Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Straight, Inc. and Derivatives => Topic started by: Anonymous on July 16, 2008, 04:55:27 PM
-
Since Ajax seems to know better than accredited academics, registered SWs and psychologists, and researchers such as Michael Q. Patton - i think it would only be appropriate that Ajax tell us all what his credentials are.
i challenge you to lay that out for all of us what credentails you have so we can decide whether there is any credibility to what youhave to say. Also, tell us when it was you actually met Dr. FD Vause as you claim he is a "sociopath" and also tell us when you went to AARC to confirm all the so-called "facts" you say you are sharing here.
I bet we don't get a straight answer again!!! but surprise us ajax without demanding something or calling me names as well.
-
Nobody needs to know the credentials of AJAX 13 as his credentials are completely irrelevant in the debate. He has raised concerns that properly trained individuals may not be working at AARC such as a on site psychologist. If they have one great and if not, it is a reasonable question to ask why not? Asking that kind of question does not require one to provide their own person credentials. If you go to a new doctor, dentist, lawyer or any other professional and you ask what are their qualifications, it would certainly raise some eyebrows if their response is along the lines they don't have to tell you unless you tell them yours. If somebody states they are a specialist in something expect somebody to ask them what qualifies them to be an expert and if they lack the ability to respond back in a reasonable manner then they shouldn't be surprised when suspicion about their qualifications arises.
Certainly the idea of a former drug addict working to help a current user makes some sense but a psychologist is also trained to recognize when a user is not telling the truth. I would hate to see the day when a cancer patient can open up their own cancer treatment clinic and treat others afflicted with such a terrible disease based on the concept because they have cancer that makes them qualified to treat others with cancer.
Obviously some of what Ajax13 is saying has some kind of ring of truth to it or else AARC just has some really thin skin because it seems AARC employees spend a decent amount of time making incredibly immature statements towards those who dare to question AARC instead of presenting facts to refute what is said against AARC.
Certainly looking at why AARC feels it is different from other treatment centers and from the stories of those who went through the program as clients, parents or siblings it does make somebody wonder if certain actions that AARC performs questionable. I know parents being given nicknames such as the crazy one or insane one. The forcing of a belief in a god or higher power on an individual does give the indication of some traits of a cult. The leaving of new clients with older clients who have had a history of sexual assaults and AARC having full knowledge of this certainly raises some eyebrows. Certainly, AARC should not be completely surprised that some of their graduates do not fully recover when they are broken down as human being and told because they are a drug addict that they are nothing and have no rights which legally is completely untrue. Once again, the amount of time individuals who are still connected to AARC and largely through employment spend attacking those who raise issues with AARC makes any rational individual wonder if something more is not really going on. If AJAX 13 really is completely off his rocker then why do individuals continue to acknowledge what he says? This forum is not the easiest thing to find so I have a hard time believing that AARC actually thinks this forum would scare off any potential parents who would force their child into AARC but more along the lines that some of what is said here is true. And since it is true, it is a threat to the AARC so they send individuals out to counter what is said and insult and try to turn the board into a joke. Instead it simply shows what kind of individuals are employed at AARC. Really, any parent who is thinking about forcing their child into AARC needs to do if they are unsure is to read the kind of comments from individuals connected to AARC posted here and realize these are going to be potentially some of the same individuals who are counseling their children and running AARC.
-
Nobody needs to know the credentials of AJAX 13 as his credentials are completely irrelevant in the debate. He has raised concerns that properly trained individuals may not be working at AARC such as a on site psychologist. If they have one great and if not, it is a reasonable question to ask why not? Asking that kind of question does not require one to provide their own person credentials. If you go to a new doctor, dentist, lawyer or any other professional and you ask what are their qualifications, it would certainly raise some eyebrows if their response is along the lines they don't have to tell you unless you tell them yours. If somebody states they are a specialist in something expect somebody to ask them what qualifies them to be an expert and if they lack the ability to respond back in a reasonable manner then they shouldn't be surprised when suspicion about their qualifications arises.
> Also, AJAX also asserts that Union institute is a mail order university – hardly true if he really knew the literature in the area that he thinks he does. He would know the credibility of someone such as Michael Q Patton serving as faculty at Union not to mention other faculty from Rutgers University serving as faculty with Union. Ajax might also know that professors are not just affiliated with one university but can teach and mentor students from more than one university.
Certainly the idea of a former drug addict working to help a current user makes some sense but a psychologist is also trained to recognize when a user is not telling the truth. I would hate to see the day when a cancer patient can open up their own cancer treatment clinic and treat others afflicted with such a terrible disease based on the concept because they have cancer that makes them qualified to treat others with cancer.
< so, when did he gather any facts on that. Having been there recently and asked those questions of the intake staff I was shown the credentials of the registered SW and psychologists. In addition they have a psychiatrist who comes in to AARC to assess clients and give directives on treatment of clients. This person not only has an MD but completed 4 years post grad work in psychiatry and years of experience in practice.
Obviously some of what Ajax13 is saying has some kind of ring of truth to it or else AARC just has some really thin skin because it seems AARC employees spend a decent amount of time making incredibly immature statements towards those who dare to question AARC instead of presenting facts to refute what is said against AARC.>
< and why should Ajax be granted the right to do just that? >
Certainly looking at why AARC feels it is different from other treatment centers and from the stories of those who went through the program as clients, parents or siblings it does make somebody wonder if certain actions that AARC performs questionable. I know parents being given nicknames such as the crazy one or insane one. The forcing of a belief in a god or higher power on an individual does give the indication of some traits of a cult. The leaving of new clients with older clients who have had a history of sexual assaults and AARC having full knowledge of this certainly raises some eyebrows. Certainly, AARC should not be completely surprised that some of their graduates do not fully recover when they are broken down as human being and told because they are a drug addict that they are nothing and have no rights which legally is completely untrue. Once again, the amount of time individuals who are still connected to AARC and largely through employment spend attacking those who raise issues with AARC makes any rational individual wonder if something more is not really going on. If AJAX 13 really is completely off his rocker then why do individuals continue to acknowledge what he says? This forum is not the easiest thing to find so I have a hard time believing that AARC actually thinks this forum would scare off any potential parents who would force their child into AARC but more along the lines that some of what is said here is true. And since it is true, it is a threat to the AARC so they send individuals out to counter what is said and insult and try to turn the board into a joke. Instead it simply shows what kind of individuals are employed at AARC. Really, any parent who is thinking about forcing their child into AARC needs to do if they are unsure is to read the kind of comments from individuals connected to AARC posted here and realize these are going to be potentially some of the same individuals who are counseling their children and running AARC.
< that again goes both ways – wasn’t Ajax accusing some person under another topic within this site of “shitting their pants” or something similar because they happened to agree that a point was made (well) that accusing a treatment facility of churning out murderers etc. is the same of accusing the cancer clinic of “doing something” to increase the death rate of cancer patients over and above the ”general population. Ajax then states without substantiating any fact that rate is higher than other treatment centres – WHERE is the evidence of that. He doesn’t quote any literature or research that proves that?? SO who really gives the poor impression??
