did it for attention at first.  The more I listenned, it was clearly an addiction.  It was something vey personal that they had for themselves, that Daytop could not take from them.  Hell, Daytop expected that type of shit.

      I just remembered this last night.  I tried it.  I cut myself.  This one girl made it sound so fucking seductive, and I did it one day, without knowing what was motivating me to do it.  I know that I was feeling terrible at the time, but I don t think that it is anything that I would have ever done in my life, if I had not been going to these stupid groups.

      Paul St. John

      PS It is also noteoworthy, that I heard time and time again, that people had come in with very minor drug problems, then developed very strong ones when they left, and came back "ready for treatment"


      That is actually a good point.  I could see myself wanting to try something new (when I was younger) if someone described it the way you stated.  I was always up for experimenting at that age (at least to see what it was like).  I think many do and that poses a real risk of making kids worse off than they are.
       
       interesting.

      ...


      Thanks Whooter, your a fine gentlemen.
      Sorry I was so harsh but I was trying to follow up with more of Miai S. articles, to sew them together.
      I had lost the opportunity and got frustrated.
      I'll say it, I have been a hypocrite. I am and have been trying to stop it.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Paul St. John on July 21, 2010, 10:01:54 PM
      Quote
      That is actually a good point. I could see myself wanting to try something new (when I was younger) if someone described it the way you stated. I was always up for experimenting at that age (at least to see what it was like). I think many do and that poses a real risk of making kids worse off than they are.

      interesting.


      Now just picture that you are immersed in it, all day, every day, and there isn t much else.

      Paul
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: DannyB II on July 21, 2010, 10:15:38 PM
      Quote from: "Paul St. John"
      Whooter, I don't think that anyone who reads the article would miss your point, but to illustrate it more clearly, the article states that those with worse problems- drug addiction, etc. often do benefit from the group therapy, but it is done at the expense of those with lesser problems.

      The people with not as bad problems, rub off on those with the larger issues, and the people with the larger issues, rub off on those who don't have that large of issues to begin with...

      The picture I get in my head here, is that there is no net loss of bad stuff, but rather it is just redistributed.

      In the facility that I went to, there was one heroine addict, one crackhead, about half a dozen coke users, one guy who only smoked pot once, but failed the drug test, his dad had been giving him since he enterred high school, and then there was the majority, pot smokers, who drank on weekends, and had experimented with psychedelics here and there, and then there were also, really young people who I never thought belonged there at all.  These were just people who smoked pot occasionally.


      They always said in Daytop, that you don t start your real drug career, until after you leave Daytop, the first time.

      I am embarressed to admit this, but in my last week at Daytop, I cut myself.  I had listened to people talking about cutting themselves in group for so long.  They romanticized the shit out of it.  I though that it was stupid as hell.  I remember thinking that they only did it for attention at first.  The more I listenned, it was clearly an addiction.  It was something vey personal that they had for themselves, that Daytop could not take from them.  Hell, Daytop expected that type of shit.

      I just remembered this last night.  I tried it.  I cut myself.  This one girl made it sound so fucking seductive, and I did it one day, without knowing what was motivating me to do it.  I know that I was feeling terrible at the time, but I don t think that it is anything that I would have ever done in my life, if I had not been going to these stupid groups.

      Paul St. John

      PS It is also noteoworthy, that I heard time and time again, that people had come in with very minor drug problems, then developed very strong ones when they left, and came back "ready for treatment"


      Quote
      In the facility that I went to, there was one heroine addict, one crackhead, about half a dozen coke users, one guy who only smoked pot once, but failed the drug test, his dad had been giving him since he enterred high school, and then there was the majority, pot smokers, who drank on weekends, and had experimented with psychedelics here and there, and then there were also, really young people who I never thought belonged there at all.  These were just people who smoked pot occasionally.
      [/i][/b]

      Ya know Paul. it seems at times you like to minimize just how bad most of those kids were.
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Paul St. John on July 21, 2010, 10:19:21 PM
      Danny, I was there.  I don't know what to tell you.  It is what it is.

      Paul
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Paul St. John on July 21, 2010, 10:24:35 PM
      There were arsonists, rapists, self-proclaimed murderers, and quite a few thieves.

      But this wasn t the majority.  This was the minority.


      Paul
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: Paul St. John on July 21, 2010, 10:37:56 PM
      That's the problem.. they took anybody.  They had people who were going there as an alternative to doing time for genuine crimes, and then they had 13 yr old pot heads, whose cheeks you wanted to pinch because they were so cute.... And these young ones that I refer to didn t smoke any more pot or have anymore bad habits then their peers, they just had overeacting parents.


      In regards to the guy who smoked once and failed his test.  He was older.  He was 17 the first time that he smoked. He was very intelligent too.  He was an academic sort of guy, but not a pussy or anything.

      I remember the counselor saying to him once, when he was in front of the family, that even though he didnt do drugs, he still belonged there.  He then went on to say that EVERYBODY belonged there.

      All I remember thinking was "CULT!"

      I am sure he wanted everyone in there, because that would put everyone at his level.

      Paul St. John
      Title: Re: Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
      Post by: DannyB II on July 21, 2010, 10:45:38 PM
      Quote from: "Paul St. John"
      Danny, I was there.  I don't know what to tell you.  It is what it is.

      Paul

      OK....