So, ajax won’t be able to tell us why he THINKS he knows so much about AARC or Dean Vause – his accusation that Vause is a sociopath is a real gut-splitting laugh though!!! HE obviously has NEVER met the man or knows anything AT ALL about him – AJAX did prove that when he made that statement!>
-
"Still interested" Wouldn’t get too riled up. It is the same way in other threads on this site. If they lack facts then they just sling mud or ridicule people. Most reasonable discussions would be based on requirements and comparing what types of people and degrees are required (or are standard practice) and then compare that to what is actually being done. Or point out a flaw in a research study by comparing it to a similar study (or outcome) done in the past and discussing the differences. But most people (like Ajax here) seem to feel they are qualified to dictate what is acceptable and what is not or accuse without justification or data to back up their position. For many, I have come to believe, this is just a way for them to get out their frustration it is not meant to be informative, constructive or spark true debate.
...
-
NOTE:
For anyone that is actually interested - Michael Patton is known world-wide, highly recognized evaluation researcher from the USA. He like Carol Weiss, Michael Scriven, and Robert Stake have many books and articles published in peer-reviewed journals on methods of conducting evaluation research. An an independent evaluator, AARC could not have had a better person conduct the evaluation. He unlike the others has conducted various evaluations of treatment centres so has the most experience in that area.
However, AJAX knows better than Patton. So what are AJax's qualifications in evaluation research and treatment outcomes research?????
Sure we will never get a complete answer . . . .. . just more arguments running down AARC, the evaluation of AARC and the credentials of anyone associated with AARC. I wonder why people who actually know Vause and the credentials of the staff at AARC get a little pissed off. Seems good reason being that those who have no credentials or actually know the facts about AARC write on this site and elsewhere running down the work and obvious success of the place. Why are there so many supporters both past clients and general public??? oh yes, they are all brain-washed . . pretty soon a small city will be considered to be "brain-washed, cult-loving AARColytes"
-
Lets be clear the review performed on AARC in 2005 was not completely independent as Vause was part of those who evaulated the program as well as a couple of other staff members. Also missing from the study is that it does not go from the start of AARC to 2005 and only interviews graduates. An independent review of a program would study both graduates and those that left.
-
There is no scientific basis for this claim whatsoever. Here is what AARC says about the results obtained from a poll they conducted:
"100 sequential graduates who graduated from 1998 to 2003 were selected for interview in 2003, and 85 agreed to participate. In addition, 30 randomly selected parents, and 11 parents of the 15 clients not interviewed agreed to be interviewed. Using information from these interviews, data regarding the recovery status of 96 clients was obtained."
This statement raises many issues. Firstly, in a five year span AARC graduated only one hundred clients.
This with operating costs of six and a half million dollars. AARC propaganda repeatedly states that the program opened to meet a desperate need for the service in Alberta. Yet even with clients being brought in from Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and apparently as far away as Pennsylvnia, they managed to produce an average of twenty graduates per year in the period beginning six years (or eight?) years after it's inception.
Second, 85% of the clients agreed to be interviewed, yet AARC still includes data taken from eleven parents of the fifteen non-compliant grads. There is no reason to give any validity to the claims made by these parents, and the inclusion of their statements in the data renders the entire process meaningless.
Consider what DavidPablo Escobar-Grant said about parents in AARC:
"Parents could also be really interesting, and sometimes a parent benefited from being in AARC more than their kid."
"Clients who were old enough to sign out were allowed to do so, but the parents were encouraged to stay..."
AARC exists to sell parents peace of mind. It does not exist to serve the young people who are admitted there.
Back to the study. The polling was done in 2003, taking in the cohort of grads from '98 to '03. So some grads had been out over four years, and some less than a year. The inclusion of such a broad range of grad dates renders it absolutely impossible to derive any meaningful conclusion about long-term abstinence.
Here is the salient point that establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 85% claim is a lie:
"Of the sample 100 graduates, 85 reported being sober and 48 of the 100 were continuously sober since graduation."
52% have relapsed by AARC's own admission.
"For those graduated for over 4 years, 86% had maintained more than 12 months of sobriety."
So in the span of four years 86% had been sober more than 25% of the time.
In the study the average number of grads per year is 20. If all of the grads were sober for two years straight after AARC, that constitutes 40% of the total number of grads in the poll. That leaves only 8%, or 8 other grads in the poll who have maintained abstinence since leaving AARC, or 13% of the grads out longer than two years.
The spontaneous remission rate for alcohol abuse is 5%. So AARC's long-term rate of success could be a low as 8%. If we take into account that 11% of the data came from AARC parents, and not grads, AARC's long-term success rate may be as low as zero.
When you finish reading this, Interested, why don't you point out which one of the above statements is in error?
As to the Wiz, why don't you prove that he didn't work at Kids? Why don't you prove that he didn't get his PhD after he opened AARC, and thus AARC is not the product of his PhD research? Why don't you prove that he didn't use Robert McAndrew of the Union Institute to endorse AARC? Why don't you prove that McAndrew is an expert on addictions? Why don't you prove that the Wiz is a psychologist? AARC's website still carries two articles that state that the Wiz is a psychologist, which seems to point toward him being a tremendous liar if he is not.
Then you can provide the name of the psychiatrist that you claimed was on staff at AARC, along with the names of the Registered Social Worker on staff at AARC, and any psychologists.
As every AARColyte has done since I began posting here, you've attempted to question me rather than refuting anything that I said. And you are lying through your teeth when you say that AARC has a Registered Social Worker on staff.
When I start telling people I am a psychologist and try to open a treatment centre, then you can ask what credentials I have.
-
interested and The Who were sooo right - AJAx demonstrate that your credentials supercede MQ Pattons because you reasoning and argument certainly don't!!
attack, attack attack. You accuse AARC people of having no training for what they do and FALSELY state there are no registered SW s etc. employed there But because you lack any training or knowledge just keep firing away without any credentials to indicate that you know how an evaluation would be done. I think the American Evaluation Association should be alerted to the fact that Michael Patton doesn't know what he is doing or talking about. Do you, with your exceptional academic knowledge want to let them know. I am sure they would just jump at the chance to be enlightened by someone that may not even have a job much less any degree in anything remotely related to evaluation, addiction medicine or treatment outcome research. Report Patton while you are at it.
-
Here is the salient point that establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 85% claim is a lie:
"Of the sample 100 graduates, 85 reported being sober and 48 of the 100 were continuously sober since graduation."
52% have relapsed by AARC's own admission.
48% have been continuously sober and 85% reported being sober at the time of the survey. So this indicates that 52% fell off the wagon but 85 % were able to get back on. So the 85% is still a valid number. It is a little difficult to understand if you are not use to numbers.
"For those graduated for over 4 years, 86% had maintained more than 12 months of sobriety."
So in the span of four years 86% had been sober more than 25% of the time.
Exactly, a number of graduates 25%, some 50%, some 75% and some 100%!!! so 14% remained sober just under a year, 86% were more than that. That is pretty good.
In the study the average number of grads per year is 20. If all of the grads were sober for two years straight after AARC, that constitutes 40% of the total number of grads in the poll. That leaves only 8%, or 8 other grads in the poll who have maintained abstinence since leaving AARC, or 13% of the grads out longer than two years.
The spontaneous remission rate for alcohol abuse is 5%. So AARC's long-term rate of success could be a low as 8%. If we take into account that 11% of the data came from AARC parents, and not grads, AARC's long-term success rate may be as low as zero.
You cannot add averages together. You need to take the whole population and produce the percentage that way.
When you finish reading this, Interested, why don't you point out which one of the above statements is in error?
Thanks, just did
-
You cannot add averages together? These are percentages, not averages. 85% were sober when they answered the phone?
-
You cannot add averages together? These are percentages, not averages. 85% were sober when they answered the phone?
In the study the average number of grads per year is 20. If all of the grads were sober for two years straight after AARC, that constitutes 40% of the total number of grads in the poll.
-
I haven’t read the study but I will take a shot and comment based on what has been posted here:
I may be able to clarify this a little. Here is the salient point that establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 85% claim is a lie:
"Of the sample 100 graduates, 85 reported being sober and 48 of the 100 were continuously sober since graduation."
52% have relapsed by AARC's own admission.
The way I read it is 85 reported being sober and 48 were continuously sober since graduation. So a portion indicated that they went off the wagon at some point during the time after graduation but were able to get back on.
So it would be safe to say the program was effective for 85% of the graduates (some permanent, others intermittent).
"For those graduated for over 4 years, 86% had maintained more than 12 months of sobriety."
So in the span of four years 86% had been sober more than 25% of the time.
In 4 years 86% stayed sober for at least 1 year… some up to 4 years. So the program can state that if you attend our program there is an 86% chance that we can help you remain sober for at least 12 months, the rest is up to you. For anyone who knows someone with addiction issues this is a huge step. If a person can remain clean and sober for 12 months on their own (within their own environment) then they are pretty much on their way (if they want to be).
Based on just these numbers AARC seems to have a very successful program.
...
-
So it would be safe to say the program was effective for 85% of the graduates
No, because AARC sells itself as a completely dry program meaning to be a completely effective is to not drink or do drugs again.
-
You can say whatever you want about getting on or off a wagon, or a jet airplane or a flying carpet. A minimum of 52% of graduates resume alcohol or other drug use subsequent to leaving AARC.
So grads who are out of AARC for 45 seconds of sobriety but resume drug or alcohol use but stop and are thus sober when they go to bed represent intermittent success for AARC.
Thanks for helping us resolve this issue, Who.
-
So it would be safe to say the program was effective for 85% of the graduates
No, because AARC sells itself as a completely dry program meaning to be a completely effective is to not drink or do drugs again.
So it is not 100% (or completely) effective. It is 85% effective. Still pretty good.
-
I would never wade into arguing the validity of the research - bottom line is that AJAX and anon and others continue to demonstrate they have no credentials or ability to critique the evaluation study designed and implemented by Michael Q Patton. They don't understand the treatment literature, evaluation methodology, the treatment population and can not read the research results properly - I try to adhere to: "never argue with an idiot, they take you down to their level and beat you with experience" - AJAX thinks he understand research and clearly does not.
I do have a Masters degree in research methods and know evaluation literature well. Additionally, I know the literature in treatment outcomes research. AS soon as you can demonstrate that you understand sampling and research methods, ajax then I would say you can attempt to critique MQ PAtton's research design and implementation of the evaluation.
Meanwhile you continue to hedge on explaining why you think YOU are so credible while attacking other people for lacking credentials for operating a legitimate treatment centre well!
AJAX - you state Dean Vause is a "sociopath". Now lets disregard the fact that this is a clinical term and you likely are not a REGISTERED psychologist or a doctor of psychiatry (pa-leezz correct me if I am wrong). HAVE YOU EVER even talked to the man and how were you able to arrive at that type of diagnosis?
-
The research is sold as being indp despite clearly having AARC staff working on the review itself so not very indp.
-
Here's an opinion of the Wizard's alma mater:
"The Union Institute is also accredited, but its degree requirements and standards for health-related doctoral degrees differ greatly from those of most traditional universities. Students design their own program, form and chair their own doctoral committee, and are required to attend only an introductory colloquium and a few interdisciplinary seminars. "
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html (http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html)
Here is another:
http://ggjacobsen.mbablogs.businessweek ... 700u1rzzs8 (http://ggjacobsen.mbablogs.businessweek.com/archive/2007/08/24/at700u1rzzs8)
Here is another:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/2 ... 216158.htm (http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/216/ripoff0216158.htm)
Here is a quote from the book "Nafta and Neocolonialism" by Laurence French and Magdaleno Manzanarez, 2004, in regard to the Union Institute:
"the PhD is also offered by a host of questionable colleges and universities. The Union Institute illustrates this phenomenon. Known as the Union for Experimenting Colleges and Universities, the Union Institute is a private, independent, nonprofit consortium authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents to grant degrees. It offers doctorates in a number of professional fields including education, psychology, the social sciences and theology. The doctorate consists mainly of a project directed by the student him/herself. Acting as their own dissertation committee "each learner prepares "Project Demonstration Excellence (PDE) which maay be a formal traditional academic dissertation, or may take other forms." These other forms include a publishsable book, a unified series of essays or articles, a documented project of social change, or outstanding creations in poetry, theater, media presentation, dance, painting and musical compositions. A Master's degree is preferred for admission to the doctoral program and no standardized test scores are required. A Program Summary (subjective portfolio) comprises the course work. It is a purely descriptive project reflecting the learner's development and program evaluation with a detailed statement concerning the meaning of the program to the learner. This program is not recognized by the American Psychologial Association even though many pursue it's PhD in psychology."
This guy liked Union so much, he got two PhDs from them:
V Miller Newton PhD 1993 Guiding Youth through the Perilous Ordeal (See 1st Ph.D. in 1981)
http://www.tui.edu/directories/default. ... dirCat=PDE (http://www.tui.edu/directories/default.asp?sortcol=name&printme=1&dirCat=PDE)
-
Ajax, your behavior is very strange. You are attacking people because of their educational background and second guessing their abilities to perform in their job and at the same time remain in the shadows and try to convince the readers that you have this unique ability to diagnose people with mental illnesses on-line with no apparent professional education in the field at all.
What gives anyway? It seems by the level of attack that you are jealous of this man and his accomplishments. If you feel a person is not qualified you should simply show the readers what qualifications are needed to fill the Executive directors position at AARC and then compare those qualifications to the person presently filling that role. smarten up a little buddy.
-
Wow. That last one could have been copied verbatim from a Scientologist.
Cultists are all alike.
-
Well, this seems to have struck a nerve with all the anti-AARC crowd and Ajax continues to avoid answering any questions. how reliable a crowd they are . . . . .
Although it is like herding cats to keep Ajax on point, I'll ask again:
1. what kind of education/training do you have ajax . . .. or have not ,what ever the case may be?
2. have you ever spoken with DVause in order to determine he is a "sociopath"?
-
Why are you posting the exact same thing in so many threads?
And I don't understand what Ajax's 'qualifications' have to do with anything, since he's not claiming to be a psychologist or trying to "treat" kids, as Vause is.
What had occurred is that the poster ” still interested” had asked “Ajax” a couple of questions and instead of answering the questions “Ajax” started bumping up other threads to try to bury the thread to avoid answering. “Still Interested” is just trying to hold Ajax accountable for his actions but it seems he keeps trying to run away.
-
What had occurred is that the poster ” still interested” had asked “Ajax” a couple of questions and instead of answering the questions “Ajax” started bumping up other threads to try to bury the thread to avoid answering. “Still Interested” is just trying to hold Ajax accountable for his actions but it seems he keeps trying to run away.
Umm, pot......meet kettle.
(http://http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/rolleyes008.gif) (http://http://www.freesmileys.org)
-
Not sure if you will get a direct answer from him “Interested”. I was in a similar discussion with a group about the effectiveness of Microsofts new Vista and how many of the divisions I work with do not like it or are having problems with it. Most of the people stayed on topic and argued specifics like they didn’t like the annoying pop-ups, multi-tabs etc. But there was this one kid who just kept harping on how Bill Gates dropped out of school, was uneducated and what gives Gates the right to be dictating software design etc. The guy never backed off or offered constructive criticism of the software. So my guess is that Ajax13 is somehow like that and just jealous of this CEA of AARP. He initially attacked the man’s success rate which was established to be 85% and when Ajax was unsuccessful with that he started going after the man’s education, scrutinizing his degree, field of study and he seemed the most upset that people were calling him Doctor Vause which would further indicate Ajax has a personal issue with him rather than professional or with the school itself.
Many times these things blow over as the person matures or finds an interest of his own in which he can dedicate his time and effort and hopefully become successful like Dr. Vause has become.
My experience here says he will continue to flood for awhile, kick up other threads with cut and pastes hoping to avoid you, but if you hang in long enough he may face your questions honestly. Some do others just continue to run. In any event it will be interesting to watch and see.
...
-
No. The success rate was never established to be 85%. The failure rate was established to be a minimum of 52%. Since the study lumped people right out of AARC in with people out for over four years, it is impossible to make a determination as to what proportion of former prisoners abstain and for how long, beyond the fact that at least half relapse.
-
No. The success rate was never established to be 85%. The failure rate was established to be a minimum of 52%. Since the study lumped people right out of AARC in with people out for over four years, it is impossible to make a determination as to what proportion of former prisoners abstain and for how long, beyond the fact that at least half relapse.
Yes it is.... Read the report, Ajax13. It is obvious you do not understand how to read it. The success rate is 85%. You harp on everyones elses credentials yet you offer none of your own and expect others to take your interpretation of the data over those who do it for a living.
...
-
The WHO, just focus on this :
there obviously is a reason ajax is not answering but prefers to pontificate profusely by cutting and pasting a bunch of drivel. Is that the only way you know how to write, ajax?
Bu do entertain us and answer the questions:
1. what kind of education/training do you have ajax . . .. or have not ,what ever the case may be?
2. have you ever spoken with DVause in order to determine he is a "sociopath"?
-
Vause is the one "treating" children. Not Ajax. Vause's credentials are being questioned because he has a direct effect on those poor kids. Ajax is a poster on a message board.
Get a fucking grip.
-
It's true. 52% relapsing within 5 years is an 85% success rate. No question.
-
How about the name of that registered social worker who works at AARC, along with the licensed psychologist and the psychiatrist?
Ajax, just answer the persons question and lets move on. Stop avoiding everyone by kicking up other threads. Its not the end of the world if you are not as educated as the person you are critisizing.
...
-
Well, this seems to have struck a nerve with all the anti-AARC crowd and Ajax continues to avoid answering any questions. how reliable a crowd they are . . . . .
Although it is like herding cats to keep Ajax on point, I'll ask again:
1. what kind of education/training do you have ajax . . .. or have not ,what ever the case may be?
2. have you ever spoken with DVause in order to determine he is a "sociopath"?
In answer to question 1, I do not have any degrees from the Union Institute.
In answer to questsion 2, I determined that the Wiz was probably a sociopath after discovering that he worked for Miller Newton at Kids, and rather than trying to get Kids closed, as did Registered Social Worker Sandi Levy-Barbero, the Wiz tried to open Kids of the Canadian West in Calgary.
-
Well, this seems to have struck a nerve with all the anti-AARC crowd and Ajax continues to avoid answering any questions. how reliable a crowd they are . . . . .
Although it is like herding cats to keep Ajax on point, I'll ask again:
1. what kind of education/training do you have ajax . . .. or have not ,what ever the case may be?
2. have you ever spoken with DVause in order to determine he is a "sociopath"?
In answer to question 1, I do not have any degrees from the Union Institute.
In answer to questsion 2, I determined that the Wiz was probably a sociopath after discovering that he worked for Miller Newton at Kids, and rather than trying to get Kids closed, as did Registered Social Worker Sandi Levy-Barbero, the Wiz tried to open Kids of the Canadian West in Calgary.
so, no degree (I will assume a couple years of high school) and you diagnose people on-line for mental illnesses based on their work history. Well then.... why would you criticize someone who graduated from college, worked and acquired their masters degree and attained a Phd and then attack their wife because of a weight issue?
Do you believe the readers will take your posts as credible? or just someone who is out for revenge or spiteful? I think you tilted your hand when you attacked this persons’ wife and her weight issue. These types of attacks are usually left behind in high school, Ajax13.
...
-
Having two programmies at once on you Ajax? Double points for you while the streak continues, and a bonus if you can keep it up for more than a week! :D
-
ROFLMAO some more
well done, try this question:
1. did you get to count . . . to grade 12 . . even, but you know how to read, interpret and critique Patton's research design.
2. plus you take hearsay* and "logially" conclude some guy you have never met, much less talked to is a sociopath
3. Plus you haven't the ability to find out the names of the registered SW and the psychiatrist that assess and provide treatment input at AARC
* incorrect hearsay as well
c ya, ya loser
-
Couldn't quite come up with the names of the non-existent registered social worker, licensed psychologist and psychiatrist on staff at AARC?
And Who, I haven't attacked anyone. Judge Crook-Stanhope is morbidly obese, which begs the question as to her judgement when it comes to addicitions, what with her having sent the odd child to AARC, where her husband was a board member and the only doctor inmates could see while illegally incaracerated therein.
Physician, heal thy fat wife.
-
ajax, you poor thing: read previous suggestion - you can call AARC just as easily as I can to get the names of the "registered social worker" and psychiatrist etc.
While you are at it ask for the name of a person 'working' there who has a PhD in adolescent treatment - they usually know the most in the area . . . . . . ya un-educated poor little moron!!!
-
so have we gotten a straight (no pun intended!) answer from Ajax on his schooling yet?
how about - has he figrued out how to phone AARC for the names he is adamant don't exist - the SW, psychologisst and psychiatrist??
k, a bit of a hint the SW's first name starts with an M, the psychologist's last name starts with a C and the psychiatrist's name hint is Dr. H but you can make the call to get the full names, ajax buddy.
I am wondering if Ajax has even learned how to make a phone call or maybe open a bank account . . . although he may think he is the most intelligient and resourceful person participating here. . . . not so much
-
I am sorry. I have not been here for a while. Has the study that aarc relies on to demonstrate its effectiveness been made available? Where can it be found and read?
-
There is no psychiatrist on staff at AARC. There is no licensed psychologist on staff at AARC. There is no registered social worker on staff at AARC.
-
I am with you on that ajax. I am just curious about whether the "study" has actually been published or otherwise made available. Can it be found on the web? I would like to see it. All of the Straight/Kids progeny and their "studies" are suspect with respect to the description of the patients drug use at the time of admission. I am interested in how they dealt with that as well as seeing how they calculated the rate of "recovery" for those that did not graduate and how they tracked that down. I am just wondering!
-
To Just wondering:
You can likely call AARC to see if it is posted somewhere and/or try their website or they may send you a copy.
To Ajax:
Prove it! It is JUST in your world that their are no licensed or registered psychs, SW and no psychiatrist! In AARc's world THERE IS A lciensed psychologist, registerd SW and a psychiatrist. Are you too frightened to check it out?
YOu canblow all yer BS here like such a tough little moron but you can't even verify your statements by making a phone cal. Interesting . . . . make sure you let us know who you spoke to if you do call. Try Donna Edwards.
-
To Ajax:
Prove it! It is JUST in your world that their are no licensed or registered psychs, SW and no psychiatrist! In AARc's world THERE IS A lciensed psychologist, registerd SW and a psychiatrist. Are you too frightened to check it out?
YOu canblow all yer BS here like such a tough little moron but you can't even verify your statements by making a phone cal. Interesting . . . . make sure you let us know who you spoke to if you do call. Try Donna Edwards.
If you're so confident then why not, just for shits and grins and to shut these druggies up, post the names. There are others out here reading.
If there's really nothing to hide, there's no problem with it holding up to scrutiny right?
-
Just for " shits and grins" - if the idiot calls there (not their) himself then he can't say I am making some names up!
Ajax likes to appear so resourceful, why not be a little resource and verify his information that he claims as fact.
-
Just for " shits and grins" - if the idiot calls there (not their) himself then he can't say I am making some names up!
Ajax likes to appear so resourceful, why not be a little resource and verify his information that he claims as fact.
In other words, you got nothing.
Bok bok.
:D
Vause has influence over kids and is paid handsomely for it. It's HIS credentials and experience that's important here. But nice try at deflection and distraction.
-
given the history of aarc and its connection to Kids and the reports at kids that they had studies of successes that turned out to be frauds the existence of a study really matters. If the results are real then AARC should be commended. Is the actual scientific study on the web site? I have never seen a copy. Do they mail it anyone who asks for it? I do not believe it has ever been published in any profssional journal despite its claims of extraordinary success.
Can you post it on the web?
Those are fair questions aren't they?
-
Speaking of calling AARC, two of my pals are still waiting for Natalie Oldcomer to get back to them about their records from AARC. Neither of these people saw a psychiatrist throughout their stay in AARC, and both are grads.
-
well surprise, surprise AJAX does ANOTHER side-step and brings on Chicken-shit and some one identifying themsleve as the new honoured guest!!
and don't 'your buddies' know how to use the telly either?
Chicken shit certainly has an appropriate name, though - just as incompetent at picking up a telephone and using it as Ajax and 100% of all 2 year olds living in Calgary. Also, if you could read a bit VAUSE'S CREDENTIALS have been substantiated througho out this thread and a few others. It is your budd - AJAX (the true chicken-shit) who refuses to answer any direct questions about anythiing and won't enlighten us on his credentials that make him some expert in reading evaluation literature or addiction research. Somehow you morons seem to compeletely miss that VERY IMPORTANT fact. But oh well, I never assumed I was arguing with anyone with an IQ over 75.
-
well surprise, surprise AJAX does ANOTHER side-step and brings on Chicken-shit and some one identifying themsleve as the new honoured guest!!
and don't 'your buddies' know how to use the telly either?
Chicken shit certainly has an appropriate name, though - just as incompetent at picking up a telephone and using it as Ajax and 100% of all 2 year olds living in Calgary. Also, if you could read a bit VAUSE'S CREDENTIALS have been substantiated througho out this thread and a few others. It is your budd - AJAX (the true chicken-shit) who refuses to answer any direct questions about anythiing and won't enlighten us on his credentials that make him some expert in reading evaluation literature or addiction research. Somehow you morons seem to compeletely miss that VERY IMPORTANT fact. But oh well, I never assumed I was arguing with anyone with an IQ over 75.
Please, continue to call attention to the fact that you can't or won't answer the questions directed towards you. And just to head it off, Ajax isn't claiming to treat anyone for anything so whatever education/experience he has/has not, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If you simply cannot distinguish between the two, continuing this with you w ould be fruitless and a waste of my time.
-
Dear 'please'
please tell me when Ajax has answered a question directly and Pa-leezz try to get yer wee brain to understand that IF ajax had ANY kind of education in the field of treatment research and/or evaluation he would be qualified to JUDGE what ARRC requires to be legit and what Vause requires to be legit. SO IT IS PERFECTLY legitimate and relevant to the discussion at hand for anyone to ask ajax what HIS credentials are. Other people have on here.
If you would take the time to look at how this thread began the discussion was started as a request from AJax to establish what qualifies him to judge eveluation research and post secondary education institutions and programs. NOw if he had any sort of experince attending those sorts of places he might; if not he certainly is not competent to do so. Mind you he proves that over and over again without even telling us what kind of edcuational experience he has. So in essence one could assert it is a moot point . . . However, it it so interesting how ajax continues to evade everything that he can't deal with . . . . .
-
Dear 'please'
please tell me when Ajax has answered a question directly and Pa-leezz try to get yer wee brain to understand that IF ajax had ANY kind of education in the field of treatment research and/or evaluation he would be qualified to JUDGE what ARRC requires to be legit and what Vause requires to be legit. SO IT IS PERFECTLY legitimate and relevant to the discussion at hand for anyone to ask ajax what HIS credentials are. Other people have on here.
You don't have to have a formal education to ask pointed and direct questions. Again, the focus here is Vause and AARC. They are the ones who have direct effect and control over kids lives. For profit. THEY are the ones who owe a direct answer instead of all the dancing around the issue.
If you would take the time to look at how this thread began the discussion was started as a request from AJax to establish what qualifies him to judge eveluation research and post secondary education institutions and programs. NOw if he had any sort of experince attending those sorts of places he might; if not he certainly is not competent to do so. Mind you he proves that over and over again without even telling us what kind of edcuational experience he has. So in essence one could assert it is a moot point . . . However, it it so interesting how ajax continues to evade everything that he can't deal with . . . . .
You're so deep into the Kool Aid, I fear you may be lost forever.
-
You don't have to have a formal education to ask pointed and direct questions. Again, the focus here is Vause and AARC. They are the ones who have direct effect and control over kids lives. For profit. THEY are the ones who owe a direct answer instead of all the dancing around the issue.
No you don’t need a formal education to ask questions, I agree. But unfortunately or fortunately depending on how you look at it the research results stand until such time as there is a formal challenge to Dr. Patton or a peer review is asked for or you could present your own study. I don’t think ajax should be ashamed that he has no formal degree but at the same time attacking someone’s credentials doesn’t help any either unless you can weigh them against established requirements. Until such time as a Benchmark, of some sort, can be established then we have to accept status quo. Vause cant be expected to adhere to everyones wishes, it would be impossible (i.e. one person would want a masters degree, another a PhD etc.)… who decides? Ajax? A board should be established (if it is not all ready) and they should define the standard that best fills the job description.
...
-
deal all
I am more and more confused. Who, have you read the study? Have you seen it? Has the study been printed in one of the journals in the field for peers to review? How does one get to see it? Miller newton bragged about his studies. They were referenced in books he wrote that were published by prominent publishers. The studies did not exist or were nonsense. Given aarc's pedigree, which is undeniable even by those who believe it does good work, asking to have the study available somewhere for public viewing is a reasonable request, isn't it.
And who, no personalities or discussions about the motives pf the questioner. This is just about the study.
-
deal all
I am more and more confused. Who, have you read the study? Have you seen it? Has the study been printed in one of the journals in the field for peers to review? How does one get to see it? Miller newton bragged about his studies. They were referenced in books he wrote that were published by prominent publishers. The studies did not exist or were nonsense. Given aarc's pedigree, which is undeniable even by those who believe it does good work, asking to have the study available somewhere for public viewing is a reasonable request, isn't it.
No I haven’t seen the entire study or have run a crossed it in any journals. It would be great to review the raw data but that info is typically not released unless you are doing a follow-up report or peer review. Asking for the review to be made public is a reasonable request.
And who, no personalities or discussions about the motives pf the questioner. This is just about the study.
I am with you on this one, (and I think it applies to many here) wouldn’t that be great if we could all keep this whole discussion just focused on the study/AARC instead of taking pot shots at peoples education, weight or health issues. I am all for just focusing on the issues.
-
Judge Cook Stanhope is morbidly obese. That is not a pot shot. It is indicative of a serious mental health issue.
-
so where is the study? I am not asking for raw data. Just the study. Can we see it? If they have extraordinary results treating serious drug addicts it is important that their results be made known so they can help others. Where is the study? Why hasn't it been published? And again who- you have said that what matters is the truth and you try toappear reasonable. The truth is that the leader of aarc was trained by the leadedr of Kids and the leader of Kids made numerous false claims. Those are facts that no one disputes. That deos not mean that the leader of aarc is a fraud but it certainly means that it is fair to have questions about claims of a study by aarc? You have said that people/parents need to do research so they can make intelligent choices. Can you help me out here?
-
Judge Cook Stanhope is morbidly obese. That is not a pot shot. It is indicative of a serious mental health issue.
Its a medical issue, could be mental health, thyroid, genetics. Where is the report which indicated it was due to mental health.
If you are trying to debate on a serious level why would you bring up peoples medical issues. Why does it matter if a person is sick, has cancer, going bald or weight issues? I dont see the connection, what is wrong with you?
-
so where is the study? I am not asking for raw data. Just the study. Can we see it? If they have extraordinary results treating serious drug addicts it is important that their results be made known so they can help others. Where is the study? Why hasn't it been published? And again who- you have said that what matters is the truth and you try toappear reasonable. The truth is that the leader of aarc was trained by the leadedr of Kids and the leader of Kids made numerous false claims. Those are facts that no one disputes. That deos not mean that the leader of aarc is a fraud but it certainly means that it is fair to have questions about claims of a study by aarc? You have said that people/parents need to do research so they can make intelligent choices. Can you help me out here?
I would probably start by contacting Dr. Pattons’ office and ask where or if the report has been published. If it hasn’t been published then ask how you could get a copy of the full report.
@ Ajax, Why are peoples medical conditions so important to you? You seem to want to gain understanding into AARC and a study they released, but you make these odd posts about what you feel a person medical state is. I don’t see the connection. You would be surprised how many people sit on the board of major corporations and hospitals who are suffering from cancer, heart conditions and are trying to overcome major medical obstacles but they continue to contribute their time and expertise. Many of these people would rather be productive then sit at home dwelling on their condition. You should feel lucky you do not have this challenge in your life right now.
...
-
no who
you are cheating
Where is the study
Why don't you ask someone, anyone for it
You express concern about people making good choices
Here is your chance
It is tangible
A program says it has a study to support claims of helping adolescent drug addicts
It is the successor to a program that made fraudlulent claims of studies
Maybe you are spending your time challenging the manners of a person who has called a fraud a fraud. Maybe he should be thanked. Maybe he is frustrated because he is telling the truth and having trouble finding people to listen because folks like you want to talk about the truth not look for it.
This is pretty simple if you really care about kids and familes.
Find the study!!!
-
no who
you are cheating
Where is the study
Why don't you ask someone, anyone for it
You express concern about people making good choices
Here is your chance
It is tangible
A program says it has a study to support claims of helping adolescent drug addicts
It is the successor to a program that made fraudlulent claims of studies
Maybe you are spending your time challenging the manners of a person who has called a fraud a fraud. Maybe he should be thanked. Maybe he is frustrated because he is telling the truth and having trouble finding people to listen because folks like you want to talk about the truth not look for it.
This is pretty simple if you really care about kids and familes.
Find the study!!!
Looks like someone saved me some work... here is the link.
http://proxify.com/p/011010A0000110/http:=2f=2ffornits.com=2fsmf=2findex.php=3ftopic=3d25625.0 (http://http://proxify.com/p/011010A0000110/http:=2f=2ffornits.com=2fsmf=2findex.php=3ftopic=3d25625.0)
But,unfortunately, I have never seen facts change anyones point of view here on fornits. Everytime a study is posted no one believes the outcome (unless it is negative of course). People are always asking for outcome studies, but they never read them or learn from them when presented. I had always found that interesting, but never quit understood why. Its the only way any of us can continue to learn and grow.
I will need some time myself to review the study, but it seems to be done independently with the help of the Butler Center for Research so it is going to have some solid credibility that the numbers are solid with an approved statistical approach.
Just Wondering,Let me know what you think.
...
-
When a study is requested by the program, most likely funded by the program (anon donor, riiiiight) and the founder and director are part of the team doing the study, it tends to call said study into question. For most people with critical thinking skills still intact anyway.
-
When a study is requested by the program, most likely funded by the program (anon donor, riiiiight) and the founder and director are part of the team doing the study, it tends to call said study into question. For most people with critical thinking skills still intact anyway.
You must be new here. Many have been asking, here on fornits, for years that if a program feels they are successful why they just dont fund the study themselves? Well wala!! It is here and the study was conducted independently and over seen by Valerie Slaymaker which makes it pretty much bullit proof. She wouldnt lend her name to any report or summary unless it was solid.
I havent read the entire report yet, but there doesnt seem to be much to dispute.
Valerie Slaymaker, Ph.D., Director Butler Center for Research
Dr. Slaymaker received her Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in 1999 where she trained as a scientist-practitioner. She completed her bachelor's degree in psychology at the University of Minnesota-Duluth with honors, and also holds a master's degree in clinical psychology from the Minnesota State University in Mankato.
Since joining the Butler Center for Research in January of 2001, Dr. Slaymaker has participated in the design, implementation, analyses, and dissemination of several clinical research projects. Recent studies have included outcomes evaluations of employed men and women, older adults, health care professionals, and other groups. She is currently collaborating with researchers from Mass General, the University of Michigan, and the University of Pennsylvania on studies related to youth and older adults.
Dr. Slaymaker is an Assistant Professor at the Hazelden Graduate School of Addiction Studies where she teaches a segment of the course, "Alcohol and Drug Dependency: Research and Clinical Practice."
Prior to joining the Butler Center for Research, Dr. Slaymaker worked at Hazelden's Mental Health Clinic as a unit psychologist, providing services to one of the women's units on the Center City, Minnesota campus
...
-
You must be new here.
There's that tone we keep telling you about.
Many have been asking, here on fornits, for years that if a program feels they are successful why they just dont fund the study themselves?
Where? When? I can't see anyone who is against programs calling for a study done BY a program of itself. Nope. Never seen it. Calling for independent studies? Absolutely. But to have Vause review Vause's program? Surely even YOU can see the conflict of interest there. And I haven't even addressed the others and their relationships to AARC/Vause.
Well wala!! It is here and the study was conducted independently and over seen by Valerie Slaymaker which makes it pretty much bullit proof. She wouldnt lend her name to any report or summary unless it was solid.
I havent read the entire report yet, but there doesnt seem to be much to dispute.
Slaymaker is Hazelden.
-
Valerie Slaymaker, Ph.D., Director
Dr. Slaymaker received her Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in 1999 where she trained as a scientist-practitioner. She completed her bachelor's degree in psychology at the University of Minnesota-Duluth with honors, and also holds a master's degree in clinical psychology from the Minnesota State University in Mankato.
Since joining the Butler Center for Research in January of 2001, Dr. Slaymaker has participated in the design, implementation, analyses, and dissemination of several clinical research projects. Recent studies have included outcomes evaluations of employed men and women, older adults, health care professionals, and other groups. She is currently collaborating with researchers from Mass General, the University of Michigan, and the University of Pennsylvania on studies related to youth and older adults.
Dr. Slaymaker is an Assistant Professor at the Hazelden Graduate School of Addiction Studies where she teaches a segment of the course, "Alcohol and Drug Dependency: Research and Clinical Practice."
Prior to joining the Butler Center for Research, Dr. Slaymaker worked at Hazelden's Mental Health Clinic as a unit psychologist, providing services to one of the women's units on the Center City, Minnesota campus
-
But to have Vause review Vause's program? Surely even YOU can see the conflict of interest there
It is his program. He needs to be involved in the study at many levels. The study could not be possible without his help and cooperation. He needs to introduce the outside people, open the doors for them to get cooperation. He needs to be involved to help release and collect the data..... Make himself and his people available to answer questions about the program, the people being sampled, give insight to AARC's philosophy etc.
If he wasnt seeking honest and independent results he could have just done the study himself or by a local independent. But he brought in people from Hazeleden who have a lot of expertise in this area and a great reputation for research and treatment.
For those unfamiliar:
http://www.hazelden.org/ (http://http://www.hazelden.org/)
A few avenues to challenge this study is to contact Dr. Patton or request a peer review. I think it is good to ask questions and show an interest but to date you havent shown any credentials to place yourself in a position to challenge this on any level. If you took some time to compare this to other studies you will see that this equals and/or far exceeds the requirements that make up an independent analysis.
...
-
Well wala!! It is here and the study was conducted independently and over seen by Valerie Slaymaker which makes it pretty much bullit proof. She wouldnt lend her name to any report or summary unless it was solid.
Your supernatural ability to determine what human beings would or wouldn't do is amazing. We should do away with habeus corpus, and our whole judicial system and just have you tell us who or who isn't guilty.
-
ajax: your inability to get the facts straight CONTINUE to amaze - Michael Patton designed and administered the AARC Evaluation. He is an EXPERT in the field of evaluation and has Much experience in evaluating treatment centres. UNLESS something has changed recently, he is not Vause and Vause is not him. So, the evaluation was conducted by OUTSIDE academics. Unfortunately he is a from UNION but he was chosen because of his reputation and experience. Most likely that was done because of the detractors from AARC. BUt it still doesn't satisfy people who do not have any education because they are unable to see the value of Patton and that HIS team were responsible for designing and conducting the AARC "review".
-
Since you have absolutely no idea what my educational background is, I'm curious as to why you continually state that I have none. Not that it has anything to do with what I post. To the best of my knowledge, anyone is free to comment on anything in this society still. If you don't agree with what I say, or you can disprove it, by all means have a go.
-
Since you have absolutely no idea what my educational background is, I'm curious as to why you continually state that I have none. Not that it has anything to do with what I post. To the best of my knowledge, anyone is free to comment on anything in this society still. If you don't agree with what I say, or you can disprove it, by all means have a go.
People who have been educated have a respect for others who embrace a love a life of learning and realize that education is an ongoing event. It doesn’t stop with a diploma. They are merely markers or milestones. It takes a great deal of work and dedication to achieve a Bachelors, masters and PhD. You do not need to state your educational status. Your belittling and ridicule of those who seek a life of learning and your obvious ignorance of what it takes to achieve a PhD speaks for you. You cut and paste requirements like you know what you are talking about and you clearly do not.
Your constant ridicule of people and what they have achieved, your ridicule of peoples weight issues and wives and dismissal of very prominent and competent people from Hazelden who oversaw a study is embarrassing and you just cannot see it because of your obvious anger or indifference to people outside of your circle.
None of us know how educated you are but it is obvious to many how uneducated you are.
-
The requirements to get into the University of Calgary Clinical Psychology PhD program were formulated by the University of Calgary Psych department, and not by me. I had nothing to do with the fact that these requirements far exceed those of the Union Institute. There is a vast difference in the amount of work and dedication required to get a PhD from the University of Calgary in Clinical Psychology, and one from the Union Institute. I'm not quite sure what your point is about cutting and pasting. I could simply offer sentimental comments like yours and those of other AARColytes, but instead I chose to present information from pertinent sources. If you're embarassed, that is a personal problem.
-
The requirements to get into the University of Calgary Clinical Psychology PhD program were formulated by the University of Calgary Psych department, and not by me.
Each school defines and sets up their own requirements for admission around the guidelines laid out by the accredidation committee. I didnt see where anyone implied you were involved in this. These decisions are left to the department heads.
-
Needs to be repeated.
There is a vast difference in the amount of work and dedication required to get a PhD from the University of Calgary in Clinical Psychology, and one from the Union Institute.
The one from Union usually consists of defending a dissertation to a panel. That's about it.
-
Needs to be repeated.
There is a vast difference in the amount of work and dedication required to get a PhD from the University of Calgary in Clinical Psychology, and one from the Union Institute.
The one from Union usually consists of defending a dissertation to a panel. That's about it.
There are vast differences but work and dedication are required of both and it depends on the individual how much effort is put forth. There are people who sleep their way thru Harvard and others who bust their but to get a degree at a community college. Go figure
-
Brilliant comment. Highly relevent to the comparison of the entrance qualifications and program requirements. The University of Calgary program meets the standards of the professional body governing practising psychologists in Alberta, whereas the Union degree is not eve approved by the American Psychological Association. So again, it is anybody's guess why, after opening AARC, the Wiz got a PhD from Union.
-
and you are the EXPERT on Universities because you ahve what degree(s) from which univeristies, vince buddy.
Your followers keep saying that this is not important but how can you possibly judge what an adequate education is when you haven't put any effort into getting one yourself!!
-
You still have no idea what my education is, and your post does not address in any way the vast diferrence between the entrance requirements and program elements of a University of Calgary Clinical Psychology PhD, and one from the Union Institute.
-
Why is it so important that this man get his PhD? or get one at a specific University chosen by others? He opened a successful school and he could have just decided to play golf and kick back a little but instead decided to further his education. He could have chosen anthropology or physics.. who cares? Thousands of people have gone thru other Universities besides the one in Calgary and are doing fine.
-
The facility was so unsuccessful that in '94 they had to go begging for a bail-out from the provincial govenrment.
Apparently the issue is not whether or not the Wizard is qualified to render treatment to chemically dependent adolescents, but rather how one's quality of life is affected by wyether or not one attends the University of Calgary. What a help person the Who is!
-
The facility was so unsuccessful that in '94 they had to go begging for a bail-out from the provincial govenrment.
Apparently the issue is not whether or not the Wizard is qualified to render treatment to chemically dependent adolescents, but rather how one's quality of life is affected by wyether or not one attends the University of Calgary. What a help person the Who is!
If Vause and his staff were as incompetent as you say, AARC would have been closed down years ago . . .hmmmm.... but it is expanding because of a constant waiting list . . . . odd isn't it!!! how could all those people be so wrong when Vinny is so right!!
roflmao some more
-
If it has a constant waiting list, how come it only graduated 100 kids in five and one half years? And as I firmly believe that AARC stands for All About Receiving Cash, it is no doubt highly successful in that endeavor.
-
The facility was so unsuccessful that in '94 they had to go begging for a bail-out from the provincial govenrment.
Apparently the issue is not whether or not the Wizard is qualified to render treatment to chemically dependent adolescents, but rather how one's quality of life is affected by wyether or not one attends the University of Calgary. What a help person the Who is!
But where is it stated that this man needs a PhD to begin with? If the school is doing well with him having a Masters Degree then why the issue here? I dont see how this PhD comes into play.
...
-
Why did you start to refer to All About Receiving Cash as a school? It does not bill itself as such. I've never stated that the man required anything to run a church that provides faith healing to those suffering from marijuana addiction. However, if one claims to be providing medical treatment, then there are all manners of conditions that must be met. You can decide for yourself if AARC is claiming to provide medical treatment.
"The Alberta Adolescent Recovery Centre (AARC) is a long-term treatment program for chemically dependent adolescents and their families.
The AARC program is based on the fundamental that chemical dependency is a disease. Adolescent substance abuse is defined as a psycho-social, genetic, chronic, progressive and relapsing disease affecting every dimension of the adolescent and their family members’ lives"
-
Why did you start to refer to All About Receiving Cash as a school? It does not bill itself as such. I've never stated that the man required anything to run a church that provides faith healing to those suffering from marijuana addiction. However, if one claims to be providing medical treatment, then there are all manners of conditions that must be met. You can decide for yourself if AARC is claiming to provide medical treatment.
"The Alberta Adolescent Recovery Centre (AARC) is a long-term treatment program for chemically dependent adolescents and their families.
The AARC program is based on the fundamental that chemical dependency is a disease. Adolescent substance abuse is defined as a psycho-social, genetic, chronic, progressive and relapsing disease affecting every dimension of the adolescent and their family members’ lives"
Great, but the guy running it can be a business man with no degrees at all. He has a model that works 85% of the time, who cares what degrees he has. Someone could come along like Bain Capital and buy him out... Mitt Romney doesn’t have a degree from Alberta University, yet he owns plenty of programs.
...
-
You're ignoring the fact that the Wiz is one of the principal practioners at AARC, and is providing what he calls treatment himself. Perhaps if you knew a little about the specific subject we're discussing, you might be able to contribute something, Who.
-
You're ignoring the fact that the Wiz is one of the principal practioners at AARC, and is providing what he calls treatment himself. Perhaps if you knew a little about the specific subject we're discussing, you might be able to contribute something, Who.
My wife’s salon provides treatment when she gets her nails done but they don’t need PhD’s to my knowledge. Vauses program is providing treatment, therefore Vause is providing treatment. If I owned a restaurant then I could say I was feeding people, but it doesn’t mean I am the chef.
...
-
again "pot. . uhm . . meet kettle"! he he he he
-
Again, if you actually knew something about this particular subject, you would know that the Wiz has personally treated clients since AARC opened. If he doesn't need any qualifications to do that, then there is nothing to discuss. I have a sneaking suspicion however, that he does. That was certainly determined to be the case with Miller Newton.
-
Again, if you actually knew something about this particular subject, you would know that the Wiz has personally treated clients since AARC opened. If he doesn't need any qualifications to do that, then there is nothing to discuss. I have a sneaking suspicion however, that he does. That was certainly determined to be the case with Miller Newton.
If he is treating them professionally in the manner of a medical doctor then he needs a medical degree and a license, I agree.
...
-
You still have no idea what my education is, and your post does not address in any way the vast diferrence between the entrance requirements and program elements of a University of Calgary Clinical Psychology PhD, and one from the Union Institute.
for once you are correct - no one would know 'what your education is' because vinny, you refuse to answer any direct questions on that. As another person posted above- it is obvious how uneducated you are.
As far as stating you opinion on things . .what is the point of going there with ya buddy. you JUST do NOT get it!! - you have not experience, background, education to state any sort of credible opinion on AARC, Union Institute, Michael Patton, the Eveluation or Vause (not even whether the guy played in some hockey league over 30 years ago , lolol - that one keeps cracking me up)
-
Since you don't know what my education, background nor experience is, I don't see the basis for your claim that my opinion is credible or not.
-
honey, you prove it with your ridiculous allegations, your declarations of fact (and Fiction), your limited capacity to read and understand research conducted on the evaluation of AARC and your hilarious diatribes on what university education should be. . .to start
-
I've never said what university education should be. I pointed out what is involved in the Clinical Psychology PhD program at the University of Calgary, and the PhD program at Union. These are facts, not my opinion. Readers can draw their own conclusions about these facts and their relation to the Wizard's ongoing provision of "treatment" in All About Receiving Cash.
-
I've never said what university education should be. I pointed out what is involved in the Clinical Psychology PhD program at the University of Calgary, and the PhD program at Union. These are facts, not my opinion. Readers can draw their own conclusions about these facts and their relation to the Wizard's ongoing provision of "treatment" in All About Receiving Cash.
couldn't be bothered to go through your 660 posts to fornits to show how many times you made claims of what a graduate school should be/do to be credible, plus you state right at the end of your post something that you continually assert i.e. "Wizard's ongoing provision of "treatment" in All About Receiving Cash" - that's something you, Vinny like to say that you think is fact but only demonstrates that you do not know AARC or Vause, what your very ill wife tells you is far from truth